Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Eosinophils in COPD: how many swallows make a summer?

Ghassan Ahmed Hamad, Wesley Cheung, Michael G. Crooks, Alyn H. Morice
European Respiratory Journal 2018 51: 1702177; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02177-2017
Ghassan Ahmed Hamad
Academic Respiratory Medicine, Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wesley Cheung
Academic Respiratory Medicine, Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael G. Crooks
Academic Respiratory Medicine, Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alyn H. Morice
Academic Respiratory Medicine, Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: a.h.morice@hull.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Repeated measures of eosinophil counts increased the proportion of eosinophilic patients http://ow.ly/LhnV30hlR5j

To the Editor:

There is considerable controversy over the place of the blood eosinophil as a biomarker in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Recent literature suggests its use in assessing responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) [1, 2] and in predicting exacerbations [3, 4]. Other studies either wholly or partially refute these associations [5–7]. We suggest that what underlies this confusion is the failure to understand the temporal variation in the biomarker, and the inherent imprecision in the collection of associated end-point data.

The fact that blood eosinophils are affected by numerous factors, including diurnal, seasonal and hormonal variations, has been known for four decades [8, 9]. In COPD, fluctuations in disease and treatment further increase this variability [10]. Thus, the reliance on a single estimation of eosinophil count at baseline of a randomised control trial would be highly unlikely to reflect accurately the overall pattern of blood eosinophilia, and therefore the relationship with exacerbation risk or treatment response. Recently, a minority of patients were shown to have persistent eosinophilia, with the majority either non- or episodically eosinophilic [11]. As Rabe et al. [12] point out, the main questions are how many estimations are needed, and where does one draw the line?

We have retrospectively collected “real-world” data on the prevalence and variability of blood eosinophilia in COPD patients, both with and without a co-existing diagnosis of asthma, as part of an on-going audit to assess compliance with our local guidelines. We manually examined primary care electronic records for patients on the COPD register of general practices in the Hull and East Riding area of the UK. The last five available eosinophil counts were collected. The most recent eosinophil count was termed E1, the penultimate E2, and so on, up to a maximum of five eosinophil counts (E5). A COPD exacerbation was defined as requiring prescription of short-term oral steroids for COPD within 12 months of data collection.

Any absolute eosinophil count (E1–E5) of ≥0.30×109 cells per L was selected as our cut-off points for eosinophilia, to mirror local guidelines [13]. However, we also assessed ≥0.34×109 [4] and ≥0.45×109 [3], as used in previous reports. The proportion of eosinophilia was plotted against E1–E5. Continuous variables were described as median (interquartile range). Quasi-Poisson regression [14] adjusted for age, gender, predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale, smoking status and asthma co-diagnosis was employed, and adjusted rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals are reported. Missing data was handled with 40 multiple imputation datasets [15], using predictive mean matching for continuous variables, logistic regression for dichotomous variables and ordered logit regression for the MRC scale. Results were pooled according to RUBIN'S rules [16, 17]. The R version 3.4.1 software was used for statistical analysis. A p-value <0.05/5 (Bonferroni correction) was considered statistically significant.

There were 611 (320 male) patients in our cohort, from four general practices. 253 patients had a co-diagnosis of asthma. The median age was 68 (60–76) years and predicted FEV1 was 62% (46–75%). Ex-/non-smokers represented 59.2% (362 out of 611) of the cohort, whereas 40.6% (248 out of 611) were current smokers.

95% (581 out of 611) of our cohort had at least one pre-existing full blood count (FBC) in their records, and 54.5% (333 out of 611) had five available FBCs. At our guideline cut-off point of 0.30×109 cells per L, we had a 30.1% (175 out of 581) prevalence of eosinophilia at E1. Repeated measures progressively increased the overall proportion of eosinophilic patients to 46.1% (268 out of 581) for E5 (figure 1), with the largest increase of 7.75% (95% CI 5.71–10.23%) between E1 and E2. This trend can be also observed for other cut-off points in the literature.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Proportion of eosinophilic patients above cut-off values with serial estimations (95% confidence intervals).

When the relationship between blood eosinophils and exacerbations was examined at 0.30×109 cells per L, E1 had an adjusted rate ratio of 1.15 (0.79–1.68), p=0.46. At E2, the adjusted rate ratio had increased to 1.67 (1.16–2.39), p<0.01. Further sampling to E5 had no significant additional effects on the rate ratio. Similar findings were observed at the 0.34×109 cells per L and 0.45×109 cells per L cut-off points, as well as when analysis was repeated using negative binomial regression.

The use of a single value to define blood eosinophilia is, by its very nature, arbitrary. Unsurprisingly, it is clear from our data that a greater proportion of the COPD population is defined as eosinophilic with lower cut-off points. Repeated sampling reveals an increase in the proportion of patients defined as eosinophilic in all cohorts. The rate of increase in the proportion of eosinophilic patients was dependent on the cut-off point. Thus, in figure 1, the rate of increase at 0.45×109 cells per L is less than that seen at 0.30×109 cells per L. Further work will be needed to determine which measure provides the greatest sensitivity and specificity in reflecting the clinically important level of blood eosinophils as a biomarker. What is clear is that multiple measures are required.

Eosinophilia in E1 was not associated with an increased risk of exacerbation on multi-variable analysis. Eosinophilia in E2, E3, E4 and E5, on the other hand, had a statistically significant association with increased risk of exacerbation, even after Bonferroni correction. By taking repeated counts, the likelihood of underestimation of eosinophilia is ameliorated, but the risk of overestimation is increased. In terms of the risk of exacerbation, it appears from our analysis that two counts are required, with further estimations providing little, if any additional precision. Whether this also applies in the determination of therapeutic efficacy is unknown.

A further difficulty arises due to the different definitions of end-points. In different studies, exacerbations are variously defined and recorded, from adverse event reporting in clinical trials [2] to coded episodes within electronic records [3]. The latter are reliant on accurate data entry, coded correctly for subsequent electronic extraction. During our manual collection of data, there was a noticeable deficiency in coding community exacerbations and hospital admissions. This was particularly so in the non-numerical items that are not routinely coded. For example, we compared the accuracy of detecting hospital admissions by automated means in 50 patients. The manual search revealed eight episodes of admission in the past year; however, the automated search failed to detect a single episode.

The retrospective nature of our data collection is a limitation. It is not known whether eosinophil counts were recorded during stable disease or during exacerbation. However, we believe that our cohort is more representative of the real-world COPD population, as selection was based on a clinical diagnosis. Other prospective and retrospective cohorts have strict spirometric criteria, which, whilst giving a more homogeneous cohort, might not reflect patients who are seen by clinicians in primary and secondary care.

In conclusion, we would recommend that a minimum of two or more eosinophil counts should be taken into account to determine the eosinophilic status of COPD patients. However, the eosinophil count should be considered in context, and not used as an absolute arbiter for decision making. Biomarkers, however good, are no replacements for clinical judgement.

Disclosures

Supplementary Material

W. Cheung ERJ-02177-2017_Cheung

M.G. Crooks ERJ-02177-2017_Crooks

G.A. Hamad ERJ-02177-2017_Hamad

A.H. Morice ERJ-02177-2017_Morice

Footnotes

  • Support statement: This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com

  • Received October 23, 2017.
  • Accepted November 6, 2017.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2018

References

  1. ↵
    1. Hinds DR,
    2. DiSantostefano RL,
    3. Le HV, et al.
    Identification of responders to inhaled corticosteroids in a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease population using cluster analysis. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e010099.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Pavord ID,
    2. Lettis S,
    3. Locantore N, et al.
    Blood eosinophils and inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-2 agonist efficacy in COPD. Thorax 2016; 71: 118–125.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Kerkhof M,
    2. Sonnappa S,
    3. Postma DS, et al.
    Blood eosinophil count and exacerbation risk in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1700761.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Vedel-Krogh S,
    2. Nielsen SF,
    3. Lange P, et al.
    Blood Eosinophils and Exacerbations in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. The Copenhagen General Population Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193: 965–974.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Song JH,
    2. Lee CH,
    3. Kim JW, et al.
    Clinical implications of blood eosinophil count in patients with non-asthma-COPD overlap syndrome COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2017; 12: 2455–2464.
    OpenUrl
    1. Turato G,
    2. Semenzato U,
    3. Bazzan E, et al.
    Blood eosinophilia does not reflect tissue eosinophils nor worsen clinical outcomes in COPD. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; in press [https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201708-1684LE].
  6. ↵
    1. Zysman M,
    2. Deslee G,
    3. Caillaud D, et al.
    Relationship between blood eosinophils, clinical characteristics, and mortality in patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2017; 12: 1819–1824.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Dahl R,
    2. Venge P,
    3. Olsson I
    . Blood eosinophil leucocytes and eosinophil cationic protein. Diurnal variation in normal subjects and patients with bronchial asthma. Scand J Respir Dis 1978; 59: 323–325.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Spector SL,
    2. Tan RA
    . Is a single blood eosinophil count a reliable marker for ‘eosinophilic asthma’? J Asthma 2012; 49: 807–810.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Bafadhel M,
    2. Pavord ID,
    3. Russell REK
    . Eosinophils in COPD: just another biomarker? Lancet Respir Med 2017; 5: 747–759.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Casanova C,
    2. Celli BR,
    3. de-Torres JP, et al.
    Prevalence of persistent blood eosinophilia: relation to outcomes in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1701162.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Rabe K,
    2. Beghe B,
    3. Fabbri L
    . Peripheral eosinophil count as biomarker for the management of COPD: not there yet. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1702165.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    COPD Treatment Pathway: Hull & East Riding Prescribing Committee; 2016 https://www.hey.nhs.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/copdTreatmentPathway.pdf Date last updated: May 2016.
  13. ↵
    1. Ver Hoef JM,
    2. Boveng PL
    . Quasi-Poisson vs. negative binomial regression: how should we model overdispersed count data? Ecology 2007; 88: 2766–2772.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Graham JW,
    2. Olchowski AE,
    3. Gilreath TD
    . How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prev Sci 2007; 8: 206–213.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Sterne JAC,
    2. White IR,
    3. Carlin JB, et al.
    Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009; 338: b2393.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. van Buuren S,
    2. Groothuis-Oudshoorn K
    . MICE: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J Stat Softw 2011; 45: 67.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 51 Issue 1 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 51 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Eosinophils in COPD: how many swallows make a summer?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Eosinophils in COPD: how many swallows make a summer?
Ghassan Ahmed Hamad, Wesley Cheung, Michael G. Crooks, Alyn H. Morice
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2018, 51 (1) 1702177; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02177-2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Eosinophils in COPD: how many swallows make a summer?
Ghassan Ahmed Hamad, Wesley Cheung, Michael G. Crooks, Alyn H. Morice
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2018, 51 (1) 1702177; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02177-2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • COPD and smoking
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Airway immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in COPD patients
  • Wider access to rifapentine-based regimens is needed for TB care globally
  • Screening for PVOD in heterozygous EIF2AK4 variant carriers
Show more Agora

Research letters

  • Impact of depression and anxiety on exacerbation risk in bronchiectasis
  • Respiratory management of drowning-associated ARF
  • Mitochondrial DNA as biomarker of survival in RA-ILD
Show more Research letters

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society