11 research outputs found
Π‘ΠΠ‘Π’ΠΠ Π‘ΠΠΠΠ©ΠΠ‘Π’ΠΠ ΠΠΠΠ ΠΠΠ ΠΠΠΠΠΠΠΠ Π ΠΠ«Π₯ΠΠ’ΠΠΠ¬ΠΠ«Π₯ ΠΠ£Π’Π―Π₯ Π£ ΠΠΠΠ ΠΠΠ«Π₯ ΠΠΠ¦ Π ΠΠΠΠ¬ΠΠ«Π₯ ΠΠ ΠΠΠ₯ΠΠΠΠ¬ΠΠΠ ΠΠ‘Π’ΠΠΠ
This review summarizes the results of studies on the composition of microbial communities in the airways of healthy individuals and patients with asthma. Modern molecular genetic technology of the microbial identification, which are based on a sequence determination of encoding proteins genes conserved regions. These regions form the 16s-subunit ribosomal RNA in microorganisms of different species. These genes are detected by sequencing markers characteristic of individual microorganisms and their phylogenetic groups, and allow to perform a deep analysis of the microbiota in healthy volunteers and patients with chronic bronchoobstructive diseases. So, apparently healthy human bronchial tree is characterized by low bacterial contamination (most typical representatives here are the genera Pseudomonas, Streptococcus, Prevotella, Fusobacteria and Veilonella, much less potentially pathogenic Haemophilus and Neisseria are represented). In bronchial asthma patients the lower respiratory tract microbiota undergoes a qualitative transformation: as compared to healthy individuals the number of Proteobacteria increases and the number of Bacteroidetes decreases. Severe asthma in children is associated with significant respiratory tract Staphylococcus spp. insemination. Association between the asthma developing higher risk in young children and organisms such as Haemophilus, Moraxella and Neisseria spp. It is of considerable interest to determine the role of the microbiome in the development of human diseases of the bronchopulmonary system, and to understand the impact of the microbes communities as a course of disease and the important factor for the development of resistance to therapy.Π ΠΎΠ±Π·ΠΎΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅Π½Ρ ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎ ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π° ΡΠΎΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π° ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠ² Π² Π΄ΡΡ
Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΡΡΡ
Π·Π΄ΠΎΡΠΎΠ²ΡΡ
Π»ΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Ρ Π±ΡΠΎΠ½Ρ
ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π°ΡΡΠΌΠΎΠΉ. Π‘ΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈ ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠ² ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Ρ Π½Π° ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ²Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ² Π³Π΅Π½ΠΎΠ², ΠΊΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡΡΠΈΡ
Π±Π΅Π»ΠΊΠΈ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠΈΡΡΡΡ 16s-ΡΡΠ±ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΡ ΡΠΈΠ±ΠΎΡΠΎΠΌΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ½ΡΠΊΠ»Π΅ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠΈΡΠ»ΠΎΡΡ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠ² ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π²ΠΈΠ΄ΠΎΠ². ΠΠ°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π³Π΅Π½Ρ ΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡΡ Π²ΡΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΠ΅ΡΡ, Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΎΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠ² ΠΈ ΠΈΡ
ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π³ΡΡΠΏΠΏ, ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΡ Π²ΡΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΈΡΡ Π³Π»ΡΠ±ΠΎΠΊΠΈΠΉ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠ° ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Ρ Π·Π΄ΠΎΡΠΎΠ²ΡΡ
Π΄ΠΎΠ±ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π², ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ Ρ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌΠΈ Π±ΡΠΎΠ½Ρ
ΠΎΠΎΠ±ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ. Π’Π°ΠΊ, Ρ ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈ Π·Π΄ΠΎΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠ° Π±ΡΠΎΠ½Ρ
ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ Π΄Π΅ΡΠ΅Π²ΠΎ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ·ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π±Π°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ (Π½Π°ΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΡΠΈΠΏΠΈΡΠ½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΡΡΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΠΈ ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² Pseudomonas, Streptococcus, Prevotella, Fusobacteria ΠΈ Veilonella, Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΠΆΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Haemophilus ΠΈ Neisseria). Π£ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π±ΡΠΎΠ½-Ρ
ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π°ΡΡΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΠ° Π½ΠΈΠΆΠ½ΠΈΡ
Π΄ΡΡ
Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π²Π΅ΡΠ³Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ: ΠΏΠΎ ΡΡΠ°Π²Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΎ Π·Π΄ΠΎΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΠΈ-Π²ΠΈΠ΄ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ Proteobacteria ΡΠ²Π΅Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ, Π° Bacteroidetes β ΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ. Π’ΡΠΆΠ΅Π»Π°Ρ Π±ΡΠΎΠ½Ρ
ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½Π°Ρ Π°ΡΡΠΌΠ° Ρ Π΄Π΅ΡΠ΅ΠΉ Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π° ΡΠΎ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ Π΄ΡΡ
Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ Staphylococcus spp. Π’Π°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±Π½Π°ΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½Π° Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°ΡΠΈΡ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ Π²ΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ° ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ Π°ΡΡ-ΠΌΡ Ρ Π΄Π΅ΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΠ°Π½Π½Π΅Π³ΠΎ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ° ΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°ΠΌΠΈ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Haemophilus, Moraxella ΠΈ Neisseria spp. ΠΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»ΡΡΡ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠ° Π² ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π±ΡΠΎΠ½Ρ
ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π³ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠ°, ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ Π²Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΡ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΠΎΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ² Π½Π° ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½ΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΊ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ.
ΠΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠ±ΠΈΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈ Π² ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ Ρ ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½ΠΈ Π»Π΅Π³ΠΊΠΈΡ Π² Π·Π°Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΎΡ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΡΠΈΠΏΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ
Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by progressive limitation of airflow rate, hyperergic inflammatory response of the respiratory tract, and systemic manifestations. Prognosis of the disease depends on the severity of these pathogenetic components. FEV1 which characterizes the speed limit airflow do not allow predicting the rate of COPD progression. Aims: comparison of the prognostic significance of such clinical parameters as frequency of exacerbations and the development of comorbid diseases to assess the nature of COPD progression by using different classification approaches. Materials and methods: The prospective comparative study included 98 patients with COPD. In the framework of the study protocol, 2 visits were required when a practitioner recruited patients who met inclusion/exclusion criteria, obtained the signed informed consent, collected the anamnestic data, and performed basic procedures of the study: spirometry, 6-minute stepper test, assessment of dyspnea on questionnaire mMRC, body plethysmography, lung diffusion capacity study, dopplerechocardiography, tomography of the chest. Visit 2 was conducted in 12 months after the first one to assess the dynamics of the disease. The dynamics of the disease was considered negative if, upon repeated examination, the patient was referred to the group with more severe COPD. Results: Our study demonstrates that comprehensive assessment of such factors as the frequency of COPD exacerbations in the preceding 12 months and the presence of comorbid diseases in a patient is reasonable for assessment of disease severity and determination of disease prognosis. At the same time the frequency of COPD exacerbations as one of the evaluated factors is most strongly associated with disease progression. Conclusions: Thus, a practitioner is recommended to use the proposed additional clinical criteria to assess the severity and degree of progression of COPD.ΠΠ±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅. Π₯ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½Π°Ρ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½Ρ Π»Π΅Π³ΠΊΠΈΡ
(Π₯ΠΠΠ) β Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΡΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π΄ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠΊΠ°, Π³ΠΈΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ Π²ΠΎΡΠΏΠ°Π»ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠΎΠΌ Π΄ΡΡ
Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΠΈ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ. ΠΡ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅Π½ΠΈ Π²ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ½Π΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Π·Π°Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΠ· ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½ΠΎ, ΡΡΠΎ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π΄ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠΊΠ° (ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΄ΠΎΡ
Π° Π·Π° ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠ½Π΄Ρ) Π½Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ΅Ρ Ρ Π²ΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π²Π΅ΡΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΡ ΡΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π₯ΠΠΠ.Π¦Π΅Π»Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ: ΡΡΠ°Π²Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΠ° ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠ±ΠΈΠ΄Π½ΡΡ
Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ, Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠΈ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π₯ΠΠΠ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ².ΠΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ. ΠΠ° ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»Π° Π² ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΡΡΠ°Π²Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½Ρ 98 Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π₯ΠΠΠ. Π ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΊΠ°Ρ
ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»Π° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠΌΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎ 2 Π²ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠ°, Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΡ ΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠ° ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΌ Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ/ΠΈΡΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ, ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠ³Π»Π°ΡΠΈΡ, ΡΠ±ΠΎΡ Π°Π½Π°ΠΌΠ½Π΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΈ Π²ΡΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ (ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠ° ΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ Π²Π½Π΅ΡΠ½Π΅Π³ΠΎ Π΄ΡΡ
Π°Π½ΠΈΡ, 6-ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΠ°Π³ΠΎΠ²ΡΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΡ, ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠ° ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΏΠΎ ΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊΡ mMRC, Π±ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΏΠ»Π΅ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ, ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π΄ΠΈΡΡΡΠ·ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π»Π΅Π³ΠΊΠΈΡ
, Π΄ΠΎΠΏΠΏΠ»Π΅ΡΡΡ
ΠΎΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΄ΠΈΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ, ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π°Ρ ΡΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΎΠ² Π³ΡΡΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠ»Π΅ΡΠΊΠΈ). ΠΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΉ Π²ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ»ΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π· 12 ΠΌΠ΅Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Ρ ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠΈ Π΄ΠΈΠ½Π°ΠΌΠΈΠΊΠΈ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ°Ρ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡ ΠΎΡΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ, Π΅ΡΠ»ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠΈ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π° Π½Π°Π±Π»ΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠ° ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Π² Π³ΡΡΠΏΠΏΡ Π₯ΠΠΠ Ρ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π»ΡΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ. ΠΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠ±ΠΈΠ΄Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΡΡ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΠ½Π΄Π΅ΠΊΡΠ° ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅Π»Π° ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π΅ 21, Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΎΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ·Π°, Π°Π½Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΈ, ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΡΠΎΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡΡ
Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ, ΡΠ·Π²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½ΠΈ ΠΆΠ΅Π»ΡΠ΄ΠΊΠ°, ΡΠ°Ρ
Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π΄ΠΈΠ°Π±Π΅ΡΠ° 2-Π³ΠΎ ΡΠΈΠΏΠ°.Π Π΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ. ΠΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ΅ Π½Π°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΡΠ²ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΡΠΎΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ², ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΠ° ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π₯ΠΠΠ Π·Π° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡΠΈΠ΅ 12 ΠΌΠ΅Ρ ΠΈ Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠ±ΠΈΠ΄Π½ΡΡ
Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Ρ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π΅Π³ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΠ·Π°. ΠΡΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΠ° ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π₯ΠΠΠ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅ΠΌΡΡ
ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ² Π½Π°ΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΡΠΈΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ²ΡΠ·Π°Π½Π° Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ.ΠΠ°ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅. Π’Π°ΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·ΠΎΠΌ, ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌΡ Π²ΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½Ρ Π΄ΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΈ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠΈ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅Π½ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π₯ΠΠΠ
