Diagnostic accuracy of minimally invasive markers for detection of airway eosinophilia in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Summary Background Eosinophilic airway inflammation is associated with increased corticosteroid responsiveness in asthma, but direct airway sampling methods are invasive or laborious. Minimally invasive markers for airway eosinophilia could present an alternative method, but estimates of their accur...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The lancet respiratory medicine 2015-04, Vol.3 (4), p.290-300 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 300 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 290 |
container_title | The lancet respiratory medicine |
container_volume | 3 |
creator | Korevaar, Daniël A, Dr Westerhof, Guus A, MD Wang, Junfeng, MSc Cohen, Jérémie F, PhD Spijker, René, MSc Sterk, Peter J, Prof Bel, Elisabeth H, Prof Bossuyt, Patrick M M, Prof |
description | Summary Background Eosinophilic airway inflammation is associated with increased corticosteroid responsiveness in asthma, but direct airway sampling methods are invasive or laborious. Minimally invasive markers for airway eosinophilia could present an alternative method, but estimates of their accuracy vary. Methods We did a systematic review and searched Medline, Embase, and PubMed for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of markers against a reference standard of induced sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, or endobronchial biopsy in patients with asthma or suspected asthma (for inception to Aug 1, 2014). Unpublished results were obtained by contacting authors of studies that did not report on diagnostic accuracy, but had data from which estimates could be calculated. We assessed risk of bias with QUADAS-2. We used meta-analysis to produce summary estimates of accuracy. Findings We included 32 studies: 24 in adults and eight in children. Of these, 26 (81%) showed risk of bias in at least one domain. In adults, three markers had extensively been investigated: fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) (17 studies; 3216 patients; summary area under the receiver operator curve [AUC] 0·75 [95% CI 0·72–0·78]); blood eosinophils (14 studies; 2405 patients; 0·78 [0·74–0·82]); total IgE (seven studies; 942 patients; 0·65 [0·61–0·69]). In children, only FeNO (six studies; 349 patients; summary AUC 0·81 [0·72–0·89]) and blood eosinophils (three studies; 192 patients; 0·78 [0·71–0·85]) had been investigated in more than one study. Induced sputum was most frequently used as the reference standard. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity in detecting sputum eosinophils of 3% or more in adults were: 0·66 (0·57–0·75) and 0·76 (0·65–0·85) for FeNO; 0·71 (0·65–0·76) and 0·77 (0·70–0·83) for blood eosinophils; and 0·64 (0·42–0·81) and 0·71 (0·42–0·89) for IgE. Interpretation FeNO, blood eosinophils, and IgE have moderate diagnostic accuracy. Their use as a single surrogate marker for airway eosinophilia in patients with asthma will lead to a substantial number of false positives or false negatives. Funding None. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00050-8 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1674688952</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S2213260015000508</els_id><sourcerecordid>1674688952</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c608t-c53fec43eda7f3853381f4c704e7f2a5e2df8bf26fa3acbb58f3edb18d07c9653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1u1TAQhSMEolXpI4C8LIuAf-LElwWoKr9SJRbA2po4Y-o2iS-e5FZ5Al4b595LF2xYeWR954zmnKJ4LvgrwUX9-puUQpWy5vxC6Jecc81L86g4PX6LzeOHmfOT4pzoNkPcmEry6mlxIrXhohLqtPj9PsDPMdIUHAPn5gRuYdGzIYxhgL5fWBh3QGGHbIB0h4mYj4l1OKGbQhxXFkK6h4VhpDDG7U3oA2QVA5puBnjDgNFCEw6w7ki4C3jPYOzYgBOUMEK_UKBnxRMPPeH58T0rfnz88P3qc3n99dOXq8vr0tXcTKXTyqOrFHbQeGW0Ukb4yjW8wsZL0Cg7b1ovaw8KXNtq4zPbCtPxxm1qrc6Ki4PvNsVfM9Jkh0AO-x5GjDNZUTdVbcxGy4zqA-pSJEro7TblTNJiBbdrDXZfg10ztkLbfQ3WZN2L44q5HbB7UP0NPQPvDgDmQ3McyZILODrsQsqp2i6G_654-4-D63NhDvo7XJBu45xyrvkaS9Lyg8nqIfTewag_kGGvDg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1674688952</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnostic accuracy of minimally invasive markers for detection of airway eosinophilia in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Korevaar, Daniël A, Dr ; Westerhof, Guus A, MD ; Wang, Junfeng, MSc ; Cohen, Jérémie F, PhD ; Spijker, René, MSc ; Sterk, Peter J, Prof ; Bel, Elisabeth H, Prof ; Bossuyt, Patrick M M, Prof</creator><creatorcontrib>Korevaar, Daniël A, Dr ; Westerhof, Guus A, MD ; Wang, Junfeng, MSc ; Cohen, Jérémie F, PhD ; Spijker, René, MSc ; Sterk, Peter J, Prof ; Bel, Elisabeth H, Prof ; Bossuyt, Patrick M M, Prof</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Background Eosinophilic airway inflammation is associated with increased corticosteroid responsiveness in asthma, but direct