#### **REVIEW** ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_0_Picture_2.jpeg) # **Psychological and Related Factors Influencing Adherence to Biologic Therapies in Asthma: A Scoping Review** **Valentina Poletti1,2 · Eleonora Volpato1,2** Received: 26 July 2025 / Accepted: 2 December 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 #### **Abstract** **Purpose of Review** This scoping review aimed to explore psychological and related biopsychosocial factors influencing adherence to biologic therapies among individuals with asthma. Despite the proven efficacy of biologics for severe type 2 inflammation, real-world adherence remains variable. The review sought to identify individual, clinical, and contextual determinants that facilitate or hinder adherence behaviors. **Recent Findings** A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and APA PsycINFO identified 14 studies published between 2018 and 2025. Most were observational or retrospective and conducted in the United States. Adherence rates were generally moderate to high but varied across biologics. Systemic barriers included high out-of-pocket costs, complex insurance procedures, and limited access to specialist care. Clinically, patients with milder symptoms or low perceived treatment benefit were more likely to discontinue. Psychological barriers—such as fear of injections, illness denial, depression, and stigma were recurrent yet understudied. Facilitators included perceived efficacy, emotional reassurance, shared decision-making, and supportive treatment settings. **Summary** Adherence to biologic therapies in asthma reflects a multidimensional interplay between systemic, clinical, and psychological influences. Integrating psychological assessment, patient education, and system-level support is essential to sustain long-term engagement. Future research should address psychological mechanisms and develop tailored interventions to enhance adherence and improve clinical outcomes. **Keywords** Adherence · Asthma · Biologic therapy · Scoping review # **Introduction** Asthma is a chronic disease of the airways, characterized by inflammation, structural remodeling, and functional abnormalities that lead to bronchial hyperresponsiveness and reversible airflow limitation [[1](#page-12-3)]. While standard therapies, such as combinations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), and leukotriene receptor antagonists, achieve good symptom control in most asthma individuals, about 5–10% continue to have poorly controlled disease [[1](#page-12-3), [2\]](#page-12-2). Severe or treatment-resistant asthma affects only a small proportion of patients but contributes disproportionately to the overall burden of the disease in terms of cost, complications, and mortality [[3\]](#page-12-0). Moreover, comorbidities such as rhinitis, gastroesophageal reflux, obesity, and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can further complicate management in these individuals, who often experience greater impairment in daily functioning and an increased risk of anxiety and depression [[3](#page-12-0), [4](#page-12-1)]. In recent years, the understanding of asthma as a heterogeneous condition has led to a shift in treatment paradigms. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, asthma is now recognized as comprising distinct phenotypes and endotypes subtypes characterized by shared clinical features and underlying inflammatory mechanisms. One of the most relevant distinctions is between T2-high (type 2 inflammation) and T2-low asthma [\[2](#page-12-2)]. Approximately 50–80% of patients with asthma present with a T2-high endotype, which may be allergic (IgE-mediated) or eosinophilic (IL-5-mediated), and is driven by cytokines such as interleukin-4 (IL-4), IL-5, and IL-13 [[3\]](#page-12-0). ² IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_0_Picture_18.jpeg) ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg) Eleonora Volpato eleonora.volpato@unicatt.it ¹ Department of Psychology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, CAP, Via Nirone, 15, Milan 20123, Italy Biologic therapies have emerged as a transformative option for patients with severe T2-high asthma who are unresponsive to high-dose ICS plus additional controllers [\[2](#page-12-2)]. These treatments consist primarily of monoclonal antibodies that selectively target key molecules in the inflammatory cascade [[2](#page-12-2)]. For example: - Omalizumab is an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody approved for allergic asthma; it binds to circulating IgE and prevents its interaction with receptors on mast cells and basophils. - Mepolizumab, Reslizumab, and Benralizumab target IL-5 or its receptor, thereby reducing eosinophil survival and activity. - Dupilumab inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling by blocking the shared IL-4Rα receptor subunit, modulating both allergic and eosinophilic inflammation [[1](#page-12-3), [3,](#page-12-0) [5](#page-12-4)]. Clinical trials and real-world evidence have shown that these biologics can significantly reduce exacerbation rates, improve lung function, enhance quality of life, lower the reliance on systemic corticosteroids in appropriately selected patients [[5](#page-12-4), [6](#page-12-5)]. These agents offer a more targeted and personalized approach to asthma management, particularly in individuals with elevated biomarkers, such as blood eosinophils, serum IgE, or fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) [[8](#page-12-6)]. However, the clinical efficacy of biologic therapies relies heavily on consistent, long-term adherence. Although their pharmacological effectiveness is well-established, adherence remains suboptimal in some patients, potentially undermining treatment outcomes [\[9](#page-12-7)]. As with other chronic therapies, adherence to biologics is influenced by a complex interplay of clinical, social, and psychological factors. Patients' beliefs about their illness [[10](#page-12-8)], emotional coping styles [[11](#page-12-9)], and levels of psychological distress [[12](#page-12-10)] can all significantly affect adherence behavior, either positively or negatively. Unlike inhaled therapies, biologic treatments for severe asthma involve infrequent but parenteral administration, often in specialized care settings and under continuous medical supervision. These differences may shape patients' experiences and adherence patterns in distinct ways. For instance, while inhaled medications require daily self-management and routine integration into daily life, biologics demand procedural acceptance, confidence in injection safety, and sustained motivation to attend scheduled administrations. Despite the growing integration of biologics into asthma treatment algorithms, the role of psychological determinants of adherence remains under-investigated. The traditional biomedical model often overlooks these factors, even though evidence increasingly highlights their pivotal role in shaping treatment engagement and outcomes. A deeper understanding of the psychological barriers and facilitators to adherence could guide the development of more effective, individualized interventions [[13](#page-12-11)]. By synthesizing the available literature, the review emphasizes the central role of biopsychosocial determinants in shaping adherence to biologic therapies in