Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Indirect comparison of efficacy of dupilumab versus mepolizumab and omalizumab for severe type 2 asthma

Katrine Prætorius, Daniel P. Henriksen, Johannes M. Schmid, Pernille Printzlau, Lars Pedersen, Hanne Madsen, Ehm A. Andersson, Louise Klokker Madsen, Bo L. Chawes
ERJ Open Research 2021 7: 00306-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00306-2021
Katrine Prætorius
1Dept of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel P. Henriksen
2Dept of Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Johannes M. Schmid
3Dept of Respiratory Diseases and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pernille Printzlau
4The Capital Region Pharmacy, North Zealand Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars Pedersen
5Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lars Pedersen
Hanne Madsen
6Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ehm A. Andersson
7The Danish Medicines Council Secretariat, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Louise Klokker Madsen
7The Danish Medicines Council Secretariat, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bo L. Chawes
1Dept of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
8COPSAC, Copenhagen Prospective Studies on Asthma in Childhood, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: chawes@copsac.com
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

This indirect comparison of dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab for patients with severe type 2 asthma fulfilling start-up criteria for more than one drug shows no significant efficacy differences https://bit.ly/3pK9Nf9

To the Editor:

Recently, several biologics have been introduced as add-on treatment for severe asthma [1]. The biologics target the underlying mechanism driving the disease and are recommended for specific phenotypes such as mepolizumab (anti-interleukin (IL)-5) for severe eosinophilic asthma [2] and omalizumab (anti-immunoglobulin (Ig)E) for severe allergic asthma [3]; i.e. specific endotypes of type 2 inflammation. Dupilumab (anti-IL-4Rα) is a newer biologic recommended for severe asthma with type 2 inflammation characterised by elevated blood eosinophils (≥150 per μL) and/or exhaled nitric oxide fraction (FeNO ≥25 ppb) [4]. Due to the IL-4Rα activity of dupilumab it is likely to inhibit two type 2 inflammatory pathways and, therefore, a patient can be eligible for more than one of the biologics, which is challenging in practice as no previous study has compared the efficacy of dupilumab with mepolizumab and omalizumab.

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of dupilumab with mepolizumab and omalizumab in patients aged >12 years with severe type 2 asthma. Therefore, a predefined protocol was developed by an expert committee under the Danish Medicines Council, where two PICO questions were defined: “What is the safety and efficacy of dupilumab compared to mepolizumab?” and “What is the efficacy and safety of dupilumab compared to omalizumab?”

Outcomes were predefined as critical (exacerbations leading to a course of oral corticosteroids (OCS), emergency department visit or hospital admission, or reduction in maintenance OCS treatment) or important and a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was predefined for each outcome. Dupilumab was compared with mepolizumab and omalizumab for eight outcomes: 1) reduction of annual exacerbations; 2) patients not experiencing exacerbations; 3) lung function measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1); 4) patients achieving an improvement in FEV1 ≥200 mL; 5) asthma control measured with an Asthma Control Questionnaire; 6) quality of life measured with an Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; 7) incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs); and 8) specific subtypes of SAEs. Furthermore, dupilumab was compared with mepolizumab for three additional outcomes: OCS dosage reduction; patients able to eliminate OCS treatment; and patients with a reduction in OCS dosage of ≥50%.

A systematic literature review finalised during September 2019 identified 436 publications of which 33 based on 23 clinical studies were included. Three studies compared dupilumab with placebo [5–9], four compared mepolizumab with placebo, and 16 compared omalizumab with placebo or an active comparator. The initial literature search and analyses were done by Sanofi (Copenhagen, Denmark) and subsequently validated by the expert committee and the secretariat of the Danish Medicines Council.

Indirect comparisons were performed according to Bucher's method. In the comparison of dupilumab with mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma, we included dupilumab studies with a prespecified subgroup analysis on patients with blood eosinophils ≥150 per μL. This was possible in DRI12544 [6, 9] and QUEST [5, 7], but not in the VENTURE study [8]. Three comparisons were made to investigate the effect on outcomes: A: severe eosinophilic asthma, 24–32 weeks treatment; B: severe eosinophilic asthma, 52 weeks treatment; and C: OCS dependent severe eosinophilic asthma, 24 weeks treatment.

