Guida Giuseppe, Bagnasco Diego, Carriero Vitina, Bertolini Francesca, Ricciardolo Fabio Luigi Massimo, Nicola Stefania, Brussino Luisa, Nappi Emanuele, Paoletti Giovanni, Canonica Giorgio Walter, Heffler Enrico
Severe Asthma and Rare Lung Disease Unit, Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Allergy and Respiratory Diseases, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Department of Internal Medicine (DIMI), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Oct 10;9:969243. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.969243. eCollection 2022.
The advent of personalized medicine has revolutionized the whole approach to the management of asthma, representing the essential basis for future developments. The cornerstones of personalized medicine are the highest precision in diagnosis, individualized prediction of disease evolution, and patient-tailored treatment. To this aim, enormous efforts have been established to discover biomarkers able to predict patients' phenotypes according to clinical, functional, and bio-humoral traits. Biomarkers are objectively measured characteristics used as indicators of biological or pathogenic processes or clinical responses to specific therapeutic interventions. The diagnosis of type-2 asthma, prediction of response to type-2 targeted treatments, and evaluation of the risk of exacerbation and lung function impairment have been associated with biomarkers detectable either in peripheral blood or in airway samples. The surrogate nature of serum biomarkers, set up to be less invasive than sputum analysis or bronchial biopsies, has shown several limits concerning their clinical applicability. Routinely used biomarkers, like peripheral eosinophilia, total IgE, or exhaled nitric oxide, result, even when combined, to be not completely satisfactory in segregating different type-2 asthma phenotypes, particularly in the context of severe asthma where the choice among different biologics is compelling. Moreover, the type-2 low fraction of patients is not only an orphan of biological treatments but is at risk of being misdiagnosed due to the low negative predictive value of type-2 high biomarkers. Sputum inflammatory cell analysis, considered the highest specific biomarker in discriminating eosinophilic inflammation in asthma, and therefore elected as the gold standard in clinical trials and research models, demonstrated many limits in clinical applicability. Many factors may influence the measure of these biomarkers, such as corticosteroid intake, comorbidities, and environmental exposures or habits. Not least, biomarkers variability over time is a confounding factor leading to wrong clinical choices. In this narrative review, we try to explore many aspects concerning the role of routinely used biomarkers in asthma, applying a critical view over the "state of the art" and contemporarily offering an overview of the most recent evidence in this field.
个性化医疗的出现彻底改变了哮喘管理的整体方法,是未来发展的重要基础。个性化医疗的基石是诊断的最高精确度、疾病演变的个体化预测以及针对患者的定制治疗。为实现这一目标,人们付出了巨大努力来发现能够根据临床、功能和生物体液特征预测患者表型的生物标志物。生物标志物是客观测量的特征,用作生物或致病过程或对特定治疗干预的临床反应的指标。2型哮喘的诊断、对2型靶向治疗反应的预测以及加重风险和肺功能损害的评估与在外周血或气道样本中可检测到的生物标志物相关。血清生物标志物的替代性质(其设定为比痰液分析或支气管活检侵入性小)在临床适用性方面显示出若干局限性。常规使用的生物标志物,如外周血嗜酸性粒细胞增多、总IgE或呼出一氧化氮,即使联合使用,在区分不同的2型哮喘表型方面也并不完全令人满意,尤其是在严重哮喘的情况下,不同生物制剂之间的选择迫在眉睫。此外,2型低比例患者不仅缺乏生物治疗方法,而且由于2型高生物标志物的阴性预测值低而有被误诊的风险。痰液炎症细胞分析被认为是区分哮喘中嗜酸性粒细胞炎症的最高特异性生物标志物,因此在临床试验和研究模型中被选为金标准,但在临床适用性方面显示出许多局限性。许多因素可能影响这些生物标志物的测量,如皮质类固醇摄入、合并症以及环境暴露或习惯。同样重要的是,生物标志物随时间的变异性是导致错误临床选择的一个混杂因素。在这篇叙述性综述中,我们试图探讨常规使用的生物标志物在哮喘中的作用的诸多方面,对“现有技术水平”持批判性观点,同时概述该领域的最新证据。