airway sampling methods are invasive or laborious. Minimally invasive markers for airway eosinophilia could present an alternative method, but estimates of their accuracy vary. Methods We did a systematic review and searched Medline, Embase, and PubMed for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of markers against a reference standard of induced sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, or endobronchial biopsy in patients with asthma or suspected asthma (for inception to Aug 1, 2014). Unpublished results were obtained by contacting authors of studies that did not report on diagnostic accuracy, but had data from which estimates could be calculated. We assessed risk of bias with QUADAS-2. We used meta-analysis to produce summary estimates of accuracy. Findings We included 32 studies: 24 in adults and eight in children. Of these, 26 (81%) showed risk of bias in at least one domain. In adults, three markers had extensively been investigated: fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) (17 studies; 3216 patients; summary area under the receiver operator curve [AUC] 0·75 [95% CI 0·72–0·78]); blood eosinophils (14 studies; 2405 patients; 0·78 [0·74–0·82]); total IgE (seven studies; 942 patients; 0·65 [0·61–0·69]). In children, only FeNO (six studies; 349 patients; summary AUC 0·81 [0·72–0·89]) and blood eosinophils (three studies; 192 patients; 0·78 [0·71–0·85]) had been investigated in more than one study. Induced sputum was most frequently used as the reference standard. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity in detecting sputum eosinophils of 3% or more in adults were: 0·66 (0·57–0·75) and 0·76 (0·65–0·85) for FeNO; 0·71 (0·65–0·76) and 0·77 (0·70–0·83) for blood eosinophils; and 0·64 (0·42–0·81) and 0·71 (0·42–0·89) for IgE. Interpretation FeNO, blood eosinophils, and IgE have moderate diagnostic accuracy. Their use as a single surrogate marker for airway eosinophilia in patients with asthma will lead to a substantial number of false positives or false negatives. Funding None.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2213-2600</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2213-2619</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00050-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25801413</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Area Under Curve ; Asthma - blood ; Asthma - diagnosis ; Biopsy ; Breath Tests ; Bronchoalveolar Lavage ; Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid - cytology ; Eosinophilia - blood ; Eosinophilia - diagnosis ; Eosinophils - cytology ; Humans ; Immunoglobulin E - blood ; Leukocyte Count ; Nitric Oxide - analysis ; Pulmonary Eosinophilia - blood ; Pulmonary Eosinophilia - diagnosis ; Pulmonary/Respiratory ; Sputum - cytology</subject><ispartof>The lancet respiratory medicine, 2015-04, Vol.3 (4), p.290-300</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2015 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c608t-c53fec43eda7f3853381f4c704e7f2a5e2df8bf26fa3acbb58f3edb18d07c9653</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c608t-c53fec43eda7f3853381f4c704e7f2a5e2df8bf26fa3acbb58f3edb18d07c9653</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25801413$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Korevaar, Daniël A, Dr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westerhof, Guus A, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Junfeng, MSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Jérémie F, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spijker, René, MSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sterk, Peter J, Prof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bel, Elisabeth H, Prof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bossuyt, Patrick M M, Prof</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnostic accuracy of minimally invasive markers for detection of airway eosinophilia in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>The lancet respiratory medicine</title><addtitle>Lancet Respir Med</addtitle><description>Summary Background Eosinophilic airway inflammation is associated with increased corticosteroid responsiveness in asthma, but direct airway sampling methods are invasive or laborious. Minimally invasive markers for airway eosinophilia could present an alternative method, but estimates of their accuracy vary. Methods We did a systematic review and searched Medline, Embase, and PubMed for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of markers against a reference standard of induced sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, or endobronchial biopsy in patients with asthma or suspected asthma (for inception to Aug 1, 2014). Unpublished results were obtained by contacting authors of studies that did not report on diagnostic accuracy, but had data from which estimates could be calculated. We assessed risk of bias with QUADAS-2. We used meta-analysis to produce summary estimates of accuracy. Findings We included 32 studies: 24 in adults and eight in children. Of these, 26 (81%) showed risk of bias in at least one domain. In adults, three markers had extensively been investigated: fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) (17 studies; 3216 patients; summary area under the receiver operator curve [AUC] 0·75 [95% CI 0·72–0·78]); blood eosinophils (14 studies; 2405 patients; 0·78 [0·74–0·82]); total IgE (seven studies; 942 patients; 0·65 [0·61–0·69]). In children, only FeNO (six studies; 349 patients; summary AUC 0·81 [0·72–0·89]) and blood eosinophils (three studies; 192 patients; 0·78 [0·71–0·85]) had been investigated in more than one study. Induced sputum was most frequently used as the reference standard. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity in detecting sputum eosinophils of 3% or more in adults were: 0·66 (0·57–0·75) and 0·76 (0·65–0·85) for FeNO; 0·71 (0·65–0·76) and 0·77 (0·70–0·83) for blood eosinophils; and 0·64 (0·42–0·81) and 0·71 (0·42–0·89) for IgE. Interpretation FeNO, blood eosinophils, and IgE have moderate diagnostic accuracy. Their use as a single surrogate marker for airway eosinophilia in patients with asthma will lead to a substantial number of false positives or false negatives. Funding None.</description><subject>Area Under Curve</subject><subject>Asthma - blood</subject><subject>Asthma - diagnosis</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Breath Tests</subject><subject>Bronchoalveolar Lavage</subject><subject>Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid - cytology</subject><subject>Eosinophilia - blood</subject><subject>Eosinophilia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Eosinophils - cytology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin E - blood</subject><subject>Leukocyte Count</subject><subject>Nitric Oxide - analysis</subject><subject>Pulmonary Eosinophilia - blood</subject><subject>Pulmonary Eosinophilia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Pulmonary/Respiratory</subject><subject>Sputum - cytology</subject><issn>2213-2600</issn><issn>2213-2619</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1u1TAQhSMEolXpI4C8LIuAf-LElwWoKr9SJRbA2po4Y-o2iS-e5FZ5Al4b595LF2xYeWR954zmnKJ4LvgrwUX9-puUQpWy5vxC6Jecc81L86g4PX6LzeOHmfOT4pzoNkPcmEry6mlxIrXhohLqtPj9PsDPMdIUHAPn5gRuYdGzIYxhgL5fWBh3QGGHbIB0h4mYj4l1OKGbQhxXFkK6h4VhpDDG7U3oA2QVA5puBnjDgNFCEw6w7ki4C3jPYOzYgBOUMEK_UKBnxRMPPeH58T0rfnz88P3qc3n99dOXq8vr0tXcTKXTyqOrFHbQeGW0Ukb4yjW8wsZL0Cg7b1ovaw8KXNtq4zPbCtPxxm1qrc6Ki4PvNsVfM9Jkh0AO-x5GjDNZUTdVbcxGy4zqA-pSJEro7TblTNJiBbdrDXZfg10ztkLbfQ3WZN2L44q5HbB7UP0NPQPvDgDmQ3McyZILODrsQsqp2i6G_654-4-D63NhDvo7XJBu45xyrvkaS9Lyg8nqIfTewag_kGGvDg</recordid><startdate>20150401</startdate><enddate>20150401</enddate><creator>Korevaar, Daniël A, Dr</creator><creator>Westerhof, Guus A, MD</creator><creator>Wang, Junfeng, MSc</creator><creator>Cohen, Jérémie F, PhD</creator><creator>Spijker, René, MSc</creator><creator>Sterk, Peter J, Prof</creator><creator>Bel, Elisabeth H, Prof</creator><creator>Bossuyt, Patrick M M, Prof</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150401</creationdate><title>Diagnostic accuracy of minimally invasive markers for detection of airway eosinophilia in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Korevaar, Daniël A, Dr ; Westerhof, Guus A, MD ; Wang, Junfeng, MSc ; Cohen, Jérémie F, PhD ; Spijker, René, MSc ; Sterk, Peter J, Prof ; Bel, Elisabeth H, Prof ; Bossuyt, Patrick M M, Prof</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c608t-c53fec43eda7f3853381f4c704e7f2a5e2df8bf26fa3acbb58f3edb18d07c9653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Area Under Curve</topic><topic>Asthma - blood</topic><topic>Asthma - diagnosis</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Breath Tests</topic><topic>Bronchoalveolar Lavage</topic><topic>Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid - cytology</topic><topic>Eosinophilia - blood</topic><topic>Eosinophilia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Eosinophils - cytology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin E - blood</topic><topic>Leukocyte Count</topic><topic>Nitric Oxide - analysis</topic><topic>Pulmonary Eosinophilia - blood</topic><topic>Pulmonary Eosinophilia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Pulmonary/Respiratory</topic><topic>Sputum - cytology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Korevaar, Daniël A, Dr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westerhof, Guus A, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Junfeng, MSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Jérémie F, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spijker, René, MSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sterk, Peter