In the comparison of dupilumab with omalizumab for severe allergic asthma, we included dupilumab studies with subgroup analysis defined by total IgE ≥30 IU·mL−1, perennial inhalant allergy, and one of the following: blood eosinophils ≥150 per μL or FeNO ≥25 ppb. Two comparisons were made as there were no omalizumab trials in OCS dependent asthma: A: severe allergic asthma, 20–32 weeks treatment; and B: severe allergic asthma, 48–52 weeks treatment.

Apart from lung function and SAEs, we found no significant differences for the predefined critical or important clinical outcomes in the comparisons between dupilumab and mepolizumab. We found an absolute mean difference in FEV1 of +100 mL (95% CI 13–188) at 24 weeks and +189 mL (62–316) at 52 weeks in favour of dupilumab. While both were significant, neither were above the prespecified MCID of 200 mL and no differences were observed for OCS dependent asthma. We found a significant increase in the proportion of SAEs in OCS dependent severe eosinophilic asthma at 24 weeks of treatment with an absolute difference of 26.0% (1.5–257.1) and relative difference of 19.5% (2.1–184.6) in favour of mepolizumab, which was above the MCID of 5% difference, but not significant in the non-OCS dependent groups (table 1). The risk of bias in the included studies assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool revealed some concerns due to selection bias. The overall quality of evidence assessed by GRADE was ­­considered low.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Results of indirect comparisons using Bucher's test for dupilumab versus mepolizumab and dupilumap versus omalizumab for treatment of severe type 2 asthma

In the comparisons between dupilumab and omalizumab only lung function showed significant results with an absolute mean difference in FEV1 of +96 mL (11–182) at 48–52 weeks of treatment, which was below the prespecified MCID (table 1). The Cochrane risk of bias tool revealed some risk of bias due to incomplete descriptions in the included studies. Furthermore, the general quality of evidence assessed by GRADE was considered very low, due to low comparability of the studies.

These indirect comparisons of dupilumab versus mepolizumab and omalizumab treatment for severe type 2 asthma revealed no differences of clinical importance, except for an increase in SAEs in favour of mepolizumab among OCS dependent asthmatics although with a very wide confidence interval. Unfortunately, no head-to-head studies of biologics for severe type 2 asthma have been published and therefore our results are based on indirect comparisons of studies with varying population characteristics, inconsistency, and imprecise outcome definitions. Thus, the quality of the generated evidence is estimated to be low, but still presents the best comparison to date. Furthermore, the risk of bias in the omalizumab studies was considered high due to unclear methods and poor presentation of risk of bias. However, in the mepolizumab studies the risk of bias was in general considered low and in the dupilumab studies there was also a low risk of bias although there were some concerns regarding selection bias. For now, there is no evidence supporting that one of the investigated biologics is superior to another in patients eligible for more than one biologic, although dupilumab seems to have a better effect on lung function but may result in more SAEs. Furthermore, it is unknown whether specific subtypes of type 2 asthma will benefit more from dupilumab, mepolizumab or omalizumab.

In conclusion, by using indirect comparisons we found no clinically significant differences in efficacy outcomes between dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab in patients aged >12 years with severe type 2 asthma characterised by eosinophilia and/or perennial allergy. Randomised controlled head-to-head comparisons of biologics for severe type 2 asthma are needed to aid treatment decisions.

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: K. Prætorius has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: D.P. Henriksen has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J.M. Schmid has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: P. Printzlau has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: L. Pedersen has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: H. Madsen has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: E.A. Galijatovic has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: L.K. Madsen has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: B.L. Chawes has nothing to disclose.