Π‘ΡΠ°Π²Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π³Π΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΡ Ρ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΡΡ Ρ ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½ΡΡ Π»Π΅Π³ΠΊΠΈΡ ΠΈ Π±ΡΠΎΠ½Ρ ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π°ΡΡΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅Π½ΠΈ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠΈ
Backgraund:Β The result of comparative study of oropharyngeal microbiota taxonomic composition in patients with different severity level of bronchial asthma (BA) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is presented in this paper.Β Aims:Β To compare oropharyngeal microbiota composition in case of bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in different severity levels.Β Metods:Β 138 patients, 50 with BA and 88 with COPD were studied. For each patient was collected anamnesis vitae, swab from the back of the throat and performed physical examination. High-throughput 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing and bioinformatic analysis was employed to characterize the microbial communities.Β Results:Β As a result of the study was found a number of differences on various taxonomic levels in microbiotaβs composition within group of patients with different severity level of BA and group of patients with different severity level of COPD and between those groups. COPD patients with GOLD 1β2 in comparison with GOLD 3β4 patiens are marked by prevalence of species Brevibacterium aureum, genus Scardovia, Coprococcus, Haemophilus, Moryella, Dialister, Paludibacter and decrease of Prevotella melaninogenica species. BA patients with severe uncontrolled asthma in comparison with patients which have mild persistent asthma are marked by decrease of Prevotella and increase of species Bifidobacterium longum, Prevotella nanceiensis, Neisseria cinerea, Aggregatibacter segnis and genus Odoribacter, Alloiococcus, Lactobacillus, Megasphaera, Parvimonas, Sneathia. Patientβs microbiota in BA group in comparison with COPD group is characterized by the prevalence of Prevotella melaninogenica and genus Selenomonas, Granulicatella ΠΈ Gemella, and decrease of Prevotella nigrescens, Haemophilus influenza and genus Aggregatibacter, Alloiococcus, Catonella, Mycoplasma, Peptoniphilus ΠΈ Sediminibacterium. There are no differences between microbiota composition in case of severe uncontrolled BA and very severe COPD.Β Conclusion:Β Lack of differences in oropharyngeal microbiota taxonomic composition between patients with severe uncontrolled BA and very severe COPD allow us to suggest a similarity of bronchopulmonary system condition in case of diseases' severe stages.ΠΠ±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅.Β Π₯Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π³Π΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΈ Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½ΠΈ Π»Π΅Π³ΠΊΠΈΡ
(Π₯ΠΠΠ) ΠΈ Π±ΡΠΎΠ½Ρ
ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π°ΡΡΠΌΠ΅ (ΠΠ) Π² Π·Π°Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΎΡ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π°ΠΊΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π·Π°Π΄Π°ΡΠ΅ΠΉ, ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡ ΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΡΡ ΡΠΎΠ»Ρ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΡ Π² ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π΅Π·Π΅.Β Π¦Π΅Π»Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ:Β ΡΡΠ°Π²Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π° ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π³Π΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΈ Π₯ΠΠΠ ΠΈ ΠΠ ΡΠ°Π·Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅Π½ΠΈ Π²ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠΈΠΌΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ².Β ΠΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ.Β Π ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½Ρ 138 Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
, ΠΈΠ· Π½ΠΈΡ
88 Ρ Π₯ΠΠΠ, 50 β Ρ ΠΠ. ΠΠ»Ρ ΠΊΠ°ΠΆΠ΄ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠ° Π±ΡΠ» ΡΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π½ Π°Π½Π°ΠΌΠ½Π΅Π· ΠΆΠΈΠ·Π½ΠΈ, ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΎ ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ ΠΌΠ°Π·ΠΎΠΊ ΠΈΠ· ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π³Π΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠ±Π»Π°ΡΡΠΈ. ΠΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ Π³Π΅Π½ΠΎΠ² Π±Π°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ 16SΒ ΡΠ ΠΠ Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΡΡΠΈΠΌ Π±ΠΈΠΎΠΈΠ½ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΠΈ ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠΌ.Β Π Π΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ.Β ΠΡΠΈ ΡΡΠ°Π²Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π΅ Π±ΡΠ»ΠΈ Π½Π°ΠΉΠ΄Π΅Π½Ρ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡ Π² ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠ². ΠΠ»Ρ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΡ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π₯ΠΠΠ 1β2-ΠΉ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅Π½ΠΈ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠΈ Π² ΡΡΠ°Π²Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Ρ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ Π₯ΠΠΠ 3β4-ΠΉ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅Π½ΠΈ Π½Π° ΡΠΎΠ½Π΅ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈPrevotellaΒ melaninogenicaΒ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ Π²ΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅Β BrevibacteriumΒ aureumΒ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ ΡΠΎΠ΄Π°Β Scardovia,Β Coprococcus,Β Haemophilus,Β Moryella,Β DialisterΒ ΠΈΒ Paludibacter. ΠΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΠ° ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Ρ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠΉ ΠΠ Π² ΡΡΠ°Π²Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Ρ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡΠΈ Π»Π΅Π³ΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠΎΠ½Π΅ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ Π±Π°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΉ ΡΠΎΠ΄Π°Β PrevotellaΒ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ·ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ Π²ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΡΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌΒ BifidobacteriumΒ longum,Β PrevotellaΒ nanceiensis,Β NeisseriaΒ cinerea,Β AggregatibacterΒ segnis, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ ΡΠΎΠ΄Π°Β Odoribacter,Β Alloiococcus,Β Lactobacillus,Β Megasphaera,Β ParvimonasΒ ΠΈΒ Sneathia. ΠΡΠΈ ΡΡΠ°Π²Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΡ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΠ ΠΈ Π₯ΠΠΠ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Ρ ΠΠ ΠΎΡΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ Π²ΡΡΠΎΠΊΠ°Ρ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΒ P.Β melaninogenicaΒ ΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠ² ΡΠΎΠ΄Π°Β Selenomonas,Β Granulicatella,Β Gemella, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅Β PrevotellaΒ nigrescens,Β HaemophilusΒ influenzaeΒ ΠΈΒ Aggregatibacter,Β Alloiococcus,Β Catonella,Β Mycoplasma,Β Peptoniphilus,Β Sediminibacterium. ΠΡΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡ Π² ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π΅ ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π³Π΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΡ Ρ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΠΠ ΠΈ Π₯ΠΠΠ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½Ρ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π΅ Π²ΡΡΠ²Π»Π΅Π½Ρ.ΠΠ°ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅.Β ΠΡΡΡΡΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΉ Π² Π±Π°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ½Π³Π΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΎΡΡ Ρ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Ρ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π»ΡΠΌΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΠΌΠΈ Π₯ΠΠΠ ΠΈ ΠΠ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ΅Ρ Π²ΡΡΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎ ΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠ²Π΅ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΡ Π±ΡΠΎΠ½Ρ
ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π³ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π»ΡΡ
ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΡ
ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΡΡ
Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ
The airways microbial community composition in healthy individuals and bronchial asthma patients
This review summarizes the results of studies on the composition of microbial communities in the airways of healthy individuals and patients with asthma. Modern molecular genetic technology of the microbial identification, which are based on a sequence determination of encoding proteins genes conserved regions. These regions form the 16s-subunit ribosomal RNA in microorganisms of different species. These genes are detected by sequencing markers characteristic of individual microorganisms and their phylogenetic groups, and allow to perform a deep analysis of the microbiota in healthy volunteers and patients with chronic bronchoobstructive diseases. So, apparently healthy human bronchial tree is characterized by low bacterial contamination (most typical representatives here are the genera Pseudomonas, Streptococcus, Prevotella, Fusobacteria and Veilonella, much less potentially pathogenic Haemophilus and Neisseria are represented). In bronchial asthma patients the lower respiratory tract microbiota undergoes a qualitative transformation: as compared to healthy individuals the number of Proteobacteria increases and the number of Bacteroidetes decreases. Severe asthma in children is associated with significant respiratory tract Staphylococcus spp. insemination. Association between the asthma developing higher risk in young children and organisms such as Haemophilus, Moraxella and Neisseria spp. It is of considerable interest to determine the role of the microbiome in the development of human diseases of the bronchopulmonary system, and to understand the impact of the microbes communities as a course of disease and the important factor for the development of resistance to therapy
Microbiological oropharyngeal patterns in patients with different phenotypes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Persistent bronchial inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is considered the cause of ventilation disorders and related contamination with conditionally pathogenic microorganisms; the latter can proceed and transform into a full infection, which can aggravate and exacerbate COPD. The aim of the study was to evaluate the relations between the oropharyngeal microbiota in patients with COPD and the clinical, functional, and prognostic parameters of the disease. Materials and Methods. 64 patients with COPD were included in the study; the participants were scheduled to visit our clinic on two occasions. In the first visit, their medical history was studied in detail and the major examination procedures were conducted. Those included an assessment of the respiratory function, the 6-minute walk test, the degree of dyspnea by the Medical Research Council scale, body plethysmography, the diffusion capacity of the lungs, and a chest CT scan. The second visit took place 12 months after the first one to assess the changes in the course of the disease. The result was considered negative if, in the second examination, the patientβs condition was found more severe. Oropharyngeal samples of all patients were sequenced to identify the V3βV4 variable sites of the 16S rRNA gene. Results. It is found that the microbiological oropharyngeal patterns in COPD patients depend on the source of micro-aspiration. In addition, the changes in the oropharyngeal microbiota correlate with the severity and prognosis of the disease, as well as the patient phenotype. Based on the data obtained by sequencing parts of the 16S rRNA gene, the role of oropharyngeal microbiota in determining the course and prognosis of COPD has been elucidated. Conclusion. The presented clinical and functional characteristics associated with oropharyngeal microbiota indicate that microaspirations from other body compartments not only affect the composition of oropharyngeal microbiota in patients with COPD but also have an important prognostic significance. Β© 2018, Nizhny Novgorod State Medical Academy. All rights reserved
Microbiological oropharyngeal patterns in patients with different phenotypes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Persistent bronchial inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is considered the cause of ventilation disorders and related contamination with conditionally pathogenic microorganisms; the latter can proceed and transform into a full infection, which can aggravate and exacerbate COPD. The aim of the study was to evaluate the relations between the oropharyngeal microbiota in patients with COPD and the clinical, functional, and prognostic parameters of the disease. Materials and Methods. 64 patients with COPD were included in the study; the participants were scheduled to visit our clinic on two occasions. In the first visit, their medical history was studied in detail and the major examination procedures were conducted. Those included an assessment of the respiratory function, the 6-minute walk test, the degree of dyspnea by the Medical Research Council scale, body plethysmography, the diffusion capacity of the lungs, and a chest CT scan. The second visit took place 12 months after the first one to assess the changes in the course of the disease. The result was considered negative if, in the second examination, the patientβs condition was found more severe. Oropharyngeal samples of all patients were sequenced to identify the V3βV4 variable sites of the 16S rRNA gene. Results. It is found that the microbiological oropharyngeal patterns in COPD patients depend on the source of micro-aspiration. In addition, the changes in the oropharyngeal microbiota correlate with the severity and prognosis of the disease, as well as the patient phenotype. Based on the data obtained by sequencing parts of the 16S rRNA gene, the role of oropharyngeal microbiota in determining the course and prognosis of COPD has been elucidated. Conclusion. The presented clinical and functional characteristics associated with oropharyngeal microbiota indicate that microaspirations from other body compartments not only affect the composition of oropharyngeal microbiota in patients with COPD but also have an important prognostic significance. Β© 2018, Nizhny Novgorod State Medical Academy. All rights reserved
Obligatory medical prescription of antibiotics in Russia: Navigating formal and informal health-care infrastructures
Practical recommendations for choosing an immunobiological preparation for the treatment of severe bronchial asthma of T2-endotype
Β© 2020 Medical Education. All rights reserved. Biological therapy of bronchial asthma (BA) is a modern method of treating severe forms of the disease, that are uncontrolled by traditional pharmacotherapeutic approaches. Currently, 5 monoclonal antibody (AT) preparations are registered in the world for the treatment of severe bronchial asthma (SBA) of the T2 endotype (T2-SBA) - antibodies, binding to immunoglobulin (Ig) E (anti-IgE - omalizumab), interleukin antagonists (IL)-5 (anti-IL-5 - mepolizumab, resizumab) and its receptor (anti-IL-5RΞ± - benralizumab), as well as antibodies, that selectively bind to the IL-4 and -13 receptor (anti-IL-4 /13RΞ± - dupilumab). The article presents data on the effectiveness of these drugs in relation to the key characteristics of SBA, formulates clinical and laboratory criteria, the study of which in real practice can potentially predict the likelihood of a clinical response to a particular type of biological therapy. An algorithm is proposed for choosing a targeted therapy strategy for patients with SBA, clinically associated with allergies, for patients with severe non-allergic eosinophilic BA and for patients with eosinophilic BA of a combined phenotype