asthma. Through this analysis, it aims to elucidate key underlying mechanisms and highlight the value of integrating psychological perspectives to enhance adherence and improve long-term outcomes for patients with asthma. # **Materials and methods** Given the complexity and multidimensionality of psychological influences on adherence—as well as the fragmented and heterogeneous nature of existing evidence—a scoping review represents an appropriate and timely methodology to comprehensively map current knowledge and identify critical gaps. Unlike systematic reviews, this approach offers the advantage of enabling a comprehensive and nuanced exploration of complex, multidimensional constructs that may not be adequately captured by narrowly defined research questions or homogenous study designs [[14](#page-12-12)]. Guided by a deliberately broad research question rooted in the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework [[15](#page-12-13)], this review explores: *What are the psychological and related factors (Concept) that influence adherence to biologic therapies (Context) in patients with asthma (Population)?* Specifically, it seeks to identify individual-level variables that either facilitate or hinder adherence behaviors in this population. This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and reported following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines [[15](#page-12-13)[–17](#page-12-14)]. ## **Search Strategy** To address this question, we conducted a methodical search of literature using electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, and APA PsycINFO. Keywords included combinations of terms such as *asthma*, *biologics*, *adherence*, *adherence to treatment*. Articles were included if they (1) focused on patients with asthma undergoing biologic treatment, and (2) discussed adherence-related outcomes in connection with psychological or behavioral factors. The complete search strategy for each database is provided in Additional File 1. ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg) # **Study Selection Process** All studies published up to May 2025 were considered for inclusion. The review encompassed review papers, clinical trials, and editorials. Specifically, editorials and conceptual articles were included for their theoretical value in framing biopsychosocial determinants but were excluded from critical appraisal. The search was limited to peer-reviewed publications. Grey literature, conference abstracts, and non–peer-reviewed reports were excluded to ensure the methodological rigor and comparability of included studies. Only full-text papers written in English and available in their final published form were eligible. There were no limitations on author nationality, or funding resources. Searches were conducted between April 1 and May 31, 2025. Figure [1](#page-2-0) presents the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram outlining the study selection process. ## **Data Extraction** For each included study, the following data were systematically extracted and recorded using a standardized data charting form: (1) Author(s), country, and year of publication; (2) Study design; (3) Participant characteristics, including asthma severity classification and total sample size; (4) Age distribution and sex ratio of the sample; (5) Type(s) of biologic therapy administered; (6) Reported barriers to adherence and facilitators of adherence to biologic treatments; (7) Method used to assess adherence (e.g., Proportion of Days Covered, pharmacy refill data, or survey); and (8) Adherence rates or indicators, when available. When relevant, additional qualitative or contextual information related to adherence behaviors or clinical characteristics (e.g., use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, comorbidities such as nasal polyposis, or reasons for switching/stopping treatment) were also collected. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts. Full-text articles were reviewed **Fig. 1** Flowchart of study selection process ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_2_Figure_11.jpeg) ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_2_Picture_12.jpeg) in duplicate. An informal consultation with clinical experts in asthma management was conducted to validate the relevance of emerging themes. #### **Critical Appraisal** Given the heterogeneity in study designs, populations, and adherence assessment methods across the included studies, a formal risk of bias assessment using standardized tools was not conducted. Instead, a narrative and contextual appraisal was performed to evaluate the methodological transparency and relevance of each source. Particular attention was paid to the clarity of study aims, sample characteristics, adherence measurement methods [e.g., use of objective indices such as Proportion of Days Covered (PDC) versus self-report], and reporting of psychological or contextual variables relevant to adherence behavior. Studies employing real-world data and validated adherence metrics were considered more methodologically robust than those relying exclusively on narrative descriptions or unstructured surveys. Editorials and conceptual papers were excluded from quality rating but were included for their theoretical relevance in shaping a biopsychosocial understanding of adherence. In line with the exploratory aims of this scoping review, no studies were excluded based on methodological quality, but variations in rigor were noted and considered in the interpretation of findings. # **Results** A total of 12 (without considering 2 editorials) articles were included, published between 2018 and 2025, with the majority conducted in the United States (*n*=11, 70%). The relatively recent publication dates reflect the progressive approval and clinical integration of biologic therapies for asthma. Omalizumab, the first biologic therapy for asthma, was approved in 2003, followed by Mepolizumab in 2015, Benralizumab in 2017, Dupilumab in 2018, and Tezepelumab in 2021. Table [1](#page-4-0) reports all the included studies' characteristics, considering author(s), country, year of publication, study design, asthma severity, sample size, age, male-female ratio, biologic type, barriers and facilitators of adherence, adherence evaluation system, and adherence rate details. #### **Adherence Rates** Adherence rates to biologic therapies for moderate-tosevere asthma vary across studies, depending on study design, adherence assessment methods, and patient characteristics. Most commonly, adherence has been measured using the PDC, which is considered a reliable proxy for treatment continuity and represents the percentage of days within a defined period during which the patient had access to the prescribed medication [[18](#page-13-0)]. Several retrospective U.S.