Total and specific immunoglobulin E in induced sputum in allergic and non-allergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with nonallergic asthma have normal serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels. Recent reports suggest that total and aeroallergen-specific IgE levels in induced sputum may be higher in nonallergic asthmatics than in healthy controls. Our objective is to compare total and dust-mite specific (Der p 1) IgE levels in induced sputum in allergic and nonallergic asthmatics and healthy controls.
METHODS: Total and Der p 1-specific IgE were measured in induced sputum (ImmunoCAP immunoassay) from 56 age- and sex-matched asthmatics (21 allergic, 35 nonallergic) and 9 healthy controls. Allergic asthma was defined as asthma with a positive prick test and/or clinically-significant Der p 1-specific serum IgE levels.
RESULTS: Patients with allergic asthma presented significantly higher total and Der p 1-specific serum IgE levels. There were no significant between-group differences in total sputum IgE. However, Der p 1-specific sputum IgE levels were significantly higher (p = 0.000) in the allergic asthmatics, but without differences between the controls and nonallergic asthmatics. Serum and sputum IgE levels were significantly correlated, both for total IgE (rho = 0.498; p = 0.000) and Der p 1-specific IgE (rho, 0.621; p = 0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Total IgE levels measured in serum and induced sputum are significantly correlated. No significant differences were found between the differents groups in total sputum IgE. Nevertheless, the levels of Der p 1-specific sputum IgE levels were significantly higher in the allergic asthmatics, but without differences between the controls and nonallergic asthmatics. Probably due to the lack of sensitivity of the test used, but with the growing evidence for local allergic reactions better methods are need to explore its presence. The Clinical Trials Identifier for this project is NCT03640936.

Introduction

Although the causes of allergic asthma are well-understood, much less is known about the pathophysiology of nonallergic asthma. Non-allergic asthma is generally defined as nonatopic asthma with or without normal serum levels of immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. Unlike allergic asthma, which is triggered by a specific allergen, nonallergic asthma may be triggered by a wide range of factors, including smoke, viruses, and other nonspecific stimuli[1].

Despite their differences, these two types of asthma may share many similarities, including airway inflammation with eosinophilia, increased Th2 cytokine production (interleukin [IL]-4, IL-5, and IL-13), hyperreactivity, and airway-induced exacerbations. Although most patients with nonallergic asthma present normal total serum IgE levels, in some cases IgE may be elevated when compared to healthy controls [2,3], with some reports suggesting that approximately 30% of asthmatic patients with a negative skin prick test have high total circulating IgE (>150 U/mL) [4,5]. These shared features suggest that unidentified environmental allergens could be involved in “nonallergic” asthma, causing a local allergic reaction in these patients[6]. Mouthuy et al. previously demonstrated that patients with nonallergic asthma present elevated levels of total IgE and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Der p 1) specific IgE in induced sputum versus healthy controls[7]. Those findings suggest that nonallergic asthma patients may present localized allergic inflammation. This hypothesis is further supported by several studies that have demonstrated symptom relief after the administration of omalizumab—an anti-IgE treatment—in nonatopic patients[8-10]. The positive effect of omalizumab in these patients could be explained by the presence of unidentified allergens[11]. Additional support for this hypothesis comes from the relatively recent identification of a new phenotype of rhinitis—denominated local allergic rhinitis (LAR)—in patients with chronic rhinitis [12-16], characterized by local production of specific IgE with a nasal cellular Th2 immune response to nasal allergen provocation test but with negative skin prick test and undetectable serum IgE. Nevertheless, more research is needed to confirm the existence of this potential new asthma phenotype characterized by a local allergic reaction.

In this context, we hypothesized that patients with nonallergic asthma would present higher levels of IgE in induced sputum than healthy controls. To test this hypothesis, we measured total IgE and Der p 1-specific IgE in serum and induced sputum in three different groups: 1) patients with a confirmed diagnosis of allergic asthma, 2) patients diagnosed with nonallergic asthma, and 3) healthy controls. Secondary aims were to assess the correlation between total and Der p 1-specific IgE levels in serum and induced sputum and to establish a preliminary estimate of total IgE and Der p 1-specific IgE in the induced sputum of healthy individuals.

