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
    • 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
  • Log out

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
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Blood eosinophils predict inhaled fluticasone response in bronchiectasis

Stefano Aliberti, Giovanni Sotgiu, Francesco Blasi, Laura Saderi, Tomas Posadas, Miguel Angel Martinez Garcia
European Respiratory Journal 2020 56: 2000453; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00453-2020
Stefano Aliberti
1Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Respiratory Unit and Cystic Fibrosis Adult Center, Milan, Italy
2University of Milan, Dept of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Milan, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stefano Aliberti
  • For correspondence: stefano.aliberti@unimi.it
Giovanni Sotgiu
3Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Statistics Unit, Dept of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Research, Medical Education and Professional Development Unit, AOU Sassari, Sassari, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Giovanni Sotgiu
Francesco Blasi
1Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Respiratory Unit and Cystic Fibrosis Adult Center, Milan, Italy
2University of Milan, Dept of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Milan, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura Saderi
3Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Statistics Unit, Dept of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Research, Medical Education and Professional Development Unit, AOU Sassari, Sassari, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Laura Saderi
Tomas Posadas
4Pneumology Dept, Polytechnic and University La Fe Hospital, Valencia, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Tomas Posadas
Miguel Angel Martinez Garcia
4Pneumology Dept, Polytechnic and University La Fe Hospital, Valencia, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

6-month treatment with inhaled fluticasone propionate significantly improved quality of life in bronchiectasis patients who show a blood eosinophil counts ≥3%. https://bit.ly/3fsn4na

To the Editor:

The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with bronchiectasis is a matter of debate [1]. International registries report up to 42% of bronchiectasis patients receiving ICS, although several guidelines recommend their prescription only in the presence of specific comorbidities (e.g. allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), asthma, COPD, and inflammatory bowel disease) or of eosinophilic inflammation [2, 3]. Assessment of eosinophil counts in sputum is not considered, to date, a standard of care. Blood eosinophils have been shown to be a predictor of ICS response in COPD and asthma [4, 5]. The identification of a specific population of bronchiectasis patients who might respond to ICS is key. Response to ICS can be measured in bronchiectasis patients evaluating not only the reduction of exacerbations but also the improvement of their quality of life (QoL). We hypothesised that bronchiectasis patients with a high blood eosinophil count can benefit from ICS in terms of a clinically meaningful improvement of QoL.

An unplanned, post hoc analysis of a randomised, double-blind, controlled, study aimed at evaluating the impact of ICS on QoL in bronchiectasis patients was conducted. Details of the study are reported elsewhere [6]. Adults with clinically and radiologically significant bronchiectasis were enrolled in a single centre in Spain. Patients with cystic fibrosis, as well as those with concomitant asthma or ABPA, were excluded. Patients in stable clinical conditions (4 weeks out of an exacerbation) were randomised to a 6-month treatment with either 250 µg twice daily or 500 µg twice daily inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) or no treatment. The primary endpoint was a clinically significant change (≥4 points) in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score after 6 months of therapy. Four study groups were considered, based on both the percentage of blood eosinophils at baseline (<3%: low blood eosinophils (LowEos group) versus ≥3%: high blood eosinophils (HighEos group)) and the exposure to FP (no treatment versus treatment with FP). Following the poor scientific evidence on the cut-off value of eosinophils in bronchiectasis studies, the 3% eosinophil threshold has been arbitrarily chosen to be the median percentage value in our cohort. Furthermore, the same analysis was conducted using the 150 cells·µL−1 cut-off of the absolute eosinophils count (<150 cells µL−1: LowEos group versus ≥150 cells·µL−1: HighEos group). Finally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted excluding patients with a diagnosis of COPD.

Among the 86 patients enrolled in the original study, 42 (48.8%) were in the HighEos and 44 (51.2%) in the LowEos group. In the HighEos group, 13 (31.0%) were not treated, whereas 29 (69.1%) were treated with FP. In the LowEos group, 16 (36.4%) were not treated, whereas 28 (63.6%) were treated with FP. No statistically significant differences were found between the four study groups at baseline in terms of age, gender, treatment with FP and SGRQ values (table 1). No statistically significant differences were also found after the exclusion of patients with COPD. Among the entire study population, a statistically significant reduction (≥4 points) of the SGRQ after 6 months of FP was found in the HighEos group between those who were versus were not treated with FP (15 (51.7%) versus 0 (0.0%); p=0.0001) (table 1). In the HighEos group, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) SGRQ total change was −4.1 (−9.7; 0.4) and 1.6 (0.7; 3.1) in those treated and not treated with FP (p=0.002). In the HighEos group, the proportion of individuals with a modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale of 3–4 at 3 months of follow-up was significantly higher in those not treated with FP (23.1% versus 0.0%; p=0.03), and a higher exacerbation rate was found in those who were not treated versus those who were treated with FP, although there was no statistically significant difference. No statistically significant differences were found for the mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at 6 months in the HighEos group. No statistically significant improvement of QoL was detected in patients with LowEos when patients who were administered FP were compared with those exposed to placebo (10 (37.0%) versus 1 (6.7%); p=0.06). No statistically significant differences were found for the exacerbation rate, mean FEV1 at 6 months and proportion of MRC 3–4 in the LowEos group. The sensitivity analysis based on the exclusion of patients with concomitant COPD confirmed the above-mentioned findings (change of the SGRQ ≥4 points in the HighEos group: 47.4% in patients treated with FP versus 0.0% in patients treated with placebo; p=0.03). In the HighEos group after exclusion of COPD patients, the median SGRQ total change was −3.7 (−8.5; +5.0) versus +1 (+0.4; +2.7) in those treated versus those not treated with FP (p=0.02).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Baseline characteristics and outcomes of the four study groups

Using the 150 cells·µL−1 cut-off of eosinophils absolute count, a statistically significant reduction (≥4 points) of the SGRQ after 6 months of FP was found in the HighEos group (≥150 cells·µL−1; n=63 patients) between those who were versus were not treated with FP (21 (47.7%) versus 0 (0.0%); p=0.0001). In the HighEos group, the median (IQR) SGRQ total change was −3.1 (−8.9; 2.8) and 1.6 (0.4; 4.2) in those treated and not treated with FP (p= 0.003). Significant differences in terms of reduction (≥4 points) of the SGRQ or the median (IQR) SGRQ total change were not found between those who were versus those were not treated with FP in the LowEos group (<150 cells·µL−1; n=23 patients). The sensitivity analysis based on the exclusion of patients with concomitant COPD confirmed the above-mentioned findings (change of the SGRQ ≥4 points in the HighEos group (≥150 cells·µL−1): 43.3% in patients treated with FP versus 0.0% in patients treated with placebo; p=0.002). In the HighEos group (≥150 cells·µL−1) after exclusion of COPD patients, the median SGRQ total change was −1.1 (−8.5; +3.5) versus +1 (+0.1; +4.2) in those treated versus those not treated with FP (p=0.03).

Main findings of this experience include: 1) 6-month treatment with inhaled FP significantly improved QoL in the subgroup of adults with bronchiectasis with an eosinophil counts either ≥3% or ≥150 cells·µL−1; 2) this successful outcome was not found in those with an eosinophil counts ≥3% or ≥150 cells·µL−1 and not exposed to FP nor in those with an eosinophil counts <3% or <150 cells·µL−1 exposed or not to FP; 3) the statistically significant improvement of QoL in those patients with an eosinophil count ≥3% or ≥150 cells·µL−1 treated with FP was confirmed also in pure bronchiectasis patients with neither asthma nor COPD; 4) a proportional difference, although not statistically significant, was shown in terms of lower exacerbation rate was showed in those patients with an eosinophil counts ≥3% or ≥ 150 cells·µL−1 and were treated with FP in comparison with those not treated.

Data from local experiences as well as those coming from international registries have informed the scientific and clinical communities about a large proportion of bronchiectasis patients receiving ICS with neither a specific physiopathological rationale nor a strong evidence [2]. Routine use of ICS may cause unwanted side effects in bronchiectasis, including adrenal suppression, an increased risk of hospitalisation for respiratory infections and increased risk of non-tuberculous mycobacteriosis [7–9]. However, a specific T2-high endotype has been hypothesised also in bronchiectasis, with patients presenting an eosinophilic inflammation who might respond to biological drugs [10, 11]. Our results should be interpreted as “hypothesis generating”, and we are far from proposing changes in the daily clinical practice. Our preliminary findings support the hypothesis that bronchiectasis patients with neither asthma nor ABPA nor COPD, but with high blood eosinophils, might be the ones who respond to ICS treatment in terms of improvement of QoL, and encourage further research looking also at a possible effect in reducing exacerbations.

Different limitations can be recognised for the present study. The unplanned secondary analysis of a single-centre randomised controlled trial might be affected by a poor statistical power, hindering the generalisability of the findings. Two different doses of FP were prescribed during the clinical trial, raising the question of a different efficacy of the two regimens. However, owing to the poor sample size, a stratification of the cohort based on the two dosages would have been underpowered. We found that eosinophils can be a strong predictor of QoL improvement in bronchiectasis, more than in COPD. This finding could be confounded by the open-label nature of our study. In fact, although the original study design was a double-blind controlled trial, it is important to acknowledge that the design was unblinded for the purpose of this post hoc analysis which evaluates ICS versus placebo. This issue might have impacted patients’ evaluation of the QoL through the SGRQ. Furthermore, although SGRQ is a highly validated score to measure QoL in patients with chronic respiratory diseases, we now have new, more specific and accurate questionnaires (e.g. QoL-B), not administered at that time, that could be useful for future trials on this topic. Finally, we should acknowledge a low statistical power to detect differences in exacerbation rate due to the low number of exacerbations. Our study was strengthened by a consistency of the results in bronchiectasis patients both with and without COPD, by clinically meaningful improvement of QoL and by a trend also in reducing exacerbations. In conclusion, there are important signals in this secondary analysis that could guide the scientific community in better designing future randomised controlled trials on the use of steroids in light of the value of blood eosinophils.

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-00453-2020.Shareable

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: S. Aliberti reports grants and personal fees from Bayer Healthcare, Aradigm Corporation, Chiesi, INSMED and Grifols, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Basilea, Zambon, Novartis, Raptor, Actavis UK Ltd and Horizon, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: G. Sotgiu has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: F. Blasi reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Guidotti Malesci, Grifols, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and Zambon, grants from Bayer, grants and personal fees from Chiesi and Insmed, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: L. Saderi has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: T. Posadas has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M.A. Martinez Garcia has received grants and fees from Zambon, Chiesi, Vitalire, Grifols, Novartis and TEVA.

  • Received February 27, 2020.
  • Accepted May 3, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2020
https://www.ersjournals.com/user-licence

References

  1. ↵
    1. Kapur N,
    2. Petsky HL,
    3. Bell S, et al.
    Inhaled corticosteroids for bronchiectasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 5: CD000996.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Henkle E,
    2. Aksamit TR,
    3. Barker AF, et al.
    Pharmacotherapy for non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: results from an NTM Info & Research Patient Survey and the Bronchiectasis and NTM Research Registry. Chest 2017; 152: 1120–1127. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.167
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Polverino E,
    2. Goeminne PC,
    3. McDonnell MJ, et al.
    European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1700629. doi:10.1183/13993003.00629-2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Harries TH,
    2. Rowland V,
    3. Corrigan CJ, et al.
    Blood eosinophil count, a marker of inhaled corticosteroid effectiveness in preventing COPD exacerbations in post-hoc RCT and observational studies: systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Res 2020; 21: 3. doi:10.1186/s12931-019-1268-7
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Pavord ID,
    2. Agusti A
    . Blood eosinophil count: a biomarker of an important treatable trait in patients with airway disease. Eur Respir J 2016; 47: 1299–1303. doi:10.1183/13993003.00055-2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Martínez-García MA,
    2. Perpiñá-Tordera M,
    3. Román-Sánchez P, et al.
    Inhaled steroids improve quality of life in patients with steady-state bronchiectasis. Respir Med 2006; 100: 1623–1632. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2005.12.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Holme J,
    2. Tomlinson JW,
    3. Stockley RA, et al.
    Adrenal suppression in bronchiectasis and the impact of inhaled corticosteroids. Eur Respir J 2008; 32: 1047–1052. doi:10.1183/09031936.00016908
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Henkle E,
    2. Curtis JR,
    3. Chen L, et al.
    Comparative risks of chronic inhaled corticosteroids and macrolides for bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2019; 54: 1801896. doi:10.1183/13993003.01896-2018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Andréjak C,
    2. Nielsen R,
    3. Thomsen VØ, et al.
    Chronic respiratory disease, inhaled corticosteroids and risk of non-tuberculous mycobacteriosis. Thorax 2013; 68: 256–262. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-201772
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Rademacher J,
    2. Konwert S,
    3. Fuge J, et al.
    Anti-IL5 and anti-IL5Rα therapy for clinically significant bronchiectasis with eosinophilic endotype: a case series. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 1901333. doi:10.1183/13993003.01333-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Carpagnano GE,
    2. Scioscia G,
    3. Lacedonia D, et al.
    Severe uncontrolled asthma with bronchiectasis: a pilot study of an emerging phenotype that responds to mepolizumab. J Asthma Allergy 2019; 12: 83–90. doi:10.2147/JAA.S196200
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 56 Issue 2 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 56 (2)
  • 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.
Blood eosinophils predict inhaled fluticasone response in bronchiectasis
(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
Blood eosinophils predict inhaled fluticasone response in bronchiectasis
Stefano Aliberti, Giovanni Sotgiu, Francesco Blasi, Laura Saderi, Tomas Posadas, Miguel Angel Martinez Garcia
European Respiratory Journal Aug 2020, 56 (2) 2000453; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00453-2020

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Blood eosinophils predict inhaled fluticasone response in bronchiectasis
Stefano Aliberti, Giovanni Sotgiu, Francesco Blasi, Laura Saderi, Tomas Posadas, Miguel Angel Martinez Garcia
European Respiratory Journal Aug 2020, 56 (2) 2000453; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00453-2020
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
    • Shareable PDF
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • 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

  • 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 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