SynthesisLung2026
The Clinical and Economic Impact of Biologic Agents in Asthma Management: a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Lung, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBiologic therapies represent transformative interventions for severe asthma; however, comprehensive integration of clinical effectiveness with economic evidence across real-world populations remains incomplete. This systematic review synthesizes both domains to support clinical and policy decisions.
methodsSystematic literature search (PubMed, Scopus; 2014-2024) following PRISMA 2020 guidelines with prospective PROSPERO registration (CRD420251153385). Eligible studies evaluated biologic therapies in real-world asthma populations, reporting clinical outcomes (exacerbations, lung function, asthma control, quality of life) and economic measures (costs, ICER, healthcare resource utilization). GRADE methodology assessed evidence certainty; risk of bias evaluated using RoB 2 (RCTs) and ROBINS-I (observational studies).
resultsTwenty-seven studies (25 observational, 2 RCTs; 59,958 patients) evaluated omalizumab (n = 11), mepolizumab (n = 5), benralizumab (n = 4), dupilumab (n = 1), tezepelumab (n = 1), reslizumab (n = 1) and multiple biologic drugs comparatively (n = 4). All agents showed exacerbation reductions (46-86%), with 48-81% of previously exacerbating patients achieving exacerbation-free status. Hospitalizations decreased 57-85% and emergency department visits reduced 52-72%. Oral corticosteroid-dependent patients decreased 53-67%, representing substantial safety and quality-of-life benefits. Healthcare resource utilization reductions generated cost offsets of €1,181-2469 per patient annually, achieving favorable cost-effectiveness (€602-2244 per exacerbation avoided). High treatment persistence (51-54 months) and adherence (70-94.6%) exceeded conventional therapies. Significant methodological limitations were evident: 80.8% observational studies had serious bias risk.
conclusionsBiologic therapies achieve substantial clinical benefits and favorable economic value through healthcare cost offsets. Precision medicine approaches and early response assessment optimize patient selection and clinical outcomes in severe asthma management.
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.