呼出气一氧化氮和血嗜酸性粒细胞对哮喘患者气道高反应性程度的预测价值

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6902.2021.01.005

目的

分析呼出气一氧化氮(fraction of exhaled nitric oxide, FeNO)水平和血嗜酸性粒细胞(blood eosinophil, B-Eos)计数对哮喘患者气道高反应性(airway hyperresponsiveness, AHR)程度的预测价值，并探索AHR严重程度的预测模型。

方法

选择2014年1月至2019年12月于我院首诊为哮喘的患者1 347例，将其中520例具有FeNO和B-Eos的纳入主要研究人群。依据乙酰甲胆碱激发试验(methacholine challenge test, MCT)结果，分为重度AHR组(MCT为中度或重度阳性183例和轻度AHR组(MCT为极轻度或轻度阳性337例。然后分析两组差异，用Logistic回归构建预测模型，最后绘制重度AHR风险的列线图和森林图。

结果

重度AHR组的FeNO和B-Eos均高于轻度AHR组(73 vs. 36 ppb、394 vs. 243个/μl，P<0.001)。Logistic回归示年龄、性别、FEV₁/FVC、B-Eos、FeNO为重度AHR的独立危险因素，将它们纳入回归模型，其灵敏度为49.7%，特异度为87.8%。受试者工作特征曲线示模型的曲线下面积明显高于单独的FeNO或B-Eos(0.797 vs. 0.715或0.644，P<0.001)。重度AHR风险的亚组分析示：随着FeNO或B-Eos的增高风险逐步增高(趋势检验P<0.001)；女性的风险为男性的1.57倍(P＝0.041)，而低FEV₁/FVC组(<70%)为正常组的3.38倍(P<0.001)。

结论

在哮喘患者中单独的FeNO或B-Eos对重度AHR具有中等程度的预测效能，通过多因素回归模型构建的列线图可以用于预测重度AHR的概率。

关键词: 气道高反应性, 呼出气一氧化氮, 血嗜酸性粒细胞计数, ROC曲线分析, 列线图

Objective

To analyze the predictive value of the fractional of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and blood eosinophil (B-Eos) counts on the severity of airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma patients, then explore a prediction model for the severity of AHR.

Methods

This study retrospectively collected 1347 patients diagnosed with asthma in our hospital from January 2014 to December 2019, and identified a cohort of 520 patients who had simultaneous completed datasets of FeNO and B-Eos. According to the methacholine challenge test (MCT) results, the population was divided into severe AHR group (MCT is moderate or severely positive, n=183) and mild AHR group (MCT is very mild or slightly positive, n=337). The differences in demographics, lung function, FeNO and B-Eos are analyzed between these two groups. Logistic regression is used to construct a multi-factor regression model, then the risk of severe AHR is displayed by nomogram and forest chart.

Results

FeNO and B-Eos in the severe AHR group were significantly higher than those in the mild AHR group (73 vs. 36 ppb, 394 vs. 243 cells/μl, P<0.001). Logistic regression showed that age, gender, FEV₁/FVC ratio, B-Eos, and FeNO were independent risk factors for severe AHR. The model incorporating these risk factors has a sensitivity of 49.7% and a specificity of 87.8%. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis shows that the AUC of the regression model is significantly higher than that of FeNO or B-Eos alone (0.797 vs. 0.715 or 0.644, P<0.001). When comparing the risk of having severe AHR in different subgroups, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of having severe AHR elevated progressively with the gradual increase in FeNO or B-Eos (P<0.001). While, the multivariable aOR of having severe AHR was 1.57 for females (P=0.041), 3.38 for patients with lower FEV₁/FVC ratio (<70%, P<0.001).

Conclusion

FeNO or B-Eos alone has moderate diagnostic accuracy for predicting severe AHR. The nomogram constructed by the multi-factor regression model can be used to predict the probability of severe AHR.

