MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Real-World Study on Clinical Remission of Asthma Patients on Biologics

2025· article· en· W4410268515 on OpenAlexaff
L. Hoshyari, Clarus Leung, Jasmine Grewal, Del Dorscheid

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: Biologic treatments improve clinical outcomes in asthma by targeting specific pathways involved in airway inflammation and immune response, resulting in long-term disease control and remission in a subset of patients. Multiple parameters define clinical remission in asthma, but there is no consensus currently. Furthermore, previous studies have not yet determined a method for clinicians to predict remission likelihood using such parameters. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate a simple scoring method and its ability to predict clinical remission in a cohort of asthma patients prescribed various biologic medications. Methods: In this retrospective study, we reviewed the medical charts of patients currently or previously treated with biologics (mepolizumab, omalizumab, and benralizumab). Each patient is given a remission score based on the number of exacerbations experienced in the past year, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score, Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV-1), and biomarkers assessing lung inflammation (e.g., fractional exhaled nitric oxide and blood eosinophil counts (BEC)) (Figure 1A). Scoring 1.5 or lower on the scoring system indicates remission. Scores closer to 1.5 suggest a higher probability of achieving remission with biologics. We compared clinical remission scores and their components (BEC, FEV1) among patients on different biologics from baseline to 5 years post-treatment. Results: Among 146 patients (mean age 61± 14 years, mean BMI 28.2 ± 7.1, 55% female, 98% non-smokers), 36% were prescribed mepolizumab, 36% omalizumab, and 19% benralizumab. In the past year, 84% had no exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids, 8% had one, and 8% had two or more. Results showed an overall decrease in remission scores from 2.48 to 1.27 five years post-biologics initiation, with details by biologic shown in Figure 1B. One year post-biologic treatment, 49.2% of patients on mepolizumab, 15% on benralizumab, and 10.75% on omalizumab achieved clinical remission according to the scoring tool (Figure 1C). Five years post-biologic initiation, 46%, 39%, and 45% of patients on benralizumab, mepolizumab, and omalizumab, respectively, had FEV1 > 80% predicted (Figure 1D), while 92%, 88%, and 66% had BEC < 150 cells/μL (Figure 1E)Conclusion: Clinical remission in asthma is characterized by a reduction in eosinophilic inflammation and an increase in lung function. This study characterizes a simple method of defining and predicting clinical remission in asthma patients in a real-world cohort. However, further investigations into the effects of biologics on other clinical variables affecting remission are needed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207