Materials and methods

Study design and participants

This was a comparative cross-sectional study to measure and compare total IgE and Der p 1-specific IgE levels in the induced sputum of asthmatics and in a group of healthy volunteers. Patients and controls were matched for age, sex, and disease severity; and asthma control for allergic and non-allergic groups. Patients were consecutively enrolled from the outpatient asthma unit of our institution, a tertiary referral university hospital in Spain, between January and December 2013.

Total and Der p 1-specific IgE were measured in both serum and induced sputum. The IgE levels in serum and sputum were compared to determine the correlation between IgE levels in these two fluids.

Definition of allergic and nonallergic asthma

We defined asthma as a history of variable respiratory symptoms and evidence of variable expiratory airflow limitation. All patients had a positive bronchodilator test or a document positive methacholine challenge test. Asthma severity was defined according to the Global Initiative for Asthma Management (GINA)[17].

Allergic asthma was defined as asthma with 1) positive skin prick test to aeroallergens and/or 2) clinically-significant Der p 1-specific IgE according to the recommendations of the Committee of Skin Tests of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) international task force[18]. Patients sensitized to various allergens were included only if dust mite allergy was the only clinically relevant one; if they showed symptoms in relation to other exposures they were excluded. Nonallergic asthma was defined as asthma with: 1) negative prick test, 2) negative Der p 1-specific IgE in serum; and 3) negative Phadiatop test (ImmunoCAP immunofluoroassay; Phadia ThermoFisher Scientific)[19]. D. pteronyssinus was the selected allergen because is the perennial allergen more prevalent in our geographic area.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria were: 1) age 18–70 years; 2) continuous residence (> 4 years) in the geographic region of the study; 3) diagnosis of stable bronchial asthma according to GINA criteria[17]; 4) non-smoker; 5) no respiratory infections in the month prior to enrolment; 6) no oral corticosteroids in the last month; 7) no biological treatment with anti-IgE monoclonal antibodies; 8) no allergenic immunotherapy.

Exclusion criteria were: 1) pregnancy; 2) moderate to severe active alcohol use; 3) severe atopic dermatitis; 4) presence of any lung disease, autoimmune disease or systemic inflammatory disease, or cancer.

Control group

The control group consisted of healthy, non-smoking volunteers age 18 to 79 years, without rhinitis, allergic asthma, or other allergic symptoms (GINA criteria) or other lung disease. Controls were recruited from among staff members at our hospital. Participation was completely voluntarily. All controls were required to present a negative prick test for aeroallergens and Der p 1-specific IgE, and negative Phadiatop test.

Assessments and study procedures

Upon enrolment, demographic and clinical variables were assessed and recorded for all participants. On the same day, the following assessment were performed: FeNO (exhaled nitric oxide test); forced spirometry; inflammatory cell count in induced sputum; eosinophil count in peripheral blood; total serum IgE levels; and skin prick test for common aeroallergens. Patients also completed the validated Spanish-language version of the Asthma Control Test (ACT)[20].

FeNO was measured before spirometry using an electrochemical equipment (NO Vario Analyzer; FILT Lungen and Thorax Diagnostic GmbH, Berlin, Germany) and an expiratory maneuver providing a sustained 50 mL/s flow from total lung capacity, following the 2005 recommendations of the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society[21]. Spirometry was performed using a Daptospir-600 spirometer (Sibelmed, S.A., Barcelona, Spain) in accordance with the 2003 recommendations of the Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR), with FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) in the reference range when 80% of the predicted value [22,23].

Skin prick testing was performed according to standard procedures, with wheal diameters ≥ 4 mm considered positive. Allergic asthma was defined as the presence of asthma symptoms for one or more allergens, with positive skin prick tests for these allergens. Well-controlled asthma was defined as ACT ≥ 20.

