Clinical remission following biologic initiation in severe asthma: results of the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Results of clinical trials may not reflect the benefits of asthma biologics in real-world settings. Objective: To describe clinical remission following initiation of biologics in adults with severe asthma in ISAR. Methods: This multi-country (n=23), registry-based study included patients ≥18 years who initiated treatment with biologics (anti-IL5/5R, anti-IgE, anti-IL4/IL13). Remission during the 1 year (min. 6 months) post-initiation was defined as a composite of 2, 3, or 4 endpoints: no exacerbations, no long-term OCS (LTOCS) use, partly/well controlled asthma, and predicted normal (p.n.FEV1) ≥80%. Alternative definitions of remission using ≤1 exacerbation and ≤5 mg/day LTOCS were also explored. Results: Of 3348 eligible adults, median age was 54 years, 61.6% were female. At baseline vs post-initiation, 23.3% vs 54.7% had no exacerbation, 66.7% vs 79.3% did not require LTOCS, 9.3% vs 32.7% had well-controlled asthma, and 43.0% vs 46.4% had p.n.FEV1≥80%. Remission in 4 endpoints was achieved in 18.7% and 26.3% patients using the strict and alternative definitions (Figure 1). Conclusion: About one-in-five adults with severe asthma met criteria for clinical remission in all 4 endpoints following biologic initiation. The findings suggest that biologics can achieve remission in the real-world, however, medical unmet need remains among some patients with the current treatment paradigm.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".