MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385076797 · doi:10.2147/jaa.s410592

Effect of Biologic Therapies on Airway Hyperresponsiveness and Allergic Response: A Systematic Literature Review

2023· review· en· W4385076797 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph D. Spahn, Christopher E. Brightling, Paul M. O’Byrne, Lisa J. Simpson, Néstor A. Molfino, Christopher S. Ambrose, Neil Martin, Teal S. Hallstrand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Asthma and Allergy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph's Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of HealthCovis PharmaTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesRegeneron PharmaceuticalsSanofiGenentechAstraZenecaAmgen
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaMepolizumabAirway hyperresponsivenessImmunologyEfalizumabHouse dust miteBenralizumabAllergyAllergenInternal medicineEosinophilEtanerceptRheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their effects on AHR can provide valuable information about the underlying disease pathophysiology. This review summarizes the available evidence regarding the effects of biologics on allergen-specific and non-allergen-specific airway responses in patients with asthma. Methods: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including risk-of-bias assessment. PubMed and Ovid were searched for studies published between January 1997 and December 2021. Eligible studies were randomized, placebo-controlled trials that assessed the effects of biologics on AHR, early allergic response (EAR) and/or late allergic response (LAR) in patients with asthma. Results: Thirty studies were identified for inclusion. Bronchoprovocation testing was allergen-specific in 18 studies and non-allergen-specific in 12 studies. Omalizumab reduced AHR to methacholine, acetylcholine or adenosine monophosphate (3/9 studies), and reduced EAR (4/5 studies) and LAR (2/3 studies). Mepolizumab had no effect on AHR (3/3 studies), EAR or LAR (1/1 study). Tezepelumab reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol (3/3 studies), and reduced EAR and LAR (1/1 study). Pitrakinra reduced LAR, with no effect on AHR (1/1 study). Etanercept reduced AHR to methacholine (1/2 studies). No effects were observed for lebrikizumab, tocilizumab, efalizumab, IMA-638 and anti-OX40 ligand on AHR, EAR or LAR; benralizumab on LAR; tralokinumab on AHR; and Ro-24-7472 on AHR or LAR (all 1/1 study each). No dupilumab or reslizumab studies were identified. Conclusion: Omalizumab and tezepelumab reduced EAR and LAR to allergens. Tezepelumab consistently reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol. These findings provide insights into AHR mechanisms and the precise effects of asthma biologics. Furthermore, findings suggest that tezepelumab broadly targets allergen-specific and non-allergic forms of AHR, and the underlying cells and mediators involved in asthma.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.012
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Asthma and AllergySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207