| Literature DB >> 35455531 |
Kazutaka Nogami1,2, Mizuho Nagao2, Takafumi Takase2, Yasuaki Yasuda2, Shingo Yamada2, Mayumi Matsunaga2, Miyuki Hoshi2, Kana Hamada2, Yu Kuwabara2,3, Takeshi Tsugawa1, Takao Fujisawa2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergen-specific immunotherapy is currently the only disease-modifying treatment for allergic asthma, and it has been shown to improve control of asthma while reducing both drug use and asthma exacerbations. However, its effects on lung function-especially its long-term effects-remain controversial. We aimed to identify factors associated with a possible beneficial effect of allergen-specific immunotherapy on lung function in asthma by retrospectively evaluating the long-term changes in lung function in children with asthma who received house dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy (HDM-SCIT).Entities:
Keywords: asthma; eosinophils; immunoglobulin E; immunologic; spirometry
Year: 2022 PMID: 35455531 PMCID: PMC9028398 DOI: 10.3390/children9040487
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Children (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9067
Predicted annual change in MEF50%.
| ID | Group I | ID | Group D | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before SCIT | During SCIT | Before SCIT | During SCIT | ||
| 1 | −3.8 | 2.4 | 9 | 3.0 | −1.8 |
| 2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 10 | 6.7 | −4.6 |
| 3 | −9.0 | 1.1 | 11 | 4.4 | −0.3 |
| 4 | −0.8 | −0.6 | 12 | 8.0 | −15.2 |
| 5 | −3.7 | 7.0 | 13 | −3.7 | −7.0 |
| 6 | −11.3 | −1.3 | 14 | 13.0 | 4.8 |
| 7 | −10.9 | −8.3 | 15 | 7.6 | −0.4 |
| 8 | −5.0 | −2.5 | 16 | 10.6 | 3.1 |
| Mean | −5.4 | −0.1 | Mean | 6.2 | −2.7 |
%/year.
Figure 1Representative lung function trajectories. MEF50% predicted values during the observation period are plotted (polygonal lines), and linear regression lines before and during SCIT are depicted in representative patients (#1 and #9 in Table 1, respectively) in Group I and Group D.
Predicted annual change in %FEV1.
| ID | Group I | ID | Group D | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before SCIT | During SCIT | Before SCIT | During SCIT | ||
| 1 | −4.3 | 1.9 | 9 | 0.7 | −2.8 |
| 2 | −0.4 | 5.6 | 10 | 3.2 | −2.6 |
| 3 | −9.1 | −0.8 | 11 | −0.9 | −12.2 |
| 4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 12 | −0.8 | −6.1 |
| 5 | −3.2 | 4.4 | 13 | −2.6 | −2.9 |
| 6 | −15.3 | 0.7 | 14 | 3.8 | −0.5 |
| 7 | −16.2 | −6.2 | 15 | 3.9 | −5.7 |
| 8 | −8.1 | −2.5 | 16 | 10.6 | 1.8 |
| Mean | −7.0 | 0.5 | Mean | 2.2 | −3.9 |
%/year.
Comparison of clinical characteristics between the two groups.