  • Received May 6, 2021.
  • Accepted June 3, 2021.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Robinson D,
    2. Humbert M,
    3. Buhl R, et al.
    Revisiting type 2-high and type 2-low airway inflammation in asthma: current knowledge and therapeutic implications. Clin Exp Allergy 2017; 47: 161–175. doi:10.1111/cea.12880
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Henriksen DP,
    2. Bodtger U,
    3. Sidenius K, et al.
    Efficacy, adverse events, and inter-drug comparison of mepolizumab and reslizumab anti-IL-5 treatments of severe asthma – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Clin Respir J 2018; 5: 1536097. doi:10.1080/20018525.2018.1536097
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Henriksen DP,
    2. Bodtger U,
    3. Sidenius K, et al.
    Efficacy of omalizumab in children, adolescents, and adults with severe allergic asthma: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and call for new trials using current guidelines for assessment of severe asthma. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol 2020; 16: 49. doi:10.1186/s13223-020-00442-0
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Agache I,
    2. Song Y,
    3. Rocha C, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of treatment with dupilumab for severe asthma: a systematic review of EAACI guidelines – recommendations on the use of biologics in severe asthma. Allergy 2020; 75: 1058–1068. doi:10.1111/all.14268
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Castro M,
    2. Corren J,
    3. Pavord ID, et al.
    Dupilumab efficacy and safety in moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 2486–2496. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1804092
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Corren J,
    2. Castro M,
    3. Chanez P, et al.
    Dupilumab improves symptoms, quality of life, and productivity in uncontrolled persistent asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2019; 122: 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2018.08.005
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Corren J,
    2. Castro M,
    3. O'Riordan T, et al.
    Dupilumab efficacy in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2020; 8: 516–526. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2019.08.050
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Rabe KF,
    2. Nair P,
    3. Brusselle G, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in glucocorticoid-dependent severe asthma. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 2475–2485. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1804093
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Wenzel S,
    2. Castro M,
    3. Corren J, et al.
    Dupilumab efficacy and safety in adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma despite use of medium-to-high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a long-acting β2 agonist: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled pivotal phase 2b dose-ranging trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 31–44. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30307-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Wenzel S,
    2. Castro M,
    3. Corren J, et al.
    Dupilumab efficacy and safety in adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma despite use of medium-to-high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a long acting β2 agonist: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled pivotal phase 2b dose-ranging trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 31–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Corren J,
    2. Castro M,
    3. Chanez P, et al.
    Dupilumab improves symptoms, quality of life, and productivity in uncontrolled persistent asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2019; 122: 41–49.
    OpenUrl
    1. Castro M,
    2. Corren J,
    3. Pavord ID, et al.
    Dupilumab efficacy and safety in moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 2486–2496.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Corren J,
    2. Castro M,
    3. O’Riordan T, et al.
    Dupilumab efficacy in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2020; 8: 516–526.
    OpenUrl
    1. Rabe KF,
    2. Nair P,
    3. Brusselle G, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in glucocorticoid-dependent severe asthma. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 2475–2485.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pavord ID,
    2. Korn S,
    3. Howarth P, et al.
    Mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma (DREAM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 380: 651–659.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ortega HG,
    2. Liu MC,
    3. Pavord ID, et al.
    Mepolizumab treatment in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1198–1207.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chupp GL,
    2. Bradford ES,
    3. Albers FC, et al.
    Efficacy of mepolizumab add-on therapy on health-related quality of life and markers of asthma control in severe eosinophilic asthma (MUSCA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b trial. Lancet Respir Med 2017; 5: 390–400.
    OpenUrl
    1. Bel EH,
    2. Wenzel SE,
    3. Thompson PJ, et al.
    Oral glucocorticoid-sparing effect of mepolizumab in eosinophilic asthma. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1189–1197.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Busse W,
    2. Corren J,
    3. Lanier BQ, et al.
    Omalizumab, anti-IgE recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of severe allergic asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 108: 184–190.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Finn A,
    2. Gross G,
    3. van Bavel J, et al.
    Omalizumab improves asthma-related quality of life in patients with severe allergic asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003; 111: 278–284.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lanier BQ,
    2. Corren J,
    3. Lumry W, et al.
    Omalizumab is effective in the long-term control of severe allergic asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2003; 91: 154–159.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Solèr M,
    2. Matz J,
    3. Townley R, et al.