J, Prof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bel, Elisabeth H, Prof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bossuyt, Patrick M M, Prof</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The lancet respiratory medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Korevaar, Daniël A, Dr</au><au>Westerhof, Guus A, MD</au><au>Wang, Junfeng, MSc</au><au>Cohen, Jérémie F, PhD</au><au>Spijker, René, MSc</au><au>Sterk, Peter J, Prof</au><au>Bel, Elisabeth H, Prof</au><au>Bossuyt, Patrick M M, Prof</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnostic accuracy of minimally invasive markers for detection of airway eosinophilia in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>The lancet respiratory medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Lancet Respir Med</addtitle><date>2015-04-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>290</spage><epage>300</epage><pages>290-300</pages><issn>2213-2600</issn><eissn>2213-2619</eissn><abstract>Summary Background Eosinophilic airway inflammation is associated with increased corticosteroid responsiveness in asthma, but direct airway sampling methods are invasive or laborious. Minimally invasive markers for airway eosinophilia could present an alternative method, but estimates of their accuracy vary. Methods We did a systematic review and searched Medline, Embase, and PubMed for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of markers against a reference standard of induced sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, or endobronchial biopsy in patients with asthma or suspected asthma (for inception to Aug 1, 2014). Unpublished results were obtained by contacting authors of studies that did not report on diagnostic accuracy, but had data from which estimates could be calculated. We assessed risk of bias with QUADAS-2. We used meta-analysis to produce summary estimates of accuracy. Findings We included 32 studies: 24 in adults and eight in children. Of these, 26 (81%) showed risk of bias in at least one domain. In adults, three markers had extensively been investigated: fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) (17 studies; 3216 patients; summary area under the receiver operator curve [AUC] 0·75 [95% CI 0·72–0·78]); blood eosinophils (14 studies; 2405 patients; 0·78 [0·74–0·82]); total IgE (seven studies; 942 patients; 0·65 [0·61–0·69]). In children, only FeNO (six studies; 349 patients; summary AUC 0·81 [0·72–0·89]) and blood eosinophils (three studies; 192 patients; 0·78 [0·71–0·85]) had been investigated in more than one study. Induced sputum was most frequently used as the reference standard. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity in detecting sputum eosinophils of 3% or more in adults were: 0·66 (0·57–0·75) and 0·76 (0·65–0·85) for FeNO; 0·71 (0·65–0·76) and 0·77 (0·70–0·83) for blood eosinophils; and 0·64 (0·42–0·81) and 0·71 (0·42–0·89) for IgE. Interpretation FeNO, blood eosinophils, and IgE have moderate diagnostic accuracy. Their use as a single surrogate marker for airway eosinophilia in patients with asthma will lead to a substantial number of false positives or false negatives. Funding None.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>25801413</pmid><doi>10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00050-8</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2213-2600 |
ispartof | The lancet respiratory medicine, 2015-04, Vol.3 (4), p.290-300 |
issn | 2213-2600 2213-2619 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1674688952 |
source | MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Area Under Curve Asthma - blood Asthma - diagnosis Biopsy Breath Tests Bronchoalveolar Lavage Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid - cytology Eosinophilia - blood Eosinophilia - diagnosis Eosinophils - cytology Humans Immunoglobulin E - blood Leukocyte Count Nitric Oxide - analysis Pulmonary Eosinophilia - blood Pulmonary Eosinophilia - diagnosis Pulmonary/Respiratory Sputum - cytology |
title | Diagnostic accuracy of minimally invasive markers for detection of airway eosinophilia in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T06%3A16%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnostic%20accuracy%20of%20minimally%20invasive%20markers%20for%20detection%20of%20airway%20eosinophilia%20in%20asthma:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=The%20lancet%20respiratory%20medicine&rft.au=Korevaar,%20Dani%C3%ABl%20A,%20Dr&rft.date=2015-04-01&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=290&rft.epage=300&rft.pages=290-300&rft.issn=2213-2600&rft.eissn=2213-2619&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00050-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1674688952%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1674688952&rft_id=info:pmid/25801413&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S2213260015000508&rfr_iscdi=true |