MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4200345900 · doi:10.22541/au.163863564.43452884/v1

Eosinophilic airway inflammation in patients with atopic dermatitis

2021· preprint· en· W4200345900 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Gail M. Gauvreau, Ruth P. Cusack, Whetstone CE, Nadia Alsaji, Karen Howie, Caitlin Stevens, Jennifer Wattie, Lesley Wiltshire, Jacob Howran, Paul M. O’Byrne, Roma Sehmi, Hermenio Lima

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAsthma and respiratory diseases
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAsthmaMethacholineAtopic dermatitisSputumAtopyAllergyEosinophilicPopulationSpirometryImmunologyInternal medicineRespiratory diseaseLungPathologyTuberculosis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Eosinophilic airway inflammation in patients with atopic dermatitisTo the Editor,Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder described as the first clinical manifestation of the atopic march leading to allergic asthma (AA) then allergic rhinitis (AR). AD, however, is not limited to childhood onset1, with some patients developing asthma first2. Most AD patients are reported to have airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR)3,4 airway eosinophilia5, and concurrent asthma. The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board approved this study. In cohort 1 we evaluated AHR and sputum eosinophils in AD patients (6 mild, 6 moderate-severe) but with no history of asthma, to determine if undiagnosed asthma was present in this population. AD patients were characterized using skin prick test (SPT) Eczema Area and Severity Index (EADI), Asthma Control (ACQ-5) and Leicester Cough (LSQ) questionnaires, spirometry, AHR, and sputum eosinophils, and compared to mild AA (n=14) with no history of AD. Refer to supplement for eligibility and methods. Neither group had used parenteral or oral anti-inflammatory therapy for >1 month. Twenty-one of the 26 patients had a history of AR with 9/21 (43%) reporting AR first in a ‘reverse atopic march’ sequence. AD had a significantly higher EASI score and methacholine PC20, and lower ACQ-5 score compared to AA (all p<0.01) (Table 1). Despite having no history or clinical diagnosis of asthma, 3/12 (25%) AD demonstrated AHR defined by methacholine PC20 <16mg/ml, with data from all AD patients showing negative correlations between methacholine PC20 versus blood eosinophils (r = -0.81, p = <0.01), EASI score (r = -0.74, p = <0.01), and a trend versus IgE (r = -0.53, p = 0.07). When AD patients were grouped by AHR present/absent, those with AHR had significantly higher EASI score (p = 0.02) and blood eosinophils (p<0.001) (Table 1). Furthermore, when AD patients were grouped as mild (n=6) or moderate-severe (n=6) by EASI score, those with AHR were all classified as moderate-severe. The difference in AHR was not explained by allergen sensitivity because the number of positive SPT for animal, mould, house dust mite, or pollen was similar between AD subgroups when divided by AHR present/absent, or by AD severity. Nine of 12 (75%) AD patients demonstrated sputum eosinophilia, as defined by ≥3%6, with levels similar to AA. In AD there was no relationship between sputum eosinophils versus methacholine PC20 or EASI score. We measured cough by LCQ to determine if sputum eosinophils in AD could be explained by eosinophilic bronchitis, however we found no relationship between LCQ score versus sputum eosinophils or blood eosinophils, and additionally there was no relationship between LCQ versus methacholine PC20 or EASI score. To further interrogate the concept of reverse atopic march, in cohort 2 we obtained biopsies of unaffected skin from the lower back of patients with moderate to severe AD (n=17), AA with no history of AD (n=14) and healthy controls (HC, n=15) to measure histological features common to AD. Internal controls showed lesional skin of AD had greater lymphocytic infiltration, epidermal thickening (both p<0.01) and spongiosis compared to their unaffected skin (p=0.04). (Table 2). In unaffected skin, lymphocytic infiltrate was significantly higher in AD versus AA (p=0.03) and HC (p = <0.01), with no difference between any groups for spongiosis, neutrophilic infiltration, vacuole numbers, or epidermal thickening. Eosinophils in unaffected skin were too infrequent for analysis. Notably, skin from AA was histologically similar to HC. Taken together, our observations from this small study suggest that allergic disorders can occur independently or in reverse order to that described by the atopic march. Furthermore, a significant proportion of patients with AD have AHR and eosinophilic airway inflammation indicating potential development of airways inflammatory disease including asthma.References1. Burgess JA, Dharmage SC, Byrnes GB, Matheson MC, Gurrin LC, Wharton CL, et al. Childhood eczema and asthma incidence and persistence: a cohort study from childhood to middle age. J Allergy Clin Immunol . 2008;122(2):280-5.2. Barberio G, Pajno G, Vita D, Caminiti L, Canonica G, Passalacqua G. Does a ‘reverse’atopic march exist? Allergy . 2008;63(12):1630-2.3. Corbo G, Ferrante E, Macciocchi B, Foresi A, De Angelis V, Fabrizi G, et al. Bronchial hyperresponsiveness in atopic dermatitis.Allergy . 1989;44(8):595-8.4. Barker AF, Hirshman CA, D’Silva R, Hanifin JM. Airway responsiveness in atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol . 1991;87(4):780-3.5. Kyllönen H, Malmberg P, Remitz A, Rytilä P, Metso T, Helenius I, et al. Respiratory symptoms, bronchial hyper‐responsiveness, and eosinophilic airway inflammation in patients with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis. Clinical & Experimental Allergy . 2006;36(2):192-7.6. Belda J, Leigh R, Parameswaran K, O’Byrne PM, Sears MR, Hargreave FE. Induced sputum cell counts in healthy adults. Am J Resp Crit Care Med . 2000;161(2):475-8.Cusack RP,Whetstone CE,Alsaji N,Howie KJ,Stevens C,Wattie J,Wiltshire L,Howran J,O’Byrne PM,Sehmi R,Lima H,Gauvreau GMDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CanadaConflict of InterestThe authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.No funding to report* Correspondence: Gail M GauvreauAddress: McMaster University, 1200 Main St W., HSC 3U31E, Hamilton, Ontario Canada L8N 3Z5Phone: 1-905-525-9140 ext 22791Email: gauvreau@mcmaster.caKeywords: asthma, atopic dermatitis, airway hyperresponsiveness, eosinophils, skin, inflammation

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,015

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,225
Écart entre enseignants0,218 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetAsthma and respiratory diseases→Travaux en français237 207→