Key words: Airway hyperresponsiveness, Fraction of exhaled nitric oxide, Blood eosinophils, Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, Nomogram

图1 MCT等级分组后FeNO及B-Eos分布的散点图；注：(A)MCT等级分组后FeNO分布的散点图；(B)MCT等级分组后B-Eos分布的散点图；备注：各指标的组间散点分布以不同颜色区分，短线标注为每组的中位数和四分位数范围；组间统计学差异采用Kruskal-Wallis H检验比较

表1 研究人群人口学资料及基线特征

临床资料		气道高反应性程度		P值	数据是否齐全^d		P值
临床资料		轻度(MCT+或+/-)(n＝337)	重度(MCT++或+++)(n＝183)	P值	数据齐全组(n＝520)	数据不齐组(n＝827)	P值
年龄(岁)		45(32～52)	41(32～49)	0.040^a	43.5(32～51)	44(31.75～52)	0.591^a
身高(cm)		158(153～165)	160(153～165)	0.483^a	159(153～165)	159(153～166)	0.218^a
体重(kg)		58(52～66)	57(52～65)	0.346^a	58(52～66)	58(52～66)	0.722^a
体重指数(kg/m²)		23.37(21.09～25.59)	22.86(21.19～25)	0.156^a	23.21(21.12～25.47)	22.95(20.58～25.49)	0.428^a
白细胞(×10⁹/L)		6.87(5.86～8.53)	7.23(6.1～8.85)	0.212^a	7.06(5.9～8.7)	7.58(6.25～8.67)(n＝84)	0.065^a
中性粒细胞(%)		59.38±9.80	57.10±10.05	0.012^b	58.58±9.94	60.01±9.05(n＝84)	0.214^b
嗜酸性粒细胞计数(/μl)		243(111.5～462.5)	394(216～617)	<0.001^a	289.5(134.25～500)	249(150～481.25)(n＝84)	0.824^a
嗜酸性粒细胞(%)		3.5(1.6～6.3)	5.6(3.3～8.6)	<0.001^a	4.2(2～7.38)	4.05(1.9～5.88)(n＝84)	0.382^a
FeNO (ppb)		36(20～67)	73(40～132)	<0.001^a	50(24～87)	48.5(24～88)(n＝576)	0.975^a
用力肺活量(占预计值%)		99.4(90.6～108.4)	98.9(93.5～109.5)	0.394^a	99.2(91.75～108.78)	97.95(90.78～106.9)	0.049^a
FEV₁(占预计值%)		89.7(81.4～99.9)	84(76.4～92.7)	<0.001^a	87.65(79.7～97.1)	86.9(80.4～95.3)	0.547^a
FEV₁/FVC (%)		77(69.53～82.04)	69.98(66.33～76.8)	<0.001^a	74.88(68.25～80.08)	75.5(69.03～80.9)	0.169^a
性别				0.552^c			0.206^c
	男	111(32.9)	65(35.5)		176(33.8)	308(37.2)
	女	226(67.1)	118(64.5)		344(66.2)	519(62.8)

表1 研究人群人口学资料及基线特征

临床资料		气道高反应性程度		P值	数据是否齐全^d		P值
临床资料		轻度(MCT+或+/-)(n＝337)	重度(MCT++或+++)(n＝183)	P值	数据齐全组(n＝520)	数据不齐组(n＝827)	P值
年龄(岁)		45(32～52)	41(32～49)	0.040^a	43.5(32～51)	44(31.75～52)	0.591^a
身高(cm)		158(153～165)	160(153～165)	0.483^a	159(153～165)	159(153～166)	0.218^a
体重(kg)		58(52～66)	57(52～65)	0.346^a	58(52～66)	58(52～66)	0.722^a
体重指数(kg/m²)		23.37(21.09～25.59)	22.86(21.19～25)	0.156^a	23.21(21.12～25.47)	22.95(20.58～25.49)	0.428^a
白细胞(×10⁹/L)		6.87(5.86～8.53)	7.23(6.1～8.85)	0.212^a	7.06(5.9～8.7)	7.58(6.25～8.67)(n＝84)	0.065^a
中性粒细胞(%)		59.38±9.80	57.10±10.05	0.012^b	58.58±9.94	60.01±9.05(n＝84)	0.214^b
嗜酸性粒细胞计数(/μl)		243(111.5～462.5)	394(216～617)	<0.001^a	289.5(134.25～500)	249(150～481.25)(n＝84)	0.824^a
嗜酸性粒细胞(%)		3.5(1.6～6.3)	5.6(3.3～8.6)	<0.001^a	4.2(2～7.38)	4.05(1.9～5.88)(n＝84)	0.382^a
FeNO (ppb)		36(20～67)	73(40～132)	<0.001^a	50(24～87)	48.5(24～88)(n＝576)	0.975^a
用力肺活量(占预计值%)		99.4(90.6～108.4)	98.9(93.5～109.5)	0.394^a	99.2(91.75～108.78)	97.95(90.78～106.9)	0.049^a
FEV₁(占预计值%)		89.7(81.4～99.9)	84(76.4～92.7)	<0.001^a	87.65(79.7～97.1)	86.9(80.4～95.3)	0.547^a
FEV₁/FVC (%)		77(69.53～82.04)	69.98(66.33～76.8)	<0.001^a	74.88(68.25～80.08)	75.5(69.03～80.9)	0.169^a
性别				0.552^c			0.206^c
	男	111(32.9)	65(35.5)		176(33.8)	308(37.2)
	女	226(67.1)	118(64.5)		344(66.2)	519(62.8)

