4.5 Article

Airway inflammation in children and adolescents with bronchiolitis obliterans

期刊

CYTOKINE
卷 73, 期 1, 页码 156-162

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cyto.2014.10.026

关键词

Bronchiolitis obliterans; Sputum; Paediatric interstitial lung disease; Rare lung diseases

资金

  1. Starke Lunge Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Airway inflammation plays a major role in the progression of chronic lung diseases. The features of airway inflammation are not well defined among patients with cases of bronchiolitis obliterans (BO) that began in childhood. Objectives: To investigate the sputum cell and cytokine profiles of stable cases of BO regarding lung function and the involvement of small airway disease (SAD). Methods: Twenty patients with BO (median age = 14.5, range = 7-23 years) and 22 healthy controls (median age = 16.5 years, range = 7-24 years) were investigated. Lung function parameters and bronchial reversibility testing as well as sputum cell and cytokine profiles (IL-1 beta, IL-6, IL-8, TNF-alpha, IL-5, IFN-gamma, and NF kappa B regulation) were analysed using quantitative RT-PCR and cytometric bead assay (CBA) in induced sputum. Results: Patients with BO had significantly lower lung function values, including PVC, forced expiratory volume (FEV1), the Tiffeneau index (FEV1/VC), and MEF25, but increased functional residual capacity (RV/TLC) values. Bronchial reversibility was found in five patients (25%). Moreover, airway inflammation (as indicated by total cells, neutrophils, IL-1 beta, IL-6, IL-8, TNF-alpha, and NF kappa B) was significantly increased among patients with BO compared with controls. Conclusions: BO is predominantly a neutrophilic disease of the small bronchioles featuring elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines leading to tissue remodelling and fibrosis of the small airways. Future therapies for patients with BO should more efficiently target the small airways. (c) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据