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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The lancet respiratory medicine 2015-04, Vol.3 (4), p.290-300
Hauptverfasser: 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
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 Unpublished results were obtained by contacting authors of studies that did not report on diagnostic accuracy, but had data from which estimates could be calculated.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