4 years ago

Association of sputum and blood eosinophil concentrations with clinical measures of COPD severity: an analysis of the SPIROMICS cohort

Increased concentrations of eosinophils in blood and sputum in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been associated with increased frequency of exacerbations, reduced lung function, and corticosteroid responsiveness. We aimed to assess whether high eosinophil concentrations in either sputum or blood are associated with a severe COPD phenotype, including greater exacerbation frequency, and whether blood eosinophils are predictive of sputum eosinophils. Methods We did a multicentre observational study analysing comprehensive baseline data from SPIROMICS in patients with COPD aged 40–80 years who had a smoking history of at least 20 pack-years, recruited from six clinical sites and additional subsites in the USA between Nov 12, 2010, and April 21, 2015. Inclusion criteria for this analysis were SPIROMICS baseline visit data with complete blood cell counts and, in a subset, acceptable sputum counts. We stratified patients on the basis of blood and sputum eosinophil concentrations and compared their demographic characteristics, as well as results from questionnaires, clinical assessments, and quantitative CT (QCT). We also analysed whether blood eosinophil concentrations reliably predicted sputum eosinophil concentrations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01969344). Findings Of the 2737 patients recruited to SPIROMICS, 2499 patients were smokers and had available blood counts, and so were stratified by mean blood eosinophil count: 1262 patients with low (<200 cells per μL) and 1237 with high (≥200 cells per μL) blood eosinophil counts. 827 patients were eligible for stratification by mean sputum eosinophil percentage: 656 with low (<1·25%) and 171 with high (≥1·25%) sputum eosinophil percentages. The high sputum eosinophil group had significantly lower median FEV1 percentage predicted than the low sputum eosinophil group both before (65·7% [IQR 51·8–81·3] vs 75·7% [59·3–90·2], p<0·0001) and after (77·3% [63·1–88·5] vs 82·9% [67·8–95·9], p=0·001) bronchodilation. QCT density measures for emphysema and air trapping were significantly higher in the high sputum eosinophil group than the low sputum eosinophil group. Exacerbations requiring corticosteroids treatment were more common in the high versus low sputum eosinophil group (p=0·002). FEV1 percentage predicted was significantly different between low and high blood eosinophil groups, but differences were less than those observed between the sputum groups. The high blood eosinophil group had slightly increased airway wall thickness (0·02 mm difference, p=0·032), higher St George Respiratory Questionnaire symptom scores (p=0·037), and increased wheezing (p=0·018), but no evidence of an association with COPD exacerbations (p=0·35) or the other indices of COPD severity, such as emphysema measured by CT density, COPD assessment test scores, Body-mass index, airflow Obstruction, Dyspnea, and Exercise index, or Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage. Blood eosinophil counts showed a weak but significant association with sputum eosinophil counts (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0·64, p<0·0001), but with a high false-discovery rate of 72%. Interpretation In a large, well characterised cohort of former and current smoking patients with a broad range of COPD severity, high concentrations of sputum eosinophils were a better biomarker than high concentrations of blood eosinophils to identify a patient subgroup with more severe disease, more frequent exacerbations, and increased emphysema by QCT. Blood eosinophils alone were not a reliable biomarker for COPD severity or exacerbations, or for sputum eosinophils. Clinical trials targeting eosinophilic inflammation in COPD should consider assessing sputum eosinophils. -Abstract Truncated-

Publisher URL: www.sciencedirect.com/science

DOI: S2213260017304320

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.