Evidence Hub

Inflammatory and clinical risk factors for asthma attacks (ORACLE2): a patient-level meta-analysis of control groups of 22 randomised trials

F. Meulmeester, S. Mailhot-Larouche, C. Celis-Preciado, S. Lemaire-Paquette, Sanjay Ramakrishnan, M. Wechsler, G. Brusselle, J. Corren et al.

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 2025

6,513 participants · 79 citations

Abstract

Summary Background Clinical risk factors for severe asthma attacks have been identified, but their incremental prognostic values are unclear. Additionally, the incremental contribution of type 2 inflammation, a common, treatable process, is undetermined. We aimed to quantify the prognostic value of baseline characteristics and type 2 inflammatory biomarkers, specifically blood eosinophil count and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), to predict asthma attacks. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), Oxford Asthma Attack Risk Scale 2 (ORACLE2), we searched MEDLINE from Jan 1, 1993, to April 1, 2021, for trials investigating fixed treatment regimen effects on asthma attack rates for at least 6 months with baseline blood eosinophil count and FeNO. Eligible participants were aged 12 years or older with asthma (any severity) who had been randomly assigned to the control group of an RCT. Relevant trials were manually retrieved and reviewed by two independent reviewers (SC and IDP). Disagreements were discussed with five reviewers. Individual patient data (IPD) for meta-analysis were requested from study authors. We investigated the rate of severe asthma attacks (≥3 days of systemic corticosteroids) for at least 6 months and prognostic effects of baseline blood eosinophil count and FeNO in control group participants. Rate ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were derived for annualised asthma attack rates from negative binomial models…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 6,513 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free