Relationship between age and bronchodilator response at diagnosis in adult-onset asthma

Assessment of bronchodilator responsiveness to salbutamol or ipratropium using different criteria in treatment-naïve patients with asthma and COPD

Background

The criteria for significant bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) were published in 2005 by the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society, which were revised in 2021, however, data on the agreement between these two recommendations in untreated patients with airflow limitation are missing.

Aims

We aimed to study BDR to salbutamol (SABA) or ipratropium bromide (SAMA) in patients with suspected bronchial asthma or COPD at initial clinical presentation using the 2005 and 2021 criteria and explore clinical factors associated with BDR+.

Methods

Symptomatic, treatment-naïve patients with expiratory airflow limitation (n = 105, 57 men, age (mean ± standard deviation): 65 ± 10 years) underwent BDR testing with 400 mcg salbutamol (day 1) or 80 mcg ipratropium bromide (day 2) and BDR was measured after 15 and 30 minutes. Clinical factors with risk for BDR+ were assessed with binomial logistic regression analysis.

Results

We found a good agreement between the number of 2005-BDR+ and 2021-BDR+ patients at 15 and 30 minutes post-salbutamol and post-ipratropium (88.6-94.8%). More patients showed BDR+ after 30 minutes than following 15 minutes using either criterion. When results at 30 minutes are considered, the number of patients with 2005-BDR+ (82%) was higher than that of 2021-BDR+ (75%), with the proportion of SAMA+ patients being higher than that of SABA+ (2005: 70% vs. 49%, Fisher exact p < 0.01; 2021: 64% vs. 41%, p = 0.001). 2005-BDR+ and 2021-BDR+ to SABA were associated with decreasing pre-BD FEV1% predicted and the presence of cough. More patients with asthma were in the SABA+ group compared to the SAMA+ group (2005: 71% vs. 53%, Fischer exact p = 0.04; 2021: 77% vs. 52%, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Fewer patients show BDR+ according to the 2021 criteria in comparison with the 2005 recommendations, and protocols for BDR testing may consider the assessment of response to both SABA and SAMA after 30 minutes.

Prevalence, Diagnostic Utility and Associated Characteristics of Bronchodilator Responsiveness

Rationale: The prevalence and diagnostic utility of bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) in a real-life setting is unclear. Objective: To explore this uncertainty in patients aged ⩾12 years with physician-assigned diagnoses of asthma, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or COPD in NOVELTY, a prospective cohort study in primary and secondary care in 18 countries. Methods: The proportion of patients with a positive BDR test in each diagnostic category was calculated using 2005 (ΔFEV1 or ΔFVC ⩾12% and ⩾200 ml) and 2021 (ΔFEV1 or ΔFVC >10% predicted) European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society criteria. Measurements and Main Results: We studied 3,519 patients with a physician-assigned diagnosis of asthma, 833 with a diagnosis of asthma + COPD, and 2,436 with a diagnosis of COPD. The prevalence of BDR was 19.7% (asthma), 29.6% (asthma + COPD), and 24.7% (COPD) using 2005 criteria and 18.1%, 23.3%, and 18.0%, respectively, using 2021 criteria. Using 2021 criteria in patients diagnosed with asthma, BDR was associated with higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide; lower lung function; higher symptom burden; more frequent hospital admissions; and greater use of triple therapy, oral corticosteroids, or biologics. In patients diagnosed with COPD, BDR (2021) was associated with lower lung function and higher symptom burden. Conclusions: BDR prevalence in patients with chronic airway diseases receiving treatment ranges from 18% to 30%, being modestly lower with the 2021 than with the 2005 European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society criteria, and it is associated with lower lung function and greater symptom burden. These observations question the validity of BDR as a key diagnostic tool for asthma managed in clinical practice or as a standard inclusion criterion for clinical trials of asthma and instead suggest that BDR be considered a treatable trait for chronic airway disease.

Impact of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma on COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Mortality

Background

It remains unclear if patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and/or asthma are susceptible to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, severity, and mortality.

Objective

To investigate the role of AR and/or asthma in COVID-19 infection, severity, and mortality, and assess whether long-term AR and/or asthma medications affected the outcomes of COVID-19.

Methods

Demographic and clinical data of 70,557 adult participants completed SARS-CoV-2 testing between March 16 and December 31, 2020, in the UK Biobank were analyzed. The rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality in relation to pre-existing AR and/or asthma were assessed based on adjusted generalized linear models. We further analyzed the impact of long-term AR and/or asthma medications on the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality.

Results

Patients with AR of all ages had lower positive rates of SARS-CoV-2 tests (relative risk [RR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.81, P < .001), with lower susceptibility in males (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.65-0.85, P < .001) than females (RR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.72-0.9, P < .001). However, similar effects of asthma against COVID-19 hospitalization were only major in participants aged <65 (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86-1, P = .044) instead of elderlies. In contrast, patients with asthma tested positively had higher risk of hospitalization (RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.32-1.54, P < .001). Neither AR nor asthma had an impact on COVID-19 mortality. None of conventional medications for AR or asthma, for example, antihistamines, corticosteroids, or β2 adrenoceptor agonists, showed association with COVID-19 infection or severity.

Conclusion

AR (all ages) and asthma (aged <65) act as protective factors against COVID-19 infection, whereas asthma increases risk for COVID-19 hospitalization. None of the long-term medications had a significant association with infection, severity, and mortality of COVID-19 among patients with AR and/or asthma.

Sex Hormones and Lung Inflammation

Inflammation is a characteristic marker in numerous lung disorders. Several immune cells, such as macrophages, dendritic cells, eosinophils, as well as T and B lymphocytes, synthetize and release cytokines involved in the inflammatory process. Gender differences in the incidence and severity of inflammatory lung ailments including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary fibrosis (PF), lung cancer (LC), and infectious related illnesses have been reported. Moreover, the effects of sex hormones on both androgens and estrogens, such as testosterone (TES) and 17β-estradiol (E2), driving characteristic inflammatory patterns in those lung inflammatory diseases have been investigated. In general, androgens seem to display anti-inflammatory actions, whereas estrogens produce pro-inflammatory effects. For instance, androgens regulate negatively inflammation in asthma by targeting type 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2s) and T-helper (Th)-2 cells to attenuate interleukin (IL)-17A-mediated responses and leukotriene (LT) biosynthesis pathway. Estrogens may promote neutrophilic inflammation in subjects with asthma and COPD. Moreover, the activation of estrogen receptors might induce tumorigenesis. In this chapter, we summarize the most recent advances in the functional roles and associated signaling pathways of inflammatory cellular responses in asthma, COPD, PF, LC, and newly occurring COVID-19 disease. We also meticulously deliberate the influence of sex steroids on the development and progress of these common and severe lung diseases.