| Characteristic | Group I | Group D | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years); mean ± SD | |||
| at the start of SCIT | 10.5 ± 2.0 | 11.8 ± 1.9 | 0.252 |
| at diagnosis of asthma | 6.4 ± 1.8 | 8.6 ± 1.8 | 0.033 |
| Gender; M/F | 8/0 | 4/4 | 0.077 |
| Observation period (years); mean (range) | |||
| Pre-SCIT | 3.8 (0.6–7.5) | 3.0 (1.6–7.2) | 0.65 |
| SCIT | 4.1 (1.3–4.7) | 3.9 (1.5–7.9) | 0.74 |
| Co-morbid allergic disease; | |||
| Allergic rhinitis | 8 (100%) | 6 (75%) | 0.467 |
| Atopic dermatitis | 2 (25%) | 2 (25%) | >0.999 |
| Food allergy | 4 (50%) | 2 (25%) | 0.608 |
| Pharmacological treatment at the start of SCIT | |||
| Median dose of ICS (range) | 200 (0–1000) | 200 (0–400) | 0.563 |
| No use of ICS | 1 (13%) | 2 (25%) | >0.999 |
| Use of omalizumab | 2 (25%) | 1 (13%) | >0.999 |
| Pharmacological treatment at the last visit of SCIT | |||
| Median dose (range) | 100 (0–200) | 150 (0–250) | 0.563 |
| No use of ICS | 4 (50%) | 3 (38%) | >0.999 |
| Use of omalizumab | 2 (25%) | 1 (13%) | >0.999 |
| Lung function (A) at the start and (B) at the last visit of SCIT | |||
| FEV1% predicted (A) | 85.8 ± 5.9 | 85.2 ± 8.1 | 0.958 |
| (B) | 88.6 ± 7.6 | 83.5 ± 8.6 | 0.156 |
| FEV1/FVC ratio (%); mean ± SD (A) | 90.8 ± 8.2 | 92.1 ± 8.9 | 0.713 |
| (B) | 92.8 ± 15.4 | 87.7 ± 10.5 | 0.637 |
| MEF50% predicted; mean ± SD (A) | 78.3 ± 13.7 | 94.7 ± 31.1 | 0.318 |
| (B) | 85.2 ± 23.6 | 85.5 ± 27.6 | 0.958 |
| FeNO (ppb); median (range) (A) | 33 (8–80) | 25 (13–82) | >0.999 |
| (B) | 29 (16–105) | 47 (6–107) | 0.793 |
| Blood eosinophil count at the start of SCIT (/µL); median (range) | 200 (60–400) | 500 (260–1100) | 0.006 |
| Total serum IgE at the start of SCIT (IU/mL); median (range) | 652 (105–2976) | 559 (135–2572) | 0.959 |
| Specific IgE (kUA/L) at the start of SCIT; median (range) | |||
| HDM ( | 160 (60–273) | 70 (5.5–144) | 0.038 |
| Japanese cedar pollen | 13.1 (4.7–221) | 6.7 (0.1–144) | 0.328 |
| Dog dander | 0.3 (0.1–34.6) | 0.4 (0.1–47.4) | 0.485 |
| Cat dander | 0.1 (0.1–1.7) | 0.3 (0.1–10.9) | 0.114 |
| Ragweed | 0.2 (0.1–3.9) | 0.3 (0.1–1.7) | 0.657 |
| Orchard grass | 0.2 (0.1–29.3) | 0.3 (0.1–8.1) | 0.797 |
ICS dose: fluticasone propionate-equivalent dose (µg/day). FEV1/FVC ratio: forced expiratory volume at 1 s/forced expiratory volume ratio. MEF50 →MEF50%: maximal expiratory flow at 50% of FVC. FeNO: fractional exhaled nitric oxide. ppb: parts per billion.
Figure 2Peripheral blood eosinophil count (Eos) and HDM-sIgE as possible markers for predicting lung function outcomes. (A) The peripheral blood eosinophil counts (Eos) and HDM-sIgE levels in Group I (open circles) and Group D (closed squares) are plotted. (B) Violin plot graphs of the predicted probability calculated for each group by logistic regression analysis. (C) ROC curve for the logistic model.
Logistic regression model to predict a favorable lung function trajectory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| β1 | Eos | 0.017 | 0.003 to 0.053 | 1.017 | 1.003 to 1.054 |
| β2 | HDM IgE | −0.028 | −0.078 to −0.002 | 0.973 | 0.925 to 0.998 |
|
|
|
| |||
| Area under the ROC curve | 0.938 | 0.822 to 1.000 | 0.003 | ||
| Hosmer–Lemeshow test | 5.506 | 0.702 | |||
Figure 3Fluticasone propionate (FP)-equivalent ICS doses at the start and at the last observation of HDM-SCIT (at the last visit of each patient in the study period). Open circles indicate subjects in Group I, while closed squares indicate subjects in Group D. In all subjects, the difference between the doses at the 2 time points was statistically significant. p < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test.