图2 预测AHR程度的ROC曲线；注：(A)所有患者中FeNO、B-Eos及回归模型的ROC曲线比较；(B)女性患者中FeNO、B-Eos及回归模型的ROC曲线比较。b：采用Hanley&McNeil非参数方法

表2 FeNO及B-Eos不同界值预测重度AHR的准确性

分　类		灵敏度(%)	特异度(%)	阳性释然比	阴性释然比	阳性预测值(%)	阴性预测值(%)
FeNO(ppb)
	≥25	89.6	37.7	1.4	0.3	43.9	87.0
	≥50	70.0	61.1	1.8	0.5	49.4	78.9
	≥52^a	69.4	63.2	1.9	0.5	50.6	79.2
B-Eos(个/微升)
	≥100	90.7	22.0	1.2	0.4	38.7	81.3
	≥170^a	84.7	39.5	1.4	0.4	43.2	82.6
	≥300	63.4	59.9	1.6	0.6	46.2	75.1
	≥500	34.4	80.7	1.8	0.8	49.2	69.4

表2 FeNO及B-Eos不同界值预测重度AHR的准确性

分　类		灵敏度(%)	特异度(%)	阳性释然比	阴性释然比	阳性预测值(%)	阴性预测值(%)
FeNO(ppb)
	≥25	89.6	37.7	1.4	0.3	43.9	87.0
	≥50	70.0	61.1	1.8	0.5	49.4	78.9
	≥52^a	69.4	63.2	1.9	0.5	50.6	79.2
B-Eos(个/微升)
	≥100	90.7	22.0	1.2	0.4	38.7	81.3
	≥170^a	84.7	39.5	1.4	0.4	43.2	82.6
	≥300	63.4	59.9	1.6	0.6	46.2	75.1
	≥500	34.4	80.7	1.8	0.8	49.2	69.4

图3 预测重度AHR模型的列线图；注：Logistic回归模型的列线图

表3 多因素Logistic回归模型的统计量

因　素	β值	标准误	Wald值	自由度	P值	OR	OR的95%置信区间
因　素	β值	标准误	Wald值	自由度	P值	OR	下限	上限
常　量	7.871	1.362	33.396	1	<0.001
年龄(岁)	-0.039	0.009	17.283	1	<0.001	0.962	0.945	0.98
性别(女/男)	0.798	0.243	10.817	1	0.001	2.221	1.38	3.572
FEV₁/FVC(%)	-0.114	0.016	51.716	1	<0.001	0.892	0.865	0.92
B-Eos(/μl)	0.001	0.0003	4.464	1	0.035	1.001	1	1.001
FeNO(ppb)	0.012	0.002	34.292	1	<0.001	1.012	1.008	1.016

表3 多因素Logistic回归模型的统计量

因　素	β值	标准误	Wald值	自由度	P值	OR	OR的95%置信区间
因　素	β值	标准误	Wald值	自由度	P值	OR	下限	上限
常　量	7.871	1.362	33.396	1	<0.001
年龄(岁)	-0.039	0.009	17.283	1	<0.001	0.962	0.945	0.98
性别(女/男)	0.798	0.243	10.817	1	0.001	2.221	1.38	3.572
FEV₁/FVC(%)	-0.114	0.016	51.716	1	<0.001	0.892	0.865	0.92
B-Eos(/μl)	0.001	0.0003	4.464	1	0.035	1.001	1	1.001
FeNO(ppb)	0.012	0.002	34.292	1	<0.001	1.012	1.008	1.016

图4 不同分组重度AHR占比及乙酰甲胆碱PD20-FEV₁剂量分布；注：(A)FeNO及B-Eos高低分组后AHR程度的直方图；(B)FeNO及B-Eos高低分组后乙酰甲胆碱PD20-FEV₁的散点图；备注：以FeNO、B-Eos预测重度AHR的最佳截止值(52 ppb或170个/微升)区分各自高或低

