Guidance for Administering Biologics for Severe Asthma and Allergic Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asthma is a common respiratory disorder in Canada for which biologics may be prescribed for poorly controlled illness. Treatment with biologics, however, is sometimes inappropriately discontinued due to misconceptions regarding their potential immunologic effects, and concerns surrounding their continued use in severe asthma during the COVID-19 pandemic continue to propagate. Biologics can still be administered in a majority of health and treatment conditions. With regard to cardiac-related issues such as hypertension or cardiovascular disease (CVD), there is no solid evidence that suggests biologics should be withheld, as the benefits of treatment outweigh the risks. Asthmatic patients on biologic treatment should also continue treatment if they have, or are currently being treated for, a respiratory infection, including COVID-19. Evidence also indicates the importance of maintaining asthma control to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 infection. Biologic treatment can be administered in severe asthmatic patients with bronchiectasis, though further evidence is needed to better understand the benefits. Biologic treatment should be continued postsurgery to reduce postoperative respiratory complications, as well as throughout the course of pregnancy. Regarding concerns over vaccine administration, nearly all vaccines can be given without interruption of biologic treatment in patients with severe asthma or allergic conditions. Appropriate screening for respiratory illnesses, such as COVID-19, continues to be warranted in clinical practices to reduce the risk of transmission. As recommendations from public health and regulatory agencies have been lacking, this guidance document addresses the administration of biologics in different health circumstances and respiratory illness screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.019 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".