Induction and analysis of sputum

Induced sputum was evaluated following the procedures previously described by our group[24] and by Pizzichini et al.[25]. Briefly, mucus plugs were manually selected and weighed, and incubated at room temperature for 15 min in 4 times the weight (in ml) of the selected plug (in mg) in 0.1% dithiothreitol (Calbiochem, San Diego, Calif., USA), washed with 4 times the plug weight (in ml) in Dulbecco’s PBS, and gravity filtered through a 41-μm-pore nylon net filter (Millipore Inc; Billerica, Mass., USA). Each specimen was homogenised and aliquoted into two equal volumes. A Neubauer hemocytometer was used to determine total cell count; visually identifiable squamous epithelial cells were not included in the total cell count. Samples with insufficient sputum cell numbers (<1000 × 106 cells/g) were excluded. Cell viability was determined by light microscopic assessment using trypan blue exclusion staining. The cells underwent centrifugation to obtain a cell pellet and a supernatant. The cell pellet was used for differential cell counts (macrophages, eosinophils, neutrophils, lymphocytes, and bronchial epithelial cells) performed on May-Grünwald-Giemsa-stained preparations. A differential leukocyte analysis of nonsquamous cells (Diff-Quik stained) was performed on a minimum of 400 cells. Differential cell counts are expressed as the percentage of total nonsquamous nucleated cells. Reference values for the cell counts were performed as described in other publications[26].

Measurement of total and specific IgE antibodies

Total and specific IgE in induced sputum supernatants were measured by the ImmunoCAP fluoroenzyme immunoassay (Phadia ThermoFisher Scientific) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The test was considered positive at > 2kU/L for total IgE and > 0.35kU/L for specific IgE, according to manufacturer’s recommendation.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were expressed as absolute and relative frequencies and quantitative variables as mean and standard deviation (SD). Groups were compared using ANOVA or chi-square test as appropriate. Given that the distribution of total and specific IgE values in serum and sputum were not normal, non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis for independent samples) were applied; the values were expressed as medians with interquartile ranges and ranges. The significance values in the case of non-parametric tests were adjusted by the Bonferroni correction. For the correlation analyses, Spearman's Rho test was used. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Statistical analysis was performed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 18.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL).

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study design complied with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau in Barcelona (COD 26/2012). All participants provided written informed consent. All patient-related data were anonymised, with the identity of the participating known only by the treating physicians. The clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT03640936.

Results

A total of 56 asthmatic patients—21 (37.5%) with allergic asthma and 35 (62.5%) with nonallergic asthma—met all inclusion criteria and completed the study. The control group consisted of nine healthy volunteers. shows the clinical, functional, and inflammatory characteristics of the patients and controls.

There were no significant differences between the three groups with regard to age, sex, or body mass index (BMI). There were significant differences between the groups in: FEV1 and need for more than one round of oral corticosteroids last 12 months. FEV1 values in the allergic (83.4%) and nonallergic (80%) patient groups were similar, but substantially higher (100.2%) in the healthy controls (p = 0.013) and the need for more than one round of oral corticosteroids was significantly higher (p = 0.022) in the nonallergic group. As for other not clinically relevant sensitizations detected by prick test in the group of patients with allergic asthma, the most frequent were polysensitized patients (17), sensitized to D. farinae (8) and pet epithelia (4). A single patient had a positive prick test for molds.

shows the total and Der p 1-specific levels of IgE in serum and sputum for all three groups. Significant between-group differences in serum IgE levels were observed for both total and Der p 1-specific IgE, with the allergic asthma group presenting significantly higher levels of total IgE (mean, 1702.3 KU/L) and Der p1-specific IgE levels (15.5 KU/L) than the nonallergic group and healthy controls. In the sputum samples, no significant between-group differences in total IgE were observed. However, Der p 1-specific IgE levels were significantly higher (p<0.0001) in the allergic asthma group compared to the other two groups. shows the total sputum IgE levels in the three groups, with no significant differences between the groups.

shows the specific Der p 1-specific IgE levels in sputum for each group. The allergic asthma group presented significantly higher Der p 1-specific IgE levels than both the nonallergic patients (p<0.0001) and the healthy controls (p = 0.006). There were no significant differences between the nonallergic patients and the healthy controls. In the group of patients with non-allergic asthma, a subgroup analysis was performed among those with total sputum IgE >2 or <2, with no statistically significant differences either at clinical characteristics or regarding the other IgE measurements.

Correlations

Using data from the whole sample (patients and controls), we calculated the correlations between total and Der p 1-specific IgE levels in sputum and serum. shows a matrix with all significant correlations (p<0.0001) in descending order from strongest to weakest. As that table makes clear, the strongest correlation was between total IgE and Der p 1-specific IgE in serum.