1	2020 GINA Report, Global strategy for asthma management and prevention[J]. 2020. accessed May 30, 2020)． URL
2	中华医学会呼吸病学分会哮喘学组. 支气管哮喘防治指南(2016年版)[J]. 中华结核和呼吸杂志，2016, 39(9): 675-697.
3	娄月妍，郑　宇，张丽妍，等. 呼出气一氧化氮在哮喘中的临床意义[J/CD]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2020, 13(3): 297-301.
4	王　彦，吴　奎，王长征，等. 支气管哮喘患者的高分辨率CT的常见表现[J/CD]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2019, 12(6): 772-775.
5	Papi A, Brightling C, Pedersen SE, et al. Asthma[J]. Lancet, 2018, 391(10122): 783-800.
6	Huang K, Yang T, Xu J, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and management of asthma in China: a national cross-sectional study[J]. The Lancet, 2019, 394(10196): 407-418.
7	王长征. 改善支气管哮喘控制现状，需要重视患者的长期管理[J/CD]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2013, 6(4): 296-298.
8	Barjaktarevic I, Kaner R, Buhr RG, et al. Bronchodilator responsiveness or reversibility in asthma and COPD-a need for clarity[J]. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis, 2018, 13: 3511-3513.
9	Coates AL, Wanger J, Cockcroft DW, et al. ERS technical standard on bronchial challenge testing: general considerations and performance of methacholine challenge tests[J]. European Respiratory Journal, 2017, 49(5): 1601526.
10	Nair P, Martin JG, Cockcroft DC, et al. Airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma: Measurement and clinical relevance[J]. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract, 2017, 5(3): 649-659.
11	Hancox RJ, Pavord ID, Sears MR. Associations between blood eosinophils and decline in lung function among adults with and without asthma[J]. European Respiratory Journal, 2018, 51(4): 1702536.
12	Quaedvlieg V, Sele J, Henket M, et al. Association between asthma control and bronchial hyperresponsiveness and airways inflammation: a cross-sectional study in daily practice[J]. Clin Exp Allergy, 2009, 39(12): 1822-1829.
13	中华医学会呼吸病学分会肺功能专业组. 肺功能检查指南(第三部分)——组织胺和乙酰甲胆碱支气管激发试验[J]. 中华结核和呼吸杂志，2014, 37(8): 566-571.
14	Wenzel SE. Asthma phenotypes: the evolution from clinical to molecular approaches[J]. Nature Medicine, 2012, 18(5): 716-725.
15	Barnes PJ. Targeting cytokines to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease[J]. Nature Reviews Immunology, 2018, 18(7): 454-466.
16	Pavord ID, Beasley R, Agusti A, et al. After asthma: redefining airways diseases[J]. The Lancet, 2018, 391(10118): 350-400.
17	Schwartz N, Grossman A, Levy Y, et al. Correlation between eosinophil count and methacholine challenge test in asymptomatic subjects[J]. J Asthma, 2012, 49(4): 336-341.
18	Malinovschi A, Janson C, Borres M, et al. Simultaneously increased fraction of exhaled nitric oxide levels and blood eosinophil counts relate to increased asthma morbidity[J]. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2016, 138(5): 1301-1308.
19	Horváth I, Barnes PJ, Loukides S, et al. A European Respiratory Society technical standard: exhaled biomarkers in lung disease[J]. European Respir J, 2017, 49(4): 1600965.
20	Schulze J, Rosewich M, Riemer C, et al. Methacholine challenge-Comparison of an ATS protocol to a new rapid single concentration technique[J]. Respir Med, 2009, 103(12): 1898-1903.
21	Wang M, Luo X, Xu S, et al. Trends in smoking prevalence and implication for chronic diseases in China: serial national cross-sectional surveys from 2003 to 2013[J]. Lancet Respir Med, 2019, 7(1): 35-45.
22	Aaron SD, Boulet LP, Reddel HK, et al. Underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis of asthma[J]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2018, 198(8): 1012-1020.
23	Saglani S, Menzie-Gow AN. Approaches to asthma diagnosis in Children and adults[J]. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 2019, 7.
24	Sano H, Tomita K, Sano A, et al. Accuracy of objective tests for diagnosing adult asthma in symptomatic patients: A systematic literature review and hierarchical Bayesian latent-class meta-analysis[J]. Allergol Int, 2019, 68(2): 191-198.
25	Korevaar DAD, Westerhof GAM, Wang JM, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of minimally invasive markers for detection of airway eosinophilia in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Lancet Respir Med, 2015, 3(4): 290-300.
26	van Bragt J, Vijverberg S, Weersink E, et al. Blood biomarkers in chronic airways diseases and their role in diagnosis and management[J]. Expert Rev Respir Med, 2018, 12(5): 361-374.
27	Menzies-Gow A, Mansur AH, Brightling CE. Clinical utility of fractional exhaled nitric oxide in severe asthma management[J]. Eur Respir J, 2020, 55(3): 1901633.
28	Bernholm KF, Homoe AS, Meteran H, et al. FeNO-based asthma management results in faster improvement of airway hyperresponsiveness[J]. ERJ Open Res, 2018, 4(4): 00147-2017.
29	Uk N I F H. Asthma: diagnosis and monitoring of asthma in adults, children and young people[M]. London：National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK), 2017. accessed May 30, 2020). URL
30	Bougard N, Nekoee H, Schleich F, et al. Assessment of diagnostic accuracy of lung function indices and FeNO for a positive methacholine challenge[J]. Biochem Pharmacol, 2020: 113981.
31	Price DB, Rigazio A, Campbell JD, et al. Blood eosinophil count and prospective annual asthma disease burden: a UK cohort study[J]. Lancet Respir Med, 2015, 3(11): 849-858.