    The anti-IgE antibody omalizumab reduces exacerbations and steroid requirement in allergic asthmatics. Eur Respir J 2001; 18: 254–261.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Buhl R,
    2. Hanf G,
    3. Solèr M, et al.
    The anti-IgE antibody omalizumab improves asthma-related quality of life in patients with allergic asthma. Eur Respir J 2002; 20: 1088–1094.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Buhl R,
    2. Solèr M,
    3. Matz J,
    4. Townley R,
    5. O’Brien J,
    6. Noga O, et al.
    Omalizumab provides long-term control in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Eur Respir J. 2002;20: 73–78.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Holgate ST,
    2. Chuchalin AG,
    3. Hébert J, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of a recombinant anti-immunoglobulin E antibody (omalizumab) in severe allergic asthma. Clin Exp Allergy 2004; 34: 632–638.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Vignola AM,
    2. Humbert M,
    3. Bousquet J, et al.
    Efficacy and tolerability of anti-immunoglobulin E therapy with omalizumab in patients with concomitant allergic asthma and persistent allergic rhinitis: SOLAR. Allergy 2004; 59: 709–717.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ayres JG,
    2. Higgins B,
    3. Chilvers ER, et al.
    Efficacy and tolerability of anti-immunoglobulin E therapy with omalizumab in patients with poorly controlled (moderate-to-severe) allergic asthma. Allergy 2004; 59: 701–708.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Niven R,
    2. Chung KF,
    3. Panahloo Z, et al.
    Effectiveness of omalizumab in patients with inadequately controlled severe persistent allergic asthma: an open-label study. Respir Med 2008; 102: 1371–1378.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Humbert M,
    2. Beasley R,
    3. Ayres J, et al.
    Benefits of omalizumab as add-on therapy in patients with severe persistent asthma who are inadequately controlled despite best available therapy (GINA 2002 step 4 treatment): INNOVATE. Allergy 2005; 60: 309–316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ohta K,
    2. Miyamoto T,
    3. Amagasaki T, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in an Asian population with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma. Respirology 2009; 14: 1156–1165.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chanez P,
    2. Contin-Bordes C,
    3. Garcia G, et al.
    Omalizumab-induced decrease of FcξRI expression in patients with severe allergic asthma. Respir Med 2010; 104: 1608–1617.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bousquet J,
    2. Siergiejko Z,
    3. Swiebocka E, et al.
    Persistency of response to omalizumab therapy in severe allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma. Allergy 2011; 66: 671–678.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Siergiejko Z,
    2. Swiebocka E,
    3. Smith N, et al.
    Oral corticosteroid sparing with omalizumab in severe allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma patients. Curr Med Res Opin 2011; 27: 2223–2228.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Hanania NA,
    2. Alpan O,
    3. Hamilos DL, et al.
    Omalizumab in severe allergic asthma inadequately controlled with standard therapy: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 573–582.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bardelas J,
    2. Figliomeni M,
    3. Kianifard F, et al.
    A 26-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to evaluate the effect of omalizumab on asthma control in patients with persistent allergic asthma. J Asthma 2012; 49: 144–152.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Hoshino M,
    2. Ohtawa J.
    Effects of adding omalizumab, an anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, on airway wall thickening in asthma. Respiration 2012; 83: 520–528.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rubin AS,
    2. Souza-Machado A,
    3. Andradre-Lima M, et al.
    Effect of omalizumab as add-on therapy on asthma-related quality of life in severe allergic asthma: a Brazilian study (QUALITX). J Asthma 2012; 49: 288–293.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Busse W,
    2. Spector S,
    3. Rosén K, et al.
    High eosinophil count: a potential biomarker for assessing successful omalizumab treatment effects. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013; 132: 485–486.
    OpenUrl
    1. Li J,
    2. Kang J,
    3. Wang C, et al.
    Omalizumab improves quality of life and asthma control in Chinese patients with moderate to severe asthma: a randomized phase iii study. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2016; 8: 319–328.
    OpenUrl
    1. Mukherjee M,
    2. Kjarsgaard M,
    3. Radford K, et al.
    Omalizumab in patients with severe asthma and persistent sputum eosinophilia. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol 2019; 15: 21.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 7 Issue 3 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 7 (3)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Indirect comparison of efficacy of dupilumab versus mepolizumab and omalizumab for severe type 2 asthma
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Indirect comparison of efficacy of dupilumab versus mepolizumab and omalizumab for severe type 2 asthma
Katrine Prætorius, Daniel P. Henriksen, Johannes M. Schmid, Pernille Printzlau, Lars Pedersen, Hanne Madsen, Ehm A. Andersson, Louise Klokker Madsen, Bo L. Chawes
ERJ Open Research Jul 2021, 7 (3) 00306-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00306-2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Indirect comparison of efficacy of dupilumab versus mepolizumab and omalizumab for severe type 2 asthma
Katrine Prætorius, Daniel P. Henriksen, Johannes M. Schmid, Pernille Printzlau, Lars Pedersen, Hanne Madsen, Ehm A. Andersson, Louise Klokker Madsen, Bo L. Chawes
ERJ Open Research Jul 2021, 7 (3) 00306-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00306-2021
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Asthma and allergy
  • Pulmonary pharmacology and therapeutics
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Sex differences in pulmonary AVM in HHT
  • Epidemiology of unexplained chronic cough in adults
  • Comparison of the ACQ and patient diaries
Show more Research letters

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society