-based studies report generally good, although suboptimal, adherence levels. Ledford et al. reported a median PDC of 87%, with notable differences across individual biologics - Dupilumab showing the lowest adherence [[19](#page-13-1)]. Similarly, Maddux et al. found a mean PDC of 0.76 during the first six months of treatment, with 61% of patients reaching a PDC≥0.75. Dupilumab (98.15%) and Reslizumab (92.04%) had the highest adherence, while omalizumab had the lowest (71.89%) [[9\]](#page-12-7). Osazuwa-Peters et al. also reported favorable adherence rates, with a median PDC of 0.75 in clinic-based settings and 0.83 in home or hybrid settings, suggesting that flexible treatment settings may support higher adherence [[20](#page-13-2)]. In contrast, Bender et al. found that 63% of patients with maintenance medication prescriptions had suboptimal adherence (PDC<80%), particularly among those with milder disease (Global Initiative for Asthma, GINA steps 2–3) [\[21](#page-13-3)]. Primary adherence—defined as the receipt of at least one dose of a prescribed biologic within 12 months—was high in the study by Gleeson et al., at 84.9%. However, only 3.8% of the full adult asthma cohort received a biologic, highlighting access limitations [[22](#page-13-4)]. In a Spanish real-world study, Granda et al. integrated refill data with self-reported measures, reporting a nonadherence rate of 17% to biologic therapy. However, nonadherence to baseline inhaled treatments was notably higher at 58.5%, underscoring the broader challenges faced in asthma management [[23\]](#page-13-5). The large, multinational analysis by Menzies-Gow et al. found that 79% of patients remained on the same biologic for at least six months ("continuers"), while 21% either discontinued ("stoppers") or switched ("switchers") biologic treatment [[24](#page-13-6)]. Le et al. reported a low nonadherence rate of 8.3%, though this applied only to patients who had actual access to biologics [[25](#page-13-7)]. High self-reported adherence and treatment satisfaction were also found in the Italian cross-sectional study by Crimi et al., with 95% of patients declaring good adherence. However, reliance on self-report instruments may overestimate true adherence [[26](#page-13-8)]. Other studies provide additional insights. Although Inselman et al. did not report PDC values, they highlighted low overall biologic utilization due to systemic, socioeconomic, and insurance-related factors [[27](#page-13-9)]. Silver et al. found that 29.8% of patients discontinued treatment, often due to perceived lack of efficacy [[28](#page-13-10)]. Editorials by Corren & Panettieri [\[29](#page-13-11)] and Stempel & Szefler [\[30](#page-13-12)], while lacking quantitative data, emphasize the wide variability in biologic ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_3_Picture_13.jpeg) | Table 1 Studies' characteristics | es' charact | Clistics | | | | | | | | | | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Author(s) | Country | Year | Study Design | Participants | Asthma Severity | Sample Size (n) | Sample Age | Male/Female Ratio | Biologic Type | Barriers to
Adherence | Facilitators of
Adherence | Adherence
evaluation
system | Adherence Rate
Details | | Bender et al. | USA | 2022 | Retrospective,
observational real
life study | Asthma patients | 154 (30%) GINA Step 2 11 (2%) GINA Step 3 104 (21%) GINA Step 5 116 (25%) GINA Step 5 126 (25%) GINA | 906 | <18: 18 (3%) 18-30: 48 (9%) 31-45: 130 (26%) 46-60: 227 (45%) >61: 85 (17%) | 157 (31%)349 (69%) | omalizumab,
mepolizumab,
reslizumab,
benralizumab,
dupilumab | Mild-to-moderate Chron asthma; of OC Absence of chronic days); oral corticosteroid High 6 (OCS) use; Seep 5 cstabil mainter mainter present thermoments of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of the control of t | Chronic use of OCS (≥90 days); High disease severity (GINA Step 5) with established maintenance thersaw | Proportion of
Days Covered
(PDC) | Of 403 (total: 506) patients with maintenance medication cation claims, 63% had suboptimal maintenance medication adherence (PDC<80%). | | Menzies-Gow Bulgaria, ct al. Canada, Denmark Greece, Italy, Japp Kuwait, South Korea, Spain, Ul and USA | Bulgaria,
Canada,
Denmark,
Greece,
Italy, Japan,
Kuvait,
South
Korea,
Spain, UK,
and USA | 2022 | Longitudinal | Asthma patients | Severe | 3531 | 18–34: Continuers: 11.2%;
Stoppers: 15.4%; Switchers: 13.2%; 35–54: Continuers: 38.0%; Stoppers: 34.6%; Switchers: 43.3%; 55–79: Continuers: 47.1%; Stoppers: 47.1%; Switchers: 41.4% Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.9%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: 2.1%; Switchers: | Continuers: 1.391 (33.5%)2.762 (66.5%); Stoppers: 176 (32.7%)/363 (67.3%); Switchers: 192 (33.7%)/377 (66.3%) | omalizumab,
mepolizumab,
s reslizumab,
bornalizumab,
dupilumab | insufficient clinical efficacy; adverse outcomes, High blood eosinophil counts (BEC≥300 cells/LL); FeNO≥50 ppb; Previous use of theophylline as an add-on; More exacerbations in the 12 months prior to biologic initiation; Eosinophilic CRS without nasal polyps | | "Continuers" = patients who remained on the same biologic for at least 6 months at least 6 patients who changed biologic therapy at all east once of an at least once of support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the support of the su | Continuers: 2791
(79.0%);
Stoppers: 356
(10.2%);
Switchers: 384
(10.8%) | | Corren &
Panettieri | USA | 2018 | Editorial – excluded from empirical synthesis | Severe asthma
patients | Severe | | | | Biologics
(general) | Poor ICS
adherence | Improved ICS
adherence
before biologics | | Not applicable | | Gelhom et al. | USA | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Severe asthma patients and doctors | Severe | 7.4 | 49.9±13.1 | 12 (25.5%)35 (74.5%) | Biologics
(general) | Out-of-pocket cost, Perecived Complex insurance efficacy, Less coverage, Schedul- frequent ing difficulties, administration Inconvenient (preferred eve administration site, 8 weeks), Sub Needle phobia/ cutaneous (SC injections, Time administration required for Treatment at administration, specialist clin perceived lack of ics, Rapid ons efficacy of action | Perceived efficacy, Less frequent administration (prefered every 8 weeks), Subcutaneous (SC) administration, Treatment at specialist clinics, Rapid onset of action | | Survey (no rate) | ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_4_Picture_5.jpeg) | (continued) | |-------------| | | | Table 1 | | | | pharmacy refill data
lack of adherence to
methods, 17% were | |-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Adherence Rate
Details | adherence within
84.9% primary
12 months | the primary inhaler
Inhalers question
naire was 22.6%.
According to the
was 58.5%. Test
Combining both
of Adherence to | | Adherence
evaluation
system | the 12-month
biologic days
the 12-month
biologic was
(1) primary
ing, and (2)
prescribing
received in
after initial
after initial
adherence,
or whether
a dose of a
covered in
prescrib
period
period
(PDC) | refill data and
pharmacy
test | | Facilitators of
Adherence | associated with
recent hospital
also positively
tors for receiv
polyposis was
ity: More oral
Asthma sever
corticosteroid
ing a biologic
izations were
strong predic
prescription.
prescription
bursts and
Nasal | - | | Barriers to
Adherence | ated with Medicaid
status and Class III
riers (72.2%) were
tion: Average time
the leading causes
likely due to logis
(IRR=0.86) were
disparities: Fewer
biologic days cov
than system-level
from prescription
of nonadherence,
• Needle aversion
ered were associ
reduced primary
Patient-level bar
• Lack of follow
Insurance denial
to first dose was
tical or personal
to delay/decline
32.5–57.8 days,
Socioeconomic
associated with
Delays in initia
independently
up or decision
barriers rather
aid insurance
• High out-of
(IRR=0.85)
pocket costs
Black race
and Medic
adherence.
including:
initiation
(22.2%)
obesity.