[1]	胡可, 鲁蓉. 基于多参数超声特征的中老年女性压力性尿失禁诊断模型研究[J]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(05): 477-483.
[2]	余晓青, 高欣, 罗文培, 杨露. BI-RADS 4类结节患者的乳腺癌风险预测模型[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 217-223.
[3]	童芷芹, 刘艳, 潘亚娟. 后路腰椎椎间融合术后手术部位感染风险预测模型的构建[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 149-155.
[4]	刘哲魁, 马文星, 聂灵芝, 吴云桦, 单良, 王泽正. HALP评分联合术前检查预测老年胃癌淋巴结转移的价值[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 209-215.
[5]	陈怡芳, 黄晓卉. 肝细胞癌中对氧磷酶2的表达及临床意义[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 186-191.
[6]	蔡大明, 陆晓峰, 王行舟, 王萌, 刘颂, 夏雪峰, 沈晓菲, 杜峻峰, 管文贤. 三级淋巴结构在胃神经内分泌瘤中的预后价值及预后预测模型构建[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 401-405.
[7]	郝智勇, 雷霞, 张国锋, 李锋. 经腹腹膜前疝修补术治疗阴囊疝术后血清肿的相关危险因素分析及预测模型构建[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 291-295.
[8]	张瑜, 姜梦妮. 基于DWI信号值构建局部进展期胰腺癌放化疗生存获益预测模型[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(05): 657-664.
[9]	杨秀君, 崔梦莹, 刘水, 盛基尧, 张丹. 基于SEER数据库胰头部胰腺神经内分泌癌患者预后列线图构建与验证[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(04): 520-525.
[10]	杨竞, 周光文. 肝硬化门静脉高压症治疗后再出血危险因素分析及预测模型构建[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(03): 296-301.
[11]	钟造茂, 罗文超, 蔡满航, 陈显育, 钟跃思. 肝癌肝切除术后肝衰竭的危险因素分析及列线图模型构建[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(03): 289-295.
[12]	单良, 刘怡, 于涛, 徐丽. 老年股骨颈骨折术后患者心理弹性现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 294-300.
[13]	李娜, 李永犇, 张青. 老年四肢骨折患者2年内再骨折的预测模型构建及验证[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 171-177.
[14]	景方坤, 周建波, 王全才, 黄海韬, 李岩峰, 徐杨熙. 神经导航引导下治疗基底节高血压脑出血的短期疗效预测[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(03): 154-159.
[15]	刘燚隆, 党荣广, 艾蓉, 张凯. 肝硬化合并静脉曲张出血患者内镜治疗后再出血风险的模型建立与验证[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 336-342.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Predictive value of exhaled nitric oxide and blood eosinophils on the degree of airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma patients

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Predictive value of exhaled nitric oxide and blood eosinophils on the degree of airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma patients