Discussion

In the present study, we sought to test the hypothesis that the airways of patients with nonallergic asthma exhibit a local inflammatory response by determining total and dust mite-specific IgE antibody levels in induced sputum. Our results showed that patients with allergic asthma presented significantly higher total and Der p 1-specific IgE levels in serum compared to both nonallergic asthmatics and healthy controls. However, contrary to our expectations, there were no significant differences among the three groups in total sputum IgE levels. Moreover, there were no differences in Der p 1-specific sputum IgE levels between healthy controls and nonallergic asthma patients. Overall, the lack of significant differences in total sputum IgE levels between the three groups was surprising. However, diverse factors could explain this unexpected finding, as we discuss in detail below.

The hypothesis that patients with nonallergic asthma may present a local allergic response in the airways derives from the mounting evidence for a new phenotype of local allergic rhinitis in nonatopic rhinitis[12-15]. Studies have demonstrated local production of specific IgE in the nostrils of patients with negative skin prick test and undetectable serum IgE[12]. Given the similarities between asthma and rhinitis, it seems highly plausible that patients with nonatopic asthma could also present a local allergic response, particularly considering the lack of a clear physiopathologic explanation for nonallergic asthma. Although there are differences between allergic and nonallergic asthma, these two clinical entities share many similarities, including airway inflammation with eosinophilia, increased Th2 cytokine production, airway-induced exacerbations[5,27]. In addition, up to 30% of patients with nonallergic asthma may present elevated total serum IgE levels[4,5,16]. These shared features suggest that unidentified environmental allergens—which stimulate a local allergic reaction—may be responsible for the symptoms experienced by patients with nonallergic asthma, a hypothesis supported by a small but growing body of evidence showing local airway synthesis of IgE[27], even in patients without any allergen-specific serum IgE7. Moreover, the findings from multiple studies that the anti-IgE treatment omalizumab provides symptom relief in nonatopic patients implies that an inflammatory reaction does, in fact, play a role in these patients[8,9,10]. Mouthuy et al.[7] found that nonallergic asthmatics present elevated levels of total and Der p 1-specific IgE in induced sputum compared to healthy controls, a finding that supports the concept of local airway inflammation in those patients. However, we were unable to confirm those findings, as we found no significant differences between the nonallergic asthmatics and healthy controls in IgE levels (both total and Der p 1-specific) in induced sputum or in serum. Our findings were closer to those reported by Manise et al.[28], who—in contrast to Mouthuy et al.—found that total sputum IgE levels were higher in atopic than in nonatopic asthmatics and that there were no differences between nonatopic asthmatics and nonatopic healthy subjects. In view of the heterogeneous findings of these three studies, it is clear that more work will be needed to clarify whether or not there are truly differences among nonatopic and atopic asthmatics and healthy controls with regard to IgE levels in sputum.

There are several reasons that could explain the discrepancy between our results and those reported by Mouthuy et al. First, the lack of any significant differences in IgE levels between the nonallergic asthmatics and healthy controls in our study could potentially be attributed to the size of the control group in our study (n = 9) versus the large control group (n = 25) in the study by Mouthy and colleagues. Another explanation could be related to the ImmunoCAP method, which may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect very small differences in IgE levels. In our sample, although the test did detect higher Der p 1-specific IgE levels in the sputum of allergic asthmatics verus both nonallergic asthmatics and healthy controls, this is probably because there were large differences in Der p 1-specific IgE levels in the allergic asthmatics versus the nonallergic asthmatics and healthy controls given that the study inclusion criteria for those latter two groups specifically required that they have a negative skin prick and negative serum Der p 1. By contrast, the differences in total IgE may have been less marked, making it more difficult to detect using the ImmunoCap technique.

Local IgE production has been documented previously in nonallergic asthma patients using bronchial biopsy[16,29,30]. In this regard, the lack of a significant difference between the three groups in our study with regard to total sputum IgE was surprising, especially considering that—at the very least—allergic asthmatics would be expected to present substantially higher IgE levels than healthy controls. Although the reason for this unexpected finding is not clear, it could be due to the relatively small sample size or to the limited capacity of the ImmunoCap technique to detect small differences in total IgE. In this regard, larger studies will be needed, perhaps using alternative methods to measure sputum IgE.

