ReviewJournal of asthma and allergy2026
Biologics for Children and Adolescents with Asthma: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Indirect Comparative Analysis.
Review in Journal of asthma and allergy, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biologics targeting type 2 inflammation have expanded treatment options for children and adolescents with uncontrolled asthma, but pediatric randomized evidence is limited and direct head-to-head comparisons are unavailable. We reappraised comparative efficacy and safety evidence and the certainty of current indirect estimates. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and public trial sources through May 25, 2026, for randomized controlled trials of biologics in children or adolescents with asthma. The primary efficacy outcome was annualized exacerbation rate (AER); safety outcomes were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Between-biologic effects were explored using Bucher adjusted indirect comparisons through placebo as the common comparator. Transitivity was assessed qualitatively, and evidence certainty was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results: Three placebo-controlled pediatric trials evaluating omalizumab, dupilumab, and mepolizumab contributed to the primary analysis. Each biologic reduced AER versus placebo. The adjusted indirect estimate for dupilumab versus mepolizumab was below 1, but this finding was derived from a sparse, clinically heterogeneous evidence structure and was considered hypothesis-generating rather than evidence of superiority. Omalizumab and dupilumab were not associated with a clear increase in overall AEs, whereas mepolizumab had higher broad AE reporting in MUPPITS-2. SAE estimates were imprecise. Certainty was moderate for biologics versus placebo on AER, low for between-biologic comparisons, and low to very low for safety outcomes. Conclusion: Randomized pediatric evidence supports biologics for reducing exacerbation burden versus placebo. Current adjusted indirect estimates do not establish a biologic hierarchy. Phenotype-stratified head-to-head pediatric trials remain necessary.
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.