delays. | - | | Biologic Type | Benralizumab,
Mepolizumab,
Omalizumab,
Reslizumab,
Dupilumab | anti-interleukin-5
biologics | | Male/Female Ratio | 2,366 (29.4%)/5,691
(70.6%) | 33 (61%)/20 (39%) | | Sample Age | 65+years: 2344
1307 (16.2%)
1479 (18.4%)
1928 (23.9%)
18–34 years:
35–44 years:
45–54 years:
55–64 years:
999 (12.4%)
(29.1%) | 61 (51.8–67.0) | | Sample Size (n) | Moderate-to-severe Total participants: 9,147
Biologic prescriptions:
Received at least one
Complete dispensing
306 patients (3.8%);
adults with asthma;
data: 238 patients;
dose: 202 patients
within 12 months | 53 | | Asthma Severity | | Severe | | Participants | Patients with
asthma | Severe asthma on
anti-IL5 | | Study Design | Retrospective cohort
(1 year) | retrospective, obser
vational, real-life
study | | Year | 2023 | 2022 | | Country | USA | Spain | | Author(s) | Gleeson et al. | Granda et al. | ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_5_Picture_6.jpeg) **Table 1** (continued) | Adherence
evaluation
system
PDC
PDC
-
health insurance
referral), Shared
insurance cover-
age; Age 18–64
every 8 weeks),
care, no COPD,
depression, and
older age, male
pulmonologist);
insurance type,
ICS PDC≥0.75
Higher income;
Home options,
administration
sex, Medicare
Facilitators of
benralizumab
Less frequent
(without PCP
decision-mak
ing regarding
access (aller-
dosing (e.g.,
Commercial
no specialist
pre-biologic
commercial
Advantage
Adherence
Specialist
Private/
gist or
setting
years
bill, white bagging,
Prior authorization
religious concerns,
specialist practices;
and drug delivery
Fear of long-term
tion of treatment,
Stigmatization of
insurance-related
models (buy-and-
understanding of
Denial of illness,
Negative percep
Reimbursement
brown bagging);
Socioeconomic
adverse effects,
in small or non-
Lack of patient
Limited access
obstacles, Mis
and insurance
requirements;
Costs, Health
High cost of
instructions
Cultural or
Barriers to
Adherence
disparities;
awareness
biologics;
treatment
-
Benralizumab,
Benralizumab,
Mepolizumab,
Mepolizumab,
Biologic Type
Omalizumab,
Omalizumab,
Reslizumab,
Dupilumab,
Reslizumab
Dupilumab
Biologics
(general)
699 (33%)/1418 (67%)
2,055 (38.6%)/3,264
Male/Female Ratio
888,650/1,118,981
(61.4%)
logic medicare:
41.4±15.0; bio-
medicare: 70.2
non-biologic
non-biologic
commercial:
commercial:
18–64: 4101
Sample Age
65.5±10.4;
31.4±20.9;
0–17: 301
(77.10%);
>65: 917
(17.24%)
Biologic
(5.66%);
55±14
10.2
Sample Size (n)
2,007,720
2117
5319
Asthma Severity
Severe
Severe
-
Asthma patients
Longitudinal (1 year) Severe asthma
Severe asthma
Participants
patients
patients
Retrospective cohort
Retrospective cohort
Study Design
(6 months)
2020
2023
2021
Year
Country
USA
USA
USA
Maddux et al.
Ledford et al.
Inselman
Author(s)
et al. | | | | | | | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | | Adherence Rate
Details | | | | | | | | | but remained below
benralizumab, dupi-
of newly approved
After 2015, usage
lumab) increased,
of 2.95 per 1,000
Peak prevalence
(omalizumab, in
asthma patients
biologics (e.g.,
mepolizumab,
historic levels
2006). | | | | | | | | | Dupilumab has the
lowest adherence
PDC was 87%;
The median
rate | | | | | | | | | achieved a biologic
n=64; mean, 92.04
The mean PDC for
ralizumab: n=141;
88.49 (SD, 14.19);
71.89 (SD, 22.73);
after starting. 61%
17.9); dupilumab:
mean, 80.79 (SD,
the first 6 months
98.15 (SD, 6.83);
CI, 0.75–0.77) in
asthma biologics
PDC≥0.75. Ben
and reslizumab:
n=4100; mean,
was 0.76 (95%
n=251; mean,
mepolizumab:
n=763; mean,
omalizumab:
(SD, 9.79) | ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_6_Picture_6.jpeg) | Table 1 | (continued) | | | | | | | | | | | | | |--------------------------|-------------|------|-----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Author(s) | Country | Year | Study Design | Participants | Asthma Severity | Sample Size (n) | Sample Age | Male/Female Ratio | Biologic Type | Barriers to
Adherence | Facilitators of
Adherence | Adherence
evaluation
system | Adherence Rate
Details | | Peters et al.
Osazuwa | USA | 2022 | Retrospective cohort
(1 year) | severe asthma
Moderate-to-
patients | Moderate-to-severe 3932 | n=248 (6.3%) Hybrid
n=786 (20%) Home
(73.7%) Clinic-only
Of whom: n=2,898
subgroup;
subgroup;
subgroup | Home subgroup:
Clinic subgroup:
subgroup: 68.00
58.00 [47.00,
66.00 [52.00,
[61.00, 74.00]
Hybrid
68.00];
72.00]; | 1404 (35.71%)/2528
(64.29%) | Benralizumab,
Mepolizumab,
Omalizumab,
Reslizumab,
Dupilumab | Hispanic ethnicity,
higher patient out
Lower education,
Medicare-only
of-pocket costs
insurance and
Black race, | hybrid setting,
access, home
subspecialist
sinusitis and
more severe
depression,
setting and
older age,
diagnosis | - | Biologic adherence
in the clinic setting
home and hybrid
was 0.75 [0.5–1]
mon), and 0.83
[0.5–1] in both
(the most com
settings. | | Silver et al. | USA | 2022 | Retrospective cohort | Severe asthma
patients | Severe | 285 | About 45 | 138 (48.42%)/147
(51.58%) | Not specified | - | no improvement
breath (23.4%),
patients request
in the previous
exacerbations
year (10.9%);
other chronic
toms control;
lack of symp
in symptoms
(shortness of
(10.9%), ≥2
symptoms
(46.9%) | - | 85 (29.82%) didn't
maintain therapy | | Stempel &
Szefler | USA | 2022 | Editorial – excluded
from empirical
synthesis | Severe asthma
patients | Severe | - | - | - | Biologics
(general) | level barriers (e.g.,
Healthcare system
biologic escalation
logic medications
Lack of standard
specialist access,
High cost of bio
barriers (fear of
Socioeconomic
ized criteria for
injections, cost
administrative
Patient-level
complexity)
and access
perception)
disparities | - | - | Not applicable | | Le et al. | USA | 2024 | Prospective cohort | Severe asthma
patients | Severe | 9587 Among patients in
the biologics accessible
inaccessible (n=3041),
sible but not received
(n=5073), biologics
and biologics acces
(n=382) groups,
n=4691received
biologics | 54±14.2 | Female 2932 (63.0) | benralizumab, or
mepolizumab,
omalizumab,
reslizumab,
dupilumab | - | - | - | 8.3% non-adher
ence rate | ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_7_Picture_4.jpeg) | Table 1 | (continued) | | | | | | | | | | | | | |--------------|-------------|------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|------------|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Author(s) | Country | Year | Study Design | Participants | Asthma Severity | Sample Size (n) | Sample Age | Male/Female Ratio | Biologic Type | Barriers to
Adherence | Facilitators of
Adherence | Adherence
evaluation
system | Adherence Rate
Details | | Crimi et al. | Italy | 2023 | Cross sectional | Asthma patients | severe | 116 | - | - | benralizumab, or
mepolizumab,
omalizumab,
reslizumab,
dupilumab | self-administration
Afraid of | providing more
procedures and
effective and
Simplifying
widespread
information | Self-report | good adherence and
95% self-reported
satisfaction with
biologics | use and persistence, driven by patient-level, economic, and healthcare system barriers. Overall, the evidence points to substantial heterogeneity in adherence estimates across studies, reflecting differences in study design, settings, biologic agents, and adherence assessment methods. Variability in patient populations including disease severity, comorbidities, and previous treatment histories—further contributes to the wide range of reported adherence rates. In the following sections, we report the main barriers and facilitators to adherence identified across the reviewed studies. #### **Socioeconomic and System-level Factors** Socioeconomic and healthcare system-related factors constitute a primary influence on adherence to biologic therapies in people with moderate-to-severe asthma. Among the most commonly reported barriers are high out-of-pocket costs, which can impose a significant financial burden and discourage consistent treatment uptake [[21](#page-13-3), [26](#page-13-8), [30](#page-13-12)]. Several studies have highlighted that patients with lower socioeconomic status or public insur ance coverage are at higher risk of suboptimal adherence, partly due to restricted access to specialist care and difficulties in navigating insurance authorizations [\[19](#page-13-1), [21](#page-13-3), [26](#page-13-8)]. Indeed, complex reimbursement policies and admin istrative requirements, such as prior authorizations, "buyand-bill" logistics, or "white bagging" delivery models, often delay treatment initiation and complicate continuity of care [[18](#page-13-0), [26](#page-13-8)]. Logistical barriers also play a non-negligible role. Difficulties in scheduling appointments, inconvenient administration sites, and delays between prescription and the first dose—ranging from 32 to 58 days—were frequently reported [[21](#page-13-3), [30](#page-13-12)]. These factors are particularly relevant in patients who may lack flexible work schedules, transporta tion, or health literacy needed to navigate such systems. In this context, treatment delivery models that offer at-home or hybrid administration options appear to improve adherence, likely by reducing travel and time burden while enhancing patient autonomy [[20](#page-13-2)]. Similarly, streamlined procedures and a less frequent dosing schedule—such as Benralizumab every eight weeks—have been associated with greater treat ment continuity [[18](#page-13-0), [30](#page-13-12)]. Conversely, access to private insurance and to asthma specialists (e.g., pulmonologists or allergists) has been con sistently identified as a facilitator of adherence [[19](#page-13-1), [26](#page-13-8)]. These settings not only provide more consistent access to biologics but also increase the likelihood of structured fol low-up and patient education. ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_8_Picture_9.jpeg) #### **Clinical and Disease-related Factors** Clinical characteristics and disease-related variables play a significant role in influencing adherence to biologic therapy among people with asthma. One of the most consistently reported predictors of lower adherence is the absence of perceived symptom burden or a lack of noticeable improvement during treatment. Individuals who do not experience adequate symptom relief —particularly regarding breathlessness or persistent symptoms— are more prone to discontinue therapy, often by their own initiative [[28](#page-13-10)]. Similarly, the perception that symptoms are under control without treatment has been associated with premature discontinuation [[20](#page-13-2), [27](#page-13-9)]. Conversely, individuals with more severe disease profiles-such as frequent exacerbations, increased use of oral corticosteroids, or recent asthma-related hospitalizations- are more likely both to be prescribed biologic and to maintain adherence over time [[19](#page-13-1), [21](#page-13-3)]. Comorbid conditions also appear to influence adherence patterns. Depression, for instance, has been negatively associated with persistence in treatment in some studies, potentially due to reduced motivation or self-management capacity [[8](#page-12-6), [19](#page-13-1)]. Similarly, class III obesity and comorbid COPD have been linked to lower adherence, potentially due to more complex disease management requirements or reduced treatment responsiveness [[8](#page-12-6), [21](#page-13-3)]. In contrast, the presence of nasal polyposis—especially when part of an eosinophilic phenotype— has been correlated with higher adherence, likely reflecting improved perceived efficacy in patients with comorbid upper airway inflammation [[24\]](#page-13-6). Baseline adherence to other controller medications also predicted biologic adherence. Poor adherence to ICS prior to biologic initiation was viewed as a risk factor for low biologic persistence, reinforcing the importance of comprehensive adherence assessment before escalation [\[29](#page-13-11)]. Conversely, pre-biologic ICS adherence of ≥0.75 was a positive predictor of biologic adherence [[9\]](#page-12-7). Additionally, demographic clinical markers such as older age and male sex showed a modest association with better adherence, suggesting that biologic persistence may be higher in more stable or health-literate patient subgroups [\[9](#page-12-7)]. ## **Psychological Factors** Psychological variables play a crucial, and often underestimated, role in shaping adherence to biologic therapies in people with asthma. Among the most frequently reported psychological barriers are needle phobia and general treatment-related anxiety, which can lead to avoidance or delay in initiating biologic therapy [[18](#page-13-0), [21](#page-13-3), [29,](#page-13-11) [30](#page-13-12)]. Fear of injections -especially among patients unaccustomed to regular parenteral treatments- constitutes a significant barrier to both initiation and long-term adherence. Similarly, concerns about long-term adverse effects, skepticism regarding the efficacy of biologics, and negative attitudes toward pharmacological therapies have been shown to diminish patients' willingness to maintain treatment [[18](#page-13-0), [27](#page-13-9)]. Another key factor is denial or minimization of illness, which may lead patients to prematurely discontinue treatment based on the belief that their symptoms are under control or that medication is no longer necessary [[18](#page-13-0), [27](#page-13-9)]. This cognitive distortion is especially problematic in chronic conditions such as asthma, where symptom variability may reinforce misconceptions about disease resolution. Additionally, perceived stigmatization associated with the use of biologics—whether due to self-injection, visible treatment routines, or assumptions about disease severity—can further reduce motivation to adhere to therapy [[19](#page-13-1)]. Notably, depression has been identified as a significant psychological barrier, as it can diminish patient motivation, impair self-care behaviors, and increase the risk of treatment discontinuation [\[9](#page-12-7)]. Studies have shown that the presence of depression is negatively associated with adherence to biologics, particularly when not adequately addressed in clinical practice [[8](#page-12-6), [19](#page-13-1)]. On the other hand, several psychological facilitators of adherence have also been identified. Perceived efficacy of the treatment emerged as a powerful driver of adherence across multiple studies, with patients more likely to continue therapy when they notice clear symptom improvement [[25](#page-13-7), [30](#page-13-12)]. Moreover, treatment satisfaction and emotional reassurance, especially when biologics are administered in supportive settings (e.g., specialist clinics), contribute to maintaining long-term engagement with therapy [\[26](#page-13-8)]. Importantly, shared decision-making, where patients are actively involved in the choice of treatment modality and setting, has been associated with greater adherence and a more positive therapeutic alliance [[19](#page-13-1)]. Figure [2](#page-10-0) shows barriers and facilitators factors related to adherence to biologics. # **Discussion** This review highlights that adherence to biologic therapies in asthma is a multidimensional phenomenon that cannot be fully understood through a purely biomedical lens. While biologics have markedly improved the management of severe asthma, their effectiveness relies on sustained, longterm use, an aspect influenced by far more than pharmacological efficacy alone [[32](#page-13-13)]. The findings of this review illustrate how adherence is shaped by the interplay of systemic, clinical, and psychological factors, underscoring the need for integrated models of care [[33\]](#page-13-14). ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_9_Picture_14.jpeg) ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_10_Figure_1.jpeg) **Fig. 2** Barriers and facilitators of adherence to biologics in asthmatic patients Adopting a biopsychosocial perspective allows us to capture this complexity. The reviewed literature points to a wide range of system-level influences on adherence, reflecting how structural and organizational constraints shape patients' real-world ability to initiate and maintain biologic therapy [[21](#page-13-3), [26](#page-13-8), [30](#page-13-12)]. Rather than functioning as isolated obstacles, these contextual elements tend to accumulate, especially for individuals with limited socioeconomic resources or restricted access to specialized care, creating a structural environment that can meaningfully affect treatment continuation. However, psychological factors should not be overlooked, as they meaningfully influence adherence behaviors in patients with asthma. Beyond clinical outcomes alone, patients' interpretations of their symptoms, expectations of improvement, and beliefs about disease control contribute to decisions about continuing or discontinuing treatment [[27](#page-13-9)]. Comorbid psychological conditions—particularly depression—may further reduce motivation and compromise engagement, yet they remain insufficiently assessed and addressed within routine asthma care [\[9](#page-12-7)]. Psychological mechanisms—including treatment-related anxiety, illness denial, and stigma—highlight that adherence is shaped not only by concerns about medications but also by the emotional and symbolic meanings patients attribute to biologic therapy [[34](#page-13-15)]. These experiences, often unspoken during clinical encounters, can have a substantial impact on treatment behavior. Importantly, the review also identified facilitators of adherence, such as perceived treatment benefit, emotional reassurance, and collaborative decision-making processes [[19](#page-13-1)]. These findings reinforce that the therapeutic relationship, communication quality, and patient involvement are not ancillary aspects of care but central determinants of long-term engagement. Treatment settings perceived as supportive—whether in specialist clinics or structured homecare models—can further enhance adherence by reducing psychological and organizational burden. Together, these findings suggest that clinicians must go beyond the prescription. Understanding how patients make sense of their illness, what meanings they assign to biologic therapies, and how they emotionally and cognitively respond to the idea of long-term treatment is essential. Adherence is not merely a matter of instruction and compliance—it is embedded in the patient's subjective experience and day-today reality [[28](#page-13-10)]. Recognizing this dimension can help clinicians identify vulnerabilities, tailor interventions, and better support sustained engagement with biologic therapy. ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_10_Picture_9.jpeg) #### **Strengths and Limitations** This scoping review offers an integrative synthesis of psychological and related biopsychosocial factors influencing adherence to biologic therapies in asthma—a topic that has received limited attention to date. By systematically mapping existing evidence, the review highlights converging findings across disciplines and identifies key gaps to inform future research and practice. Nonetheless, several limitations should be acknowledged. The search was restricted to peer-reviewed articles and excluded grey literature, which may have introduced publication bias. Most included studies were observational, conducted in Western countries, and used heterogeneous definitions and measures of adherence, limiting direct comparability. Furthermore, psychological determinants were often examined as secondary outcomes, precluding quantitative synthesis. Despite these constraints, this review provides a timely and comprehensive overview that advances understanding of a complex and understudied issue. #### **Clinical Implications** From a clinical standpoint, this scoping review calls for a paradigm shift in asthma care. Beyond assessing biological eligibility (e.g., eosinophil counts, exacerbation history), it is crucial to evaluate psychological readiness, health beliefs, emotional distress, and contextual challenges. For example, a patient struggling with anxiety or low mood may benefit from brief psychological interventions, such as cognitivebehavioral strategies or motivational interviewing, delivered in collaboration with mental health professionals [[35](#page-13-17)]. Similarly, those facing systemic barriers may require case management, social support, or telehealth options that adapt treatment to real-world constraints [[36\]](#page-13-18). Clinically, this can be operationalized using validated screening tools for psychological distress and barriers to adherence, training in empathic communication, and a multidisciplinary approach involving pulmonologists, psychologists, nurses, and care navigators. These interventions need not be resource-intensive; even brief, structured actions integrated into routine care can significantly improve adherence and therapeutic alliance. Finally, this model aligns with the broader concept of precision medicine [[37](#page-13-19)]—not only at the molecular or biological level, but also in recognizing that patient care must be tailored to psychological, relational, and environmental dimensions. The success of biologic therapies depends as much on the human context as on the molecule itself. Promoting patient empowerment, fostering a collaborative therapeutic relationship, and respecting individual variability are essential for optimizing outcomes in chronic and emotionally demanding conditions such as severe asthma [[38](#page-13-16)]. # **Future Directions** Future studies should further explore the psychological mechanisms underlying adherence to biologic therapies, such as expectations, emotional regulation, and treatmentrelated beliefs. Longitudinal and mixed-methods designs could clarify causal pathways and temporal changes in adherence behaviors. Additionally, intervention studies integrating behavioral science and patient-centered approaches are needed to develop tailored strategies that enhance longterm engagement with biologic treatments. Collaborative efforts between clinicians, psychologists, and healthcare systems will be critical to translate these insights into routine asthma care. ## **Conclusion** Evidence from this scoping review suggests that adherence to biologic therapies in asthma is shaped by psychological, contextual, and systemic factors that extend beyond pharmacological efficacy. Supporting patients through integrated, person-centered approaches may improve long-term treatment engagement. Future studies should further clarify these mechanisms and develop tailored interventions that align clinical goals with patients' lived experiences, ultimately improving both adherence and quality of life. #### **Key References** - Menzies-Gow AN, McBrien C, Unni B, Porsbjerg CM, Al-Ahmad M, Ambrose CS, et al. Real world biologic use and switch patterns in severe asthma: data from the international severe asthma registry and the US CHRONICLE study. J Asthma Allergy. 2022;15:63–78. . - This large, multinational study provides essential real-world data on biologic use, persistence, and switching patterns in severe asthma, highlighting key clinical and systemic factors that influence adherence. - Silver J, Bogart M, Molfino NA, Siddall J, Small M, Hanson M, et al. Factors leading to discontinuation of biologic therapy in patients with severe asthma. J Asthma. 2022;59:1839–49. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0277090](https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.1971700) [3.2021.1971700](https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.1971700). ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_11_Picture_17.jpeg) - This paper identifies patient-reported reasons for discontinuing biologic treatment, emphasizing the importance of perceived efficacy, psychological readiness, and shared decision-making in sustaining adherence. - Le TT, Price DB, Erhard C, Cook B, Quinton A, Katial R, et al. Disease burden and access to biologic therapy in patients with severe asthma, 2017–2022: an analysis of the international severe asthma registry. J Asthma Allergy. 2024;17:1055–69. [https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S](https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S468068) [468068](https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S468068). - This recent international analysis underscores ongoing disparities in access to biologics and illustrates how socioeconomic and health-system barriers continue to shape real-world adherence and outcomes. **Supplementary Information** The online version contains supplementary material available at [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-025-01242-5) [25-01242-5](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-025-01242-5). **Author Contributions** VP collected and analyzed the studies, EV revised the whole process. Both authors contribute to writing the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. **Funding** Open access funding provided by Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. Not applicable. **Data Availability** The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials. #### **Declarations** **Ethics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish** Not applicable. **Competing interests** The authors declare no competing interests. EV declares the winning of an ERS Long-Term Research Fellowship 2024 grant (ID Number: LTRF202404-01155), which is unrelated to this study. Therefore, the author(s) report no conflicts of interest related to this work. **Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit [http://creativecommons.o](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) [rg/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ## **References** - 1. Pelaia G, Vatrella A, Maselli R. The potential of biologics for the treatment of asthma. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(12):958–72. . - 2. McGregor MC, Krings JG, Nair P, Castro M. Role of biologics in asthma. AtsjournalsOrgMC McGregor, JG Krings, P Nair, M CastroAmerican J Respir Crit Care Med 2019. 2019;199:433–45. atsjournalsOrg. . - 3. Ameen Shah P, Brightling C, Jenkins C, Bardin P. Biologics for severe asthma—Which, when and why? Wiley Online Libr Shah, C Bright 2023. Wiley Online Libr. 2023;28:709–21. [https://doi.o](https://doi.org/10.1111/RESP.14520) [rg/10.1111/RESP.14520](https://doi.org/10.1111/RESP.14520). - 4. Hekking PP, Amelink M, Wener RR, Bouvy ML, Bel EH. Comorbidities in difficult-to-control asthma. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. 2018;6:108–13. [https://doi.org](https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAIP.2017.06.008) [/10.1016/J.JAIP.2017.06.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAIP.2017.06.008). - 5. Gyawali B, Georas SN, Khurana S. Biologics in severe asthma: a state-of-the-art review. Eur Respir Rev. 2025. [https://doi.org/10.1](https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0088-2024) [183/16000617.0088-2024](https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0088-2024). - 6. Trevor J, Lugogo N, Carr W, Moore WC, Soong W, Panettieri RA, et al. Severe asthma exacerbations in the United States: Incidence, characteristics, predictors, and effects of biologic treatments. Ann Allergy, Asthma Immunol. 