| Title |
Blood eosinophils and inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD: systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s175017 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shih-Lung Cheng |
| Abstract |
COPD is a highly heterogeneous disease. Potential biomarkers to identify patients with COPD who will derive the greatest benefit from inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment are needed. Blood eosinophil count can serve as a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of ICS treatment. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether a blood eosinophil count of ≥2% in patients undergoing ICS therapy was associated with a greater