High blood eosinophil count is associated with more frequent asthma attacks in asthma patients

Objective: This study aimed to explore the usefulness of the peripheral blood eosinophil count (PBEC) in assessing the level of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and predicting bronchodilation test results. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 384 outpatients who underwent FeNO measurement at our Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine from March to June 2019. The FeNO level was compared among different PBECs to explore the association among them. Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity of PBECs in predicting bronchodilation test results were assessed by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: There was a moderate correlation between PBECs and FeNO levels (r = 0.414; p < 0.05). In the subjects with PBECs ≥ 0.3 × 109/L, the median FeNO level was 39 ppb (interquartile range, 22.5‐65.5 ppb), significantly higher than in the subjects with PBECs < 0.3 × 109/L. The area under the ROC curve was 0.707 (p < 0.05). The maximum Youden index (0.348) was at PBECs = 0.205 × 109/L, which achieved sensitivity and specificity of 63% and 71.8%, respectively. Conclusion: PBECs ≥ 0.3 × 109/L can predict a positive bronchodilation test result and a high FeNO level, with a probability of 50% in the subjects with chronic cough and shortness of breath; in the absence of corresponding symptoms and a low PBEC, the predictive value was small. For hospitals not able to conduct FeNO measurements, for outpatients with poor economic conditions, and for patients with confirmed or suspected novel coronavirus disease 2019, the PBEC, in conjunction with a patient's clinical symptoms, can improve the diagnostic accuracy of allergic asthma and assessment of airway inflammation while reducing the risk of infection.

Download Full-text

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab and Benralizumab in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Asthma: A Systematic Review

International Journal of Molecular Sciences ◽

10.3390/ijms21030889 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 21 (3) ◽

pp. 889 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Koichi Ando ◽

Akihiko Tanaka ◽

Hironori Sagara

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Eosinophil Count ◽

Blood Eosinophil ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Exacerbation Rate ◽

Blood Eosinophil Count ◽

Indirect Treatment Comparison ◽

Treatment Comparison ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Indirect Treatment

No head-to-head trials have compared the efficacy and safety between the licensed dosage and administration dosage of dupilumab and benralizumab for inadequately controlled asthma. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison to estimate differences in the efficacy and safety between dupilumab and benralizumab for inadequately controlled asthma using the Bayesian approach. The primary efficacy endpoint was annual exacerbation rate (AER). A subgroup analysis by blood eosinophil count was also performed. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of any adverse events (AAEs). The results demonstrate that there was no significant difference in the AER between dupilumab and benralizumab in overall patients and the subgroup with the blood eosinophil count of <150. However, the AER was significantly lower in the dupilumab group than in the benralizumab group in the subgroup with a blood eosinophil count of ≥150 but <300, and ≥300 with the rate ratio and 95% credible interval of 0.51 (0.29–0.92) and 0.58 (0.39–0.84), respectively. There was no significant difference in the AAEs between the dupilumab and benralizumab groups. This indirect treatment comparison indicates that dupilumab is superior to benralizumab in patients with inadequately controlled asthma having higher blood eosinophil counts. A direct comparison is required to provide definitive evidence. Systematic Review Registration: UMIN-CTR no. UMIN000036256.

Download Full-text