2021;127:579-587.e1. [ht](https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANAI.2021.07.010) [tps://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANAI.2021.07.010](https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANAI.2021.07.010). - 7. Varricchi G, Ferri S, Pepys J, Poto R, Spadaro G, Nappi E, et al. Biologics and airway remodeling in severe asthma. Allergy. 2022;77:3538–52.. - 8. Darveaux J, Immunology WB-TJ of A and C, 2015 undefined. Biologics in asthma—the next step toward personalized treatment. ElsevierJ Darveaux, WW BusseThe J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2015•Elsevier n.d. - 9. Maddux J, Inselman J, Jeffery M, Chest RL. Adherence to asthma biologics: implications for patient selection, step therapy, and outcomes. 2021. Elsevier n.d. - 10. Volpato E, Poletti V, Banfi P, Bonanomi A, Pagnini F. Illness expectations and asthma symptoms: a 6-month longitudinal study. Health Expect. 2025.. - 11. Barton C, Clarke D, Sulaiman N, medicine MA-R. Coping as a mediator of psychosocial impediments to optimal management and control of asthma. 2003. Elsevier n.d. - 12. Lavoie K, Bouthillier D, Bacon S, Lemière C, Chest JM. Psychologic distress and maladaptive coping styles in patients with severe vs moderate asthma. 2010. Elsevier n.d. - 13. Riley IL, Jackson B, Crabtree D, Riebl S, Que LG, Pleasants R, et al. A scoping review of international barriers to asthma medication adherence mapped to the theoretical domains framework. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. 2021;9:410-418.e4. . - 14. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20:953–68.. - 15. Chan SL, Ho CZH, Khaing NEE, Ho E, Pong C, Guan JS, et al. Frameworks for measuring population health: a scoping review. PLoS One. 2024;19:e0278434. [https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNA](https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0278434) [L.PONE.0278434](https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0278434). - 16. Arksey H. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. [https://doi.org/10](https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616) [.1080/1364557032000119616](https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616). - 17. McGowan J, Straus S, Moher D, EL-JC. Reporting scoping reviews-PRISMA ScR extension. Acad McGowan, S Straus, D Moher, EV Langlois, KK O'Brien, T Horsley, A Aldcroft, W ZarinJ Clin Epidemiol. 2020. AcademiaEdu n.d. ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_12_Picture_32.jpeg) - 18. Loucks J, Zuckerman AD, Berni A, Saulles A, Thomas G, Alonzo A. Proportion of days covered as a measure of medication adherence. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2022;79:492–6. [https://doi.org/10](https://doi.org/10.1093/AJHP/ZXAB392) [.1093/AJHP/ZXAB392](https://doi.org/10.1093/AJHP/ZXAB392). - 19. Ledford D, Soong W, Carr W, Trevor J, LT-A of A. Real-world severe asthma biologic administration and adherence differs by biologic: CHRONICLE study results. 2023. Elsevier n.d. - 20. Osazuwa-Peters O, Greiner M. AO-TJ of A. Factors related to biologic adherence and outcomes among moderate-to-severe asthma patients. 2022. Elsevier n.d. - 21. Bender B, Oppenheimer J, George M. RB-TJ of A, Assessment of real-world escalation to biologics in US patients with asthma. 2022. Elsevier n.d. - 22. Gleeson P, Morales K, Hvisdas C. AL-TJ of A, Factors associated with asthma biologic prescribing and primary adherence among adults in a large health system. 2023. Elsevier n.d. - 23. Granda P, Villamañán E, Carpio C. DL-F, Adherence to inhalers in patients with severe asthma treated with anti-interleukin-5 biologics. 2022. Elsevier n.d. - 24. Menzies-Gow AN, McBrien C, Unni B, Porsbjerg CM, Al-Ahmad M, Ambrose CS, et al. Real world biologic use and switch patterns in severe asthma: data from the international severe asthma registry and the US CHRONICLE study. Taylor Fr. 2022;15:63– 78. . - 25. Le TT, Price DB, Erhard C, Cook B, Quinton A, Katial R, et al. Disease burden and access to biologic therapy in patients with severe asthma, 2017–2022: an analysis of the international severe asthma registry. Taylor Fr. 2024;17:1055–69. [https://doi.org/10.2](https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S468068) [147/JAA.S468068](https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S468068). - 26. Crimi C, Calabrese C, D'Amato M. FB-EO. Patient and physician perspectives on biological treatment in severe asthma: a Severe Asthma Network Italy survey. 2023. PmcNcbiNlmNihGov n.d. - 27. Inselman JW, Jeffery MM, Maddux JT, Shah ND, Rank MA. Trends and disparities in asthma biologic use in the United States. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8:549-554.e1. [https://doi.org](https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAIP.2019.08.024) [/10.1016/J.JAIP.2019.08.024](https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAIP.2019.08.024). - 28. Silver J, Bogart M, Molfino NA, Siddall J, Small M, Hanson M, et al. Factors leading to discontinuation of biologic therapy in patients with severe asthma. J Asthma. 2022;59:1839–49. [https://](https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.1971700) [doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.1971700](https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.1971700). - 29. Corren J, Clinical RP-TJ of A and, undefined. How important is adherence to inhaled medications before starting a biologic therapy for asthma? 2018. Jaci-InpracticeOrg n.d. - 30. Stempel D, In SS-TJ of A and CI, undefined. Adding a biologic to asthma therapy: the role of adherence in selecting the right patient. 2022. Elsevier n.d. - 31. Gelhorn HL, Balantac Z, Ambrose CS, Chung YN, Stone B. Patient and physician preferences for attributes of biologic medications for severe asthma. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:1253–68.. - 32. Aslam I, Farhangian ME, Feldman SR. Models of Adherence. In: Adherence in Dermatology. 2016. p. 7–16. [https://doi.org/10.100](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30994-1_2) [7/978-3-319-30994-1\\_2](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30994-1_2). - 33. Christensen A. Patient adherence to medical treatment regimens: Bridging the gap between behavioral science and biomedicine. 2004. - 34. Bender BG, Bender SE. Patient-identified barriers to asthma treatment adherence: responses to interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2005;25:107– 30. . - 35. Yorke J, Adair P, Doyle AM, Dubrow-Marshall L, Fleming S, Holmes L, et al. A randomised controlled feasibility trial of group cognitive behavioural therapy for people with severe asthma. J Asthma. 2017;54:543–54. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.201](https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2016.1229335) [6.1229335](https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2016.1229335). - 36. Ambrosino N, Life PP-, 2021 undefined. Using telemedicine to monitor the patient with chronic respiratory failure. MdpiComN Ambrosino, P PierucciLife, 2021•mdpiCom n.d. - 37. Zullig LL, Blalock DV, Dougherty S, Henderson R, Ha CC, Oakes MM, et al. The new landscape of medication adherence improvement: where population health science meets precision medicine. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:1225–30. [https://do](https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S165404) [i.org/10.2147/PPA.S165404](https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S165404). - 38. Tapp H, Derkowski D, Calvert M, Welch M, Spencer S. Patient perspectives on engagement in shared decision-making for asthma care. Fam Pract. 2017;34:353–7. [https://doi.org/10.1093](https://doi.org/10.1093/FAMPRA/CMW122) [/FAMPRA/CMW122](https://doi.org/10.1093/FAMPRA/CMW122). **Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. ![](https://assets.reachrx.ai/images/10.1007%E2%98%8Ds11882-025-01242-5/_page_13_Picture_23.jpeg)