Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 426

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reslizumab for Inadequately Controlled Asthma With Elevated Blood Eosinophil Levels

Open access
Bjermer, Leif, Lemiere, Catherine, Maspero, Jorge, Weiss, Sivan, Zangrilli, James, Germinaro, Matthew·2016·Chest
DOI 10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.032
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background This phase 3 study further characterizes the efficacy and safety of reslizumab (a humanized anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody) in patients aged 12 to 75 years with asthma inadequately controlled by at least a medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid and with a blood eosinophil count ≥ 400 cells/μL. Methods Patients were randomized to receive reslizumab 0.3 or 3.0 mg/kg or placebo administered once every 4 weeks for 16 weeks (total four doses). The primary end point was change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV 1 over 16 weeks. Secondary end points included FVC, forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of FVC (FEF 25%-75% ), patient-reported control of asthma symptoms, short-acting β-agonist (SABA) use, blood eosinophil levels, and safety. Results Reslizumab significantly improved FEV 1 (difference vs placebo [reslizumab 0.3 and 3.0 mg/kg], 115 mL [95% CI, 16-215; P = .0237] and 160 mL [95% CI, 60-259; P = .0018]). Clinically meaningful increases in FVC (130 mL) and FEF 25%-75% (233 mL/s) were observed with reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg. Reslizumab improved scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) vs placebo (greater effects seen with 3.0 mg/kg; P < .05). The minimally important difference was reached for the AQLQ (reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg) but not on the ACQ. Scores on the Asthma Symptom Utility Index and SABA use were improved with reslizumab. The most common adverse events were worsening of asthma, headache, and nasopharyngitis; most events were mild to moderate in severity. Conclusions Reslizumab improved lung function, asthma control and symptoms, and quality of life. It was well tolerated in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (despite standard therapy) and elevated blood eosinophil levels. Overall, the 3.0-mg/kg dose of reslizumab provided greater improvements in asthma outcomes vs the 0.3-mg/kg dose, with comparable safety. Trial Registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01270464; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.032

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 426

Metadata

Authors
Bjermer, L., Lemiere, C., Maspero, J., Weiss, S., Zangrilli, J., & Germinaro, M.
Venue
Chest
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-10
Volume
150
Issue
4
Pages
789-798
ISSN
0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.032
OpenAlex
W2338443462
Cited by
426
References
23
FWCI
46.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reslizumab for Inadequately Controlled Asthma With Elevated Blood Eosinophil Levels. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.032
The paper
Bjermer, L., Lemiere, C., Maspero, J., Weiss, S., Zangrilli, J., & Germinaro, M. (2016). Reslizumab for Inadequately Controlled Asthma With Elevated Blood Eosinophil Levels. Chest. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.032

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.