Global research trends and therapeutic evolution of biologic agents in allergic rhinitis: A bibliometric analysis

Abstract: Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated inflammatory disorder. Biologic agents are increasingly discussed for severe or refractory AR, but the global publication landscape and therapeutic evolution of this topic remain incompletely characterized. Objectives: To map global research trends, contributors, collaboration patterns and evolving biologic targets in AR from 2000 to 2025. Methods: English-language articles were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection using Boolean combinations of AR-related and biologic-agent terms. VOSviewer and the Bibliometrix R package were used to analyze publication growth, journals, countries, institutions, co-authorship, co-citation, bibliographic coupling and keyword co-occurrence. Results: A total of 546 articles were included. Publication output increased sharply after 2019 and reached 48 articles in 2022; the exploratory linear model showed moderate fit (R2=0.5599). The United States had the highest publication count (142) and citations (7871), followed by China (68) and Japan (47). The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology was the leading source (42 articles; 3720 cited-journal occurrences). Omalizumab was the most prominent biologic keyword (189 occurrences) and anchored the central anti-IgE/allergic-rhinitis coupling cluster (centrality 0.52; impact 3.74), probably reflecting its early anti-IgE rationale, long clinical experience and evidence base. Dupilumab showed a strong recent temporal signal (45 occurrences), while mepolizumab, benralizumab and newer agents such as tezepelumab, itepekimab and stapokibart remained less represented. Conclusion: Research on biologic agents for AR is expanding from anti-IgE-dominated studies toward type 2 endotype-based and personalized approaches. Bibliometric prominence should not be interpreted as direct therapeutic superiority and future AR-specific studies should evaluate long-term safety, cost-effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes.