4.6 Article

Pathogenic bacteria and viruses in induced sputum or pharyngeal secretions of adults with stable asthma

期刊

THORAX
卷 61, 期 7, 页码 579-584

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thx.2005.056291

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Respiratory infections are well known triggers of asthma exacerbations, but their role in stable adult asthma remains unclear. Methods: 103 asthmatics and 30 control subjects were enrolled in the study. Sputum was induced by inhalation of 3% NaCl solution. Oropharyngeal swab specimens were obtained from the posterior wall of the oropharynx. Respiratory specimens were analysed by RT-PCR for rhinovirus, enterovirus and respiratory syncytial virus and by PCR for adenovirus, Chlamydia pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Bordetella pertussis. Results: Sputum samples from two of the 30 healthy controls (6.7%), five of 53 patients with mild asthma (9.4%), and eight of 50 with moderate asthma (16.0%) were positive for rhinovirus. Rhinovirus positive asthmatic subjects had more asthma symptoms and lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (79% predicted) than rhinovirus negative cases (93.5% predicted; p = 0.020). Chlamydia pneumoniae PCR was positive in 11 healthy controls (36.6%), 11 mild asthmatics (20.8%), and 11 moderate asthmatics (22%), and PCR positive asthmatics had lower FEV1/FVC than negative cases (78.2% v 80.8%, p = 0.023). Bordetella pertussis PCR was positive in 30 cases: five healthy controls (16.7%), 15 mild asthmatics (28.3%), and 10 moderate asthmatics (20%). Bordetella pertussis positive individuals had lower FEV1/FVC (77.1% v 80.7%, p = 0.012) and more asthma symptoms than B pertussis negative cases. Conclusions: Rhinovirus, C pneumoniae, and B pertussis are found in the sputum or pharyngeal swab specimens of asthmatic subjects without concurrent symptoms of infection or asthma exacerbation, as well as in some healthy controls. Positivity is associated with lower lung function and more frequent asthma symptoms.

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

4.6
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