Correlation between IgE in sputum and serum

In the present study, we used the sputum induction and analysis methods described by Araujo et al.[31], who validated laboratory measurements of total and Der p 1-specific IgE in induced sputum supernatant versus serum levels, but in a heterogeneous sample involving patients with diverse pathologies, not only asthma. In recent years, several studies have correlated total IgE levels in induced sputum and serum, with sometimes contradictory findings[32]. In the present study, we found a highly significant correlation (rho, 0.498; p = 0.000) between total IgE levels in serum and sputum in our overall sample, a finding that is consistent with the results described by Manise et al. in asthmatic patients[28]. By contrast, other authors, including Mouthuy et al.[7] and Ahn et al[33] have not found any correlation between total IgE levels in sputum and serum. These contrasting findings raise further doubts about the sensitivity of the ImmunoCap technique used to measure IgE in sputum, potentially providing an additional explanation for the differences between our results and those of Mouthuy et al.

Data from a recent study conducted by Pillai et al.[34] could help to explain why we were unable to detect significant between-group differences in total IgE in induced sputum. Those authors suggest that IgE produced in the bronchial mucosa of nonatopic asthmatic patients may remain confined to the mucosa, bound to cells that carry those receptors. If this hypothesis is correct, it would explain why IgE is not readily detectable in induced sputum. Pillai and colleagues posited that both atopic and nonatopic asthmatics would have greater total IgE concentrations in the airways than in serum. To test this, they determined IgE levels in the blood and bronchial mucosa of 10 atopic and 10 nonatopic asthmatic patients and 10 nonatopic controls, finding that median total IgE levels were significantly elevated in both the atopic and nonatopic asthmatic patients versus controls. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that IgE synthesis, sequestration, or both are ongoing in the bronchial mucosa of both nonatopic and atopic asthmatic patients. Interestingly, Pillai et al. also suggest, as other several authors have previously proposed[10,35,36], that increased bronchial mucosal IgE production in nonatopic asthmatic patients may be directed against targets other than allergens, including possible “autoallergens”, or that there are allergen-independent roles for IgE in the pathophysiology of asthma.

Overall, the findings reported in studies which use more invasive but more sensitive methods (e.g., bronchial biopsy) strongly suggest the presence of elevated total IgE production in the airways of both allergic and nonallergic asthma patients[10,34-36]. The fact that we were unable to confirm the findings reported by Mouthuy et al. with regard to detecting significant differences in sputum IgE levels between nonatopic asthmatics and healthy controls, together with the contradictory data reported to date regarding the correlation between IgE levels in serum and induced sputum, suggests that more sensitive methods of measuring IgE in sputum may be required.

Total and Der p-specific IgE in induced sputum in healthy individuals

A secondary aim of this study was to determine, on a pilot basis, the standard levels of total and Der p 1-specific IgE in the induced sputum of healthy controls. We found the following values: median (IQR) total IgE in sputum in the controls was 3.16 (1.41) KUA/L. The Der p 1-specific values were 0.06 (0.02). Evidently, the small sample (n = 9) of healthy controls are insufficient to define standard levels, but these data provide an initial estimate. Nevertheless, more data from larger studies will be needed to confirm these initial levels, especially considering the small sample and the potential limitations in the assay technique used to measure IgE in the sputum supernatant.

Study strengths and limitations

The main limitation of the present study is the limited number of healthy controls. Another limitation may be related to the lack of significant differences between the groups in total IgE in induced sputum, which points to limitations in the measurement technique that may have influenced our findings. An important strength of the study is that this is, to our knowledge, only the second study conducted to date to specifically determine total and Der p-specific IgE in induced sputum of allergic, nonallergic, and healthy controls. Given the conflicting results of our study and those reported by Mouthuy et al., additional studies are needed. Finally, another important strength is the well-selected and well-defined sample of patients and controls; we used very strict diagnostic criteria (based on the most recent clinical guidelines) to define both allergic and nonallergic asthma, as well as for the healthy controls.

Conclusions

The findings of this study show that total IgE levels measured in serum and induced sputum are significantly correlated. The significantly higher levels of Der p 1-specific IgE detected in the induced sputum of the allergic asthmatics underscores the potential value of measuring aeroallergen-specific IgE in induced sputum. Nevertheless, the lack of significant between-group differences in total sputum IgE levels suggests that the ImmunoCAP immunoassay technique used in this study may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect small differences in total sputum IgE. To support the results of this work, a larger sample size would be necessary for future studies.

A growing body of evidence indicates that both allergic and nonallergic asthmatics present elevated airway inflammation. Measuring IgE levels in induced sputum is a non-invasive, cost-effective approach that could provide valuable clinical data to help individualize the treatment of nonallergic asthma. However, more sensitive methods are needed to measure IgE levels in induced sputum. Nonetheless, there exists a clear potential to use total and/or aeroallergen-specific IgE levels measured in induced sputum as a marker of treatment efficacy.

28 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-27179

Total and specific immunoglobulin E in induced sputum in allergic and non-allergic asthma

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Crespo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 12 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aleksandra Barac

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence(s) of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://doi.org/10.1159/000431259

https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S142200

http://www.jiaci.org/issues/vol25issue6/6.pdf

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the Methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. We note that you have reported significance probabilities of 0 in places. Since p=0 is not strictly possible, please correct this to a more appropriate limit, eg 'p<0.0001'.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

AC. in the last three years received honoraria for speaking at sponsored meetings from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Esteve Laboratories, Faes Farma, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Teva, Zambon.  Received help assistance to meeting travel from Bial, Novartis. Act as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis. And received funding/grant support for research projects from a variety of Government agencies and not-for-profit foundations, as well as AstraZeneca.

EC has received funding to travel to and attend training activities from ALK, Menarini, Teva, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Boehringer, and Novartis.

LS, EM and declare no conflict of interests.

JG has received funding to travel and attend to training activities from Menarini, Teva, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Mundipharma, Boehringer.

In the last three years, VP has received honoraria for speaking at sponsored meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, and Novartis. VP has also received financial support to travel to meetings organized by Chiesi and Novartis. VP is a consultant for ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, MundiPharma, and Sanofi. VP has also received funding/grant support for research projects from a variety of governmental agencies and not-for-profit foundations, as well as from AstraZeneca, Chiesi and Menarini.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor,

The article entitled as “Total and specific immunoglobulin E in induced sputum in allergic and non-allergic Asthma” was reviewed for PLOS ONE on 20 November 2019. It is a valuable study in means of using and evaluating induced sputum and it has a control group. However there are the following points that needs to be solved;

- The size of the study group seems to be too small, this may be increased, or the power of the study may be calculated and added.

- The subject of the study that comparing total IgE between allergic and nonallergic asthma is not new even tough using induced sputum and spesicifc IgE.

- Local allergy or entopy was showed in nonallergic rhinitis or asthma in mucosa biopsy or lavage in 2000’s. However, it has lost its popularity because of the difficulty to diagnose these patients, and not changing the treatment. Furthermore, it is not evaluated as an asthma phenotype. The new point may be investigating entopy between allergic, non-allergic eosinophilic, and non-allergic non-eosinophilic phenotypes.

- Subgroup analysis as high and low total ıge may be performed.

- There are other allergens such as pollens that may be present in nonallergic astmatics sputum. This question effects the results unconfident.

- Mold sensitivity has a great impact on total IgE, and should have been explored.

Reviewer #2: The detection limit was 0.35 kU/L for specific IgE and yet the authors report levels in sputum markedly below this level, e.g. for Der p-specific IgE 0.055 kU/L median and 0.04 kU/L average for non-allergic asthma. (See line 173-4 and Table 2.) Thus unfortunately, the data appear to be invalid.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Dear Editor.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Jan 2020

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

Author’s response: According to the recommendations of the reviewer, we have better drafted the manuscript in key points to make it more understandable, especially in the conclusions (see line 41)

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

Author’s response: The statistical analysis was carried out under the support of a statistician who guided us at all times on the most appropriate analyzes for this study. If you suggest doing some analysis of greater interest in our study, using the database that we have attached to the study, we would be delighted to perform it.

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Author’s response: As required by the internal policy of Plos one, we have attached our data to a public repository.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Author’s response: Thanks for your feedback

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor,

The article entitled as “Total and specific immunoglobulin E in induced sputum in allergic and non-allergic Asthma” was reviewed for PLOS ONE on 20 November 2019. It is a valuable study in means of using and evaluating induced sputum and it has a control group. However there are the following points that needs to be solved;

- The size of the study group seems to be too small, this may be increased, or the power of the study may be calculated and added.

Author’s response: Due to the limited literature and great variability in the results that exist of the IgE values in the induced sputum, for the calculation of the sample size, the reference values of the IgE in the induced sputum will be considered as binding variable reports in literature (references 31 and 32). This sample size is calculated with the Granmo V7.10 program, setting the type I error at the usual 5% (α = 0.05), with a bilateral approximation and with a minimum difference required for a power of 80% or higher (ß = 0.2). Also our study had as a secondary objective to establish a preliminary estimate of total IgE and Der p 1-specific IgE in the induced sputum of healthy individuals. To support the results of this work, a larger sample size would be necessary for future studies. A comment has been added in the manuscript (see line 327)

- The subject of the study that comparing total IgE between allergic and nonallergic asthma is not new even tough using induced sputum and specific IgE.

Author’s response: The levels of total and specific IgE in blood are extensively studied comparatively in asthmatic and healthy patients, and also in different types of asthmatic patients. However, sputum-induced levels of this immunoglobulin have been poorly reported. Our particular interest was to assess its potential applicability as a diagnostic test in the detection of local allergic reactions at the bronchial level.

- Local allergy or entopy was showed in nonallergic rhinitis or asthma in mucosa biopsy or lavage in 2000’s. However, it has lost its popularity because of the difficulty to diagnose these patients, and not changing the treatment. Furthermore, it is not evaluated as an asthma phenotype. The new point may be investigating entopy between allergic, non-allergic eosinophilic, and non-allergic non-eosinophilic phenotypes.

Author’s response: We totally agree with the reviewer's opinion. Local allergy has been a controversial issue in the last decade, and in our view further research is needed to define this entity properly. Its loss of popularity has been due, on the one hand, to diagnostic difficulty, so this study has been, in fact, a first approach to a technique that could allow diagnosing it in a simple way. On the other hand, until now it did not imply differences in treatment, but we believe that with the availability of new monoclonal drugs this may change. We also consider that it could help to better understand a group of patients, who because a priori they do not present signs of atopy or eosinophilia, remain limited to conventional treatments.

- Subgroup analysis as high and low total IgE may be performed.

Author’s response: The main focus of our work was:

1) To measure the levels of total and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (d1) specific IgE in the induced sputum (IS) of asthmatic patients and healthy volunteers

2) To correlate the levels of total local IgE and specific IgE to d1 (sputum and peripheral blood) in patients with allergic and non-allergic asthma

Since there are few published papers in the literature that have measured levels of total IgE in sputum and since there are no established values of normal sputum total IgE levels, we cannot make this classification as there is no established cut-off point.

- There are other allergens such as pollens that may be present in nonallergic asthmatics sputum. This question effects the results unconfident.

Author’s response: Our inclusion criteria were particularly strict and detailed in this study. We only selected patients with allergic asthma in whom D. pteronyssinus was the only clinically relevant allergen, in addition to presenting positive prick test, and/or previous high specific IgE for this allergen. If they presented a positive prick test for other allergens and there was any suspicion that their symptoms were related to other allergens to which they were sensitized, they were excluded from the study. This has been clarified in the manuscript (see line 140)

- Mold sensitivity has a great impact on total IgE, and should have been explored.

Author’s response: This is an interesting point of view, but in our area, dust mites are the most common perennial allergens, and mold sensitization is not particularly common. In fact, in this group of patients, only one of them had a positive prick test for Aspergillus, and it was not clinically relevant (see line 219)

Reviewer #2: The detection limit was 0.35 kU/L for specific IgE and yet the authors report levels in sputum markedly below this level, e.g. for Der p-specific IgE 0.055 kU/L median and 0.04 kU/L average for non-allergic asthma. (See line 173-4 and Table 2.) Thus unfortunately, the data appear to be invalid.

Author’s response: According to manufacturer’s recommendation, > 2kU/L for total IgE and > 0.35kU/L for specific IgE, are the values to consider a positive test, but as we previously stated, the levels in induced sputum are not described yet. We understand that the previous phrasing could be confusing, so we have modified the corresponding paragraph to better understand this aspect.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

7 Jan 2020

Total and specific immunoglobulin E in induced sputum in allergic and non-allergic asthma

PONE-D-19-27179R1

Dear Dr. Crespo-Lessman,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Aleksandra Barac

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

8 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-27179R1

Total and specific immunoglobulin E in induced sputum in allergic and non-allergic asthma

Dear Dr. Crespo-Lessman:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aleksandra Barac

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Clinical, functional, and inflammatory characteristics of patients and controls.

Variables	Nonallergic asthma (n = 21)	Allergic asthma (n = 35)	Healthy controls (n = 9)	P
Age (years)	54.8 (14.8)	51.7(13.6)	41.88	0.076
Sex (% females)	57.1%	51.4%	88.8%	0.125
BMI (kg/m2)	28.7 (4.1)	27.3 (5.9)	25.5 (6.48)	0.353
FEV1 (%)	83.4 (13.9)	80 (20.8)	100.2 (10.74)	0.013
Serum eosinophils (x109/L)	0.302 (0.310)	0.271 (0.239)	0.095 (0.068)	0.113
Sputum eosinophils (%)	10.33 (19.54)	11.2 (13.01)	0.77 (1.09)	0.166
Rhinitis	61.9%	82.8%	n/a	0.080
Nasal polyposis (%)	28.5%	20%	n/a	0.462
Severe persistent asthma (%)	42.8%	42.8%	n/a	0.870
GINA 4.0 scale, grade 5–6 (%)	52.4%	48.5%	n/a	0.590
Good asthma control (ACT >20%)	19%	20%	n/a	0.357
Emergency room visits last 12 months (%)	28.5%	11.4%	n/a	0.182
>1 round of oral corticosteroids last 12 months	38%	8.5%	n/a	0.022
Inflammatory phenotype in induced sputum (%)	Paucigranulocytic: 28.6%	Paucigranulocytic: 22.4%	n/a	0.425
	Mixed: 9.5%	Mixed: 8.6%
	Eosinophilic: 33.3%	Eosinophilic: 54.3%
	Neutrophilic: 28.6%	Neutrophilic: 14.3%

Table 2

Total and dust-mite specific IgE n serum and sputum in patients with allergic asthma, non-allergic asthma, and healthy controls.

VARIABLE	NONALLERGIC ASTHMA (N = 21)	ALLERGIC ASTHMA (N = 35)	HEALTHY CONTROLS (N = 9)	p
High quality induced sputum (%)*	61.9%	69.7%	44%	0.294
Total IgE (KU/L) in serum, median (IQR)	55.5 (177.93)	233.5 (368.25)	14.25 (38.30)	<0.0001
Total IgE (KU/L) in serum, average range	423.85	1702.3	87.78
Der p-specific IgE (KU/L) in serum, median (IQR)	0.01 (0.03)	15.45 (32.68)	0.02 (0.04)	<0.0001
Der p-specific IgE (KU/L) in serum, average range	0.08	99.97	0.10
Total IgE (kU/L) in sputum, median (IQR)	2.69 (4.55)	4.5 (2.18)	3.16 (1.41)	0.188
Total IgE (kU/L) in sputum, average range	8.11	7.45	4.12
Der p-specific IgE in sputum (kU/L), median (IQR)	0.055 (0.03)	0.095 (0.09)	0.06 (0.02)	<0.0001
Der p-specific IgE in sputum (kU/L), average range	0.04	0.54	0.05

*High quality defined as > 40% viability, <20% epithelial cells, > 1x106 cells

Table 3

Significant correlations between IgE values in serum and induced sputum.

Serum		Sputum		Correlation†
Total IgE	Der-p IgE	Total IgE	Der-p IgE
X	X			0.658
	X		X	0.621
X			X	0.538
X		X		0.498
		X	X	0.454

†Spearman’s rho; P = 0.000 for all correlations