Rhinology and Skull Base Research Group, St Vincent's Centre for Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
St Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2023 Jul;37(4):402-409. doi: 10.1177/19458924231155012. Epub 2023 Feb 5.
Central compartment atopic disease (CCAD) and eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (eCRS) are two clinical phenotypes of primary diffuse type 2 chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) defined in the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis 2020 classification. Currently, the distinction between these subtypes relies on phenotypic features alone.
This study aimed to investigate whether eosinophil activation differed between CCAD and eCRS.
A cross-sectional study was conducted of adult patients presenting with CCAD and eCRS who had undergone functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Routine pathology results were obtained from clinical records. Eosinophils were counted on haematoxylin and eosin-stained formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sinonasal tissue. Eotaxin-3, eosinophil peroxidase and immunoglobulin E levels were assessed using immunohistochemistry.
38 participants were included (51.7 ± 15.6 years, 47.4% female), of whom 36.8% were diagnosed with CCAD and 63.2% with eCRS. The eCRS group was characterised by older age (55.8 ± 16.3 vs 44.5 ± 11.8 years, = 0.029), and on histology exhibited a higher degree of tissue inflammation ( = 0.409, = 0.011), greater proportion of patients with >100 eosinophils/high power field (87.5% vs 50%, = 0.011), and higher absolute tissue eosinophil count (2141 ± 1947 vs 746 ± 519 cells/mm, = 0.013). Eotaxin-3 scores were higher in the eCRS group (5.00[5.00-6.00] vs 6.00[6.00-6.75], 0.015). Other outcomes were similar.
Eosinophil and eotaxin-3 levels were elevated in eCRS compared with CCAD, suggesting a greater degree of eosinophil stimulation and chemotaxis. Patients with CCAD were younger. Future investigation and biomarkers may better distinguish CRS subpopulations.
中央隔间特应性疾病(CCAD)和嗜酸性慢性鼻鼻窦炎(eCRS)是 2020 年欧洲鼻窦炎分类中定义的原发性弥漫性 2 型慢性鼻鼻窦炎(CRS)的两种临床表型。目前,这些亚型之间的区别仅依赖于表型特征。
本研究旨在探究 CCAD 和 eCRS 之间的嗜酸性粒细胞激活是否存在差异。
对接受功能性内镜鼻窦手术的成人 CCAD 和 eCRS 患者进行横断面研究。从临床记录中获取常规病理结果。在苏木精和伊红固定的石蜡包埋的鼻旁组织上计数嗜酸性粒细胞。使用免疫组织化学评估 eotaxin-3、嗜酸性粒细胞过氧化物酶和免疫球蛋白 E 水平。
共纳入 38 名参与者(51.7±15.6 岁,47.4%为女性),其中 36.8%诊断为 CCAD,63.2%诊断为 eCRS。eCRS 组年龄较大(55.8±16.3 岁比 44.5±11.8 岁, = 0.029),组织炎症程度更高( = 0.409, = 0.011),更多患者高倍视野中嗜酸性粒细胞计数>100(87.5%比 50%, = 0.011),组织嗜酸性粒细胞计数绝对值更高(2141±1947 比 746±519 细胞/mm, = 0.013)。eCRS 组 eotaxin-3 评分更高(5.00[5.00-6.00]比 6.00[6.00-6.75], = 0.015)。其他结果相似。
与 CCAD 相比,eCRS 中的嗜酸性粒细胞和 eotaxin-3 水平升高,提示嗜酸性粒细胞刺激和趋化作用更强。CCAD 患者更年轻。未来的研究和生物标志物可能更好地区分 CRS 亚群。