M Dogru1, R G Yesiltepe Mutlu2. 1. Zeynep Kamil Woman's and Children's Diseases Training and Research Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: mdmahmut@yahoo.com. 2. Zeynep Kamil Woman's and Children's Diseases Training and Research Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a test used to evaluate the systemic inflammation. There is little knowledge about the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in asthmatics. In our study, we aimed to evaluate NLR and to assess its relationship with clinical parameters in children with asthma. METHODS: Four hundred and sixty-nine children diagnosed with asthma and followed in our hospital were included in the study. The control group included 170 children with no evidence of allergic disease (i.e. asthma, allergic rhinitis, eczema) or infection. Skin prick tests were performed using the same antigens for all patients. The immunoglobulin E levels and complete blood count were measured. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups with regard to gender and age. Mean NLR was 2.07±1.41 in the study group and 1.77±1.71 in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (p=0.043). There was no statistically significant difference between NLR and gender, familial atopy, exposure to smoke, sensitivity to allergens (p>0.05). While mean NLR was weakly positively correlated with number of hospitalisations (r: 0.216; p: 0.012), the percentage of eosinophils was weakly negatively correlated with NLR (r: -0.195; p: 0.001). CONCLUSION: Mean NLR is higher in asthmatic children compared to control group. We think that NLR could be used for the evaluation of systemic inflammation in asthmatic patients. However, further studies are needed to assess airway and systemic inflammation as well as NLR in patients with asthma.
BACKGROUND: Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a test used to evaluate the systemic inflammation. There is little knowledge about the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in asthmatics. In our study, we aimed to evaluate NLR and to assess its relationship with clinical parameters in children with asthma. METHODS: Four hundred and sixty-nine children diagnosed with asthma and followed in our hospital were included in the study. The control group included 170 children with no evidence of allergic disease (i.e. asthma, allergic rhinitis, eczema) or infection. Skin prick tests were performed using the same antigens for all patients. The immunoglobulin E levels and complete blood count were measured. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups with regard to gender and age. Mean NLR was 2.07±1.41 in the study group and 1.77±1.71 in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (p=0.043). There was no statistically significant difference between NLR and gender, familial atopy, exposure to smoke, sensitivity to allergens (p>0.05). While mean NLR was weakly positively correlated with number of hospitalisations (r: 0.216; p: 0.012), the percentage of eosinophils was weakly negatively correlated with NLR (r: -0.195; p: 0.001). CONCLUSION: Mean NLR is higher in asthmatic children compared to control group. We think that NLR could be used for the evaluation of systemic inflammation in asthmatic patients. However, further studies are needed to assess airway and systemic inflammation as well as NLR in patients with asthma.