4.1 Article

Increased urinary L-histidine in patients with asthma COPD overlap: a pilot study

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S163189

关键词

asthma; COPD; ACO; urinary L-histidine; metabolomics; inhaled corticosteroid

资金

  1. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) is heterogeneous in nature and requires a unified diagnostic approach. We investigated the urinary levels of L-histidine, a precursor of histamine related to inflammatory responses, as a new candidate biomarker for diagnosing this condition. Patients and methods: We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study with retrospective analysis of 107 patients, who were divided into three groups: asthma, COPD, and ACO, according to the Spanish guidelines algorithm. Urinary L-histidine levels were measured using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. High-resolution metabolomic analysis, coupled with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and followed by multivariate statistical analysis, was performed on urine samples to discriminate between the metabolic profiles of the groups. Results: Urinary L-histidine levels were significantly higher in patients with ACO than in those with asthma or COPD, but the subgroups of ACO, classified according to disease origin, did not differ significantly. High urinary L-histidine level was a significant factor for the diagnosis of ACO even after adjusting for age, sex, and smoking amount. Among patients with airflow obstruction, the urinary L-histidine levels were elevated in patients with a documented history of asthma before the age of 40 years or bronchodilator responsiveness >= 400 mL; bronchodilator responsiveness >= 200 mL of forced expiratory volume in 1 second and exceeding baseline values by 12% on two or more visits; blood eosinophil count >= 300 cells-mm(-3); and frequent exacerbations (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Urinary L-histidine could be a potential biomarker for ACO, regardless of the diversity of diagnostic definitions used.

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

4.1
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