Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Univ. Paris-Sud, INSERM, Equipe d'Epidémiologie Respiratoire Intégrative, CESP, 94807 Villejuif, France
Université de Paris, LIPADE, Paris, France.
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2020 Dec;7(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000632.
Identifying relevant asthma endotypes may be the first step towards improving asthma management. We aimed identifying respiratory endotypes in adults using a cluster analysis and to compare their clinical characteristics at follow-up.
The analysis was performed separately among current asthmatics (CA, n=402) and never asthmatics (NA, n=666) from the first follow-up of the French EGEA study (EGEA2). Cluster analysis jointly considered 4 demographic, 22 clinical/functional (respiratory symptoms, asthma treatments, lung function) and four blood biological (allergy-related, inflammation-related and oxidative stress-related biomarkers) characteristics at EGEA2. The clinical characteristics at follow-up (EGEA3) were compared according to the endotype identified at EGEA2.
We identified five respiratory endotypes, three among CA and two among NA: CA1 (n=53) with active treated adult-onset asthma, poor lung function, chronic cough and phlegm and dyspnoea, high body mass index, and high blood neutrophil count and fluorescent oxidation products level; CA2 (n=219) with mild asthma and rhinitis; CA3 (n=130) with inactive/mild untreated allergic childhood-onset asthma, high frequency of current smokers and low frequency of attacks of breathlessness at rest, and high IgE level; NA1 (n=489) asymptomatic, and NA2 (n=177) with respiratory symptoms, high blood neutrophil and eosinophil counts. CA1 had poor asthma control and high leptin level, CA2 had hyper-responsiveness and high interleukin (IL)-1Ra, IL-5, IL-7, IL-8, IL-10, IL-13 and TNF-α levels, and NA2 had high leptin and C reactive protein levels. Ten years later, asthmatics in CA1 had worse clinical characteristics whereas those in CA3 had better respiratory outcomes than CA2; NA in NA2 had more respiratory symptoms and higher rate of incident asthma than those in NA1.
These results highlight the interest to jointly consider clinical and biological characteristics in cluster analyses to identify endotypes among adults with or without asthma.
确定相关的哮喘表型可能是改善哮喘管理的第一步。我们旨在使用聚类分析确定成年人的呼吸表型,并比较其在随访时的临床特征。
这项分析分别在法国 EGEA 研究(EGEA2)的第一次随访中当前哮喘患者(CA,n=402)和从未患哮喘的患者(NA,n=666)中进行。聚类分析联合考虑了 4 个人口统计学、22 个临床/功能(呼吸道症状、哮喘治疗、肺功能)和 4 个血液生物学(与过敏相关、炎症相关和氧化应激相关的生物标志物)特征在 EGEA2 时的特点。根据在 EGEA2 时确定的表型,比较了随访时(EGEA3)的临床特征。
我们确定了五个呼吸表型,三个在 CA 中,两个在 NA 中:CA1(n=53),有活跃的成年起病哮喘、肺功能差、慢性咳嗽和咳痰、呼吸困难、高体重指数和高血中性粒细胞计数和荧光氧化产物水平;CA2(n=219),有轻度哮喘和鼻炎;CA3(n=130),患有不活跃/轻度未经治疗的过敏性儿童起病哮喘、当前吸烟者频率高、静息时呼吸困难发作频率低、IgE 水平高;NA1(n=489)无症状,NA2(n=177)有呼吸道症状、高血中性粒细胞和嗜酸性粒细胞计数。CA1 有较差的哮喘控制和较高的瘦素水平,CA2 有高反应性和高白细胞介素(IL)-1Ra、IL-5、IL-7、IL-8、IL-10、IL-13 和 TNF-α水平,而 NA2 有较高的瘦素和 C 反应蛋白水平。十年后,CA1 中的哮喘患者的临床特征较差,而 CA3 中的患者的呼吸结局好于 CA2;NA2 中的 NA 有更多的呼吸道症状和更高的新发哮喘率,高于 NA1。
这些结果强调了在聚类分析中联合考虑临床和生物学特征以确定有或没有哮喘的成年人的表型的重要性。