26 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Race is associated with differences in airway inflammation in patients with asthma
BackgroundAfrican American subjects have a greater burden from asthma compared with white subjects. Whether the pattern of airway inflammation differs between African American and white subjects is unclear.ObjectiveWe sought to compare sputum airway inflammatory phenotypes of African American and white subjects treated or not with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; ICS+ and ICS-, respectively).MethodsWe performed a secondary analysis of self-identified African American and white subjects with asthma enrolled in clinical trials conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored Asthma Clinical Research Network and AsthmaNet. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and sputum cytology after sputum induction were examined. We used a sputum eosinophil 2% cut point to define subjects with either an eosinophilic (≥2%) or noneosinophilic (<2%) inflammatory phenotype.ResultsAmong 1018 participants, African American subjects (n = 264) had a lower FEV1 percent predicted (80% vs 85%, P < .01), greater total IgE levels (197 vs 120 IU/mL, P < .01), and a greater proportion with uncontrolled asthma (43% vs 28%, P < .01) compared with white subjects (n = 754). There were 922 subjects in the ICS+ group (248 African American and 674 white subjects) and 298 subjects in the ICS- group (49 African American and 249 white subjects). Eosinophilic airway inflammation was not significantly different between African American and white subjects in either group (percentage with eosinophilic phenotype: ICS+ group: 19% vs 16%, P = .28; ICS- group: 39% vs 35%, P = .65; respectively). However, when adjusted for confounding factors, African American subjects were more likely to exhibit eosinophilic airway inflammation than white subjects in the ICS+ group (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.48; P = .046) but not in the ICS- group (P = .984).ConclusionAfrican American subjects exhibit greater eosinophilic airway inflammation, which might explain the greater asthma burden in this population
Recommended from our members
Persistent mucus plugs in proximal airways are consequential for airflow limitation in asthma
BACKGROUNDInformation about the size, airway location, and longitudinal behavior of mucus plugs in asthma is needed to understand their role in mechanisms of airflow obstruction and to rationally design muco-active treatments.METHODSCT lung scans from 57 patients with asthma were analyzed to quantify mucus plug size and airway location, and paired CT scans obtained 3 years apart were analyzed to determine plug behavior over time. Radiologist annotations of mucus plugs were incorporated in an image-processing pipeline to generate size and location information that was related to measures of airflow.RESULTSThe length distribution of 778 annotated mucus plugs was multimodal, and a 12 mm length defined short ("stubby", ≤12 mm) and long ("stringy", >12 mm) plug phenotypes. High mucus plug burden was disproportionately attributable to stringy mucus plugs. Mucus plugs localized predominantly to airway generations 6-9, and 47% of plugs in baseline scans persisted in the same airway for 3 years and fluctuated in length and volume. Mucus plugs in larger proximal generations had greater effects on spirometry measures than plugs in smaller distal generations, and a model of airflow that estimates the increased airway resistance attributable to plugs predicted a greater effect for proximal generations and more numerous mucus plugs.CONCLUSIONPersistent mucus plugs in proximal airway generations occur in asthma and demonstrate a stochastic process of formation and resolution over time. Proximal airway mucus plugs are consequential for airflow and are in locations amenable to treatment by inhaled muco-active drugs or bronchoscopy.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicaltrials.gov; NCT01718197, NCT01606826, NCT01750411, NCT01761058, NCT01761630, NCT01716494, and NCT01760915.FUNDINGAstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Genzyme-Regeneron, and TEVA provided financial support for study activities at the Coordinating and Clinical Centers beyond the third year of patient follow-up. These companies had no role in study design or data analysis, and the only restriction on the funds was that they be used to support the SARP initiative