SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of biologic therapies in pediatric asthma: a comprehensive systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Asthma remains one of the most prevalent chronic diseases among children, with severe cases posing significant challenges to symptom control, and quality of life (QoL). Biologic therapies have emerged as effective alternatives for severe asthma unresponsive to conventional therapies. However, limited evidence exists for their comparative efficacy and safety in pediatric populations. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of five major biologic agents in children and adolescents with uncontrolled asthma. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase up to June 2025. Eligible studies included randomized and open label extensions involving pediatric asthma patients treated with at least one of the five biologic therapies including Dupilumab, Omalizumab, Mepolizumab, Lebrikizumab and Benralizumab. Outcomes assessed included exacerbation rates, lung function, asthma control, QoL, and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and MINORS tools. Results: This review included Twenty-five studies. Dupilumab consistently showed the most robust outcomes, significantly reducing exacerbations (by up to 64.7%), improving ACQ-7 scores, pulmonary function, and QoL. Omalizumab also showed reduced exacerbations and improved symptom control and QoL, with debatable results in pulmonary function. Mepolizumab demonstrated moderate benefits with variable efficacy and higher SAE rates. Benralizumab and Lebrikizumab yielded modest improvements in clinical outcomes. Safety profiles were generally favorable across biologics, with mild-to-moderate adverse events. Conclusion: Among the reviewed biologics, Dupilumab showed the most consistent and sustained efficacy across clinical, and patient-reported outcomes in pediatric asthma. Omalizumab also proved effective, particularly in allergic and virus-induced exacerbations. This review underscores the importance of phenotype-directed therapy and supports dupilumab as a preferred option for long-term management of severe pediatric asthma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.