MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046395779 · doi:10.1016/j.waojou.2020.100441

Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma

2020· article· en· W3046395779 on OpenAlexafffund
András Bikov, İpek Kıvılcım Oğuzülgen, Ilaria Baiardini, Marco Contoli, Alexander Emelyanov, Omar Fassio, Juan Carlos Ivancevich, Ігор Петрович Кайдашев, Krzysztof Kowal, Marina Labor, Lies Lahousse, Ștefan Mihăicuță, Silviya Novakova, Alicia Padilla‐Galo, Alexander Simidchiev, Angélica Tiotiu, Ignacio J. Ansotegui, Jonathan A. Bernstein, Louis Philippe Boulet, Giorgio Walter Canonica, L. DuBuske, Nelson Augusto Rosário Filho, Pierachille Santus, Fulvio Braido, Carmen Ardelean, Héctor Badellino, Ariel Eduardo Blua, Antonio J. Castillo, E. Carpagnano Giovanna, Federico D. Colodenco, Dario Md Colombaro, Fabiano Di Marco, Kunio Dobashi, Rocío Calderón García, René Maximiliano Gómez, О. Gopko, Guillermo Guidos Fogelbach, Martina Hajduk, Joanna Hermanowicz-Salamon, Enrico Heffler, Bülent Karadağ, Alı Fuat Kalyoncu, Metin Keren, Lykorguos Kolilekas, Marcelina Koćwin, Borislava Krusheva, Désirée Larenas‐Linnemann, Irine Litovchenko, A. Marcipar, Luis E Meza, Denislava Nedeva, Plamena Novakova, Davor Plavec, Sanja Popović‐Grle, Francesca Puggioni, L. Pur Oziygit, N. Rodrigez, Dermot Ryan, István Ruzsics, Nicola Scichilone, Faradiba Sarquis Serpa, Paschalis Steiropoulos, Paolo Solidoro, Mirjana Turkalj, Т.Р. Уманец, Carlos Victorio, José Manuel Zubeldia, V. Yachnyk, Myron Zitt

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Allergy Organization Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversità degli Studi di GenovaUniversidade Federal do ParanáUniversiteit GentHumanitas Research HospitalUniversity of CincinnatiHumanitas UniversityGeorge Washington UniversityUniversité de LorraineSchool of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington UniversityUniversité LavalUniversità degli Studi di Milano
KeywordsMedicinePulmonologistsOmalizumabAsthmaFamily medicineQuality of life (healthcare)SpecialtyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineImmunologyImmunoglobulin ENursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers' specialty and experience. METHODS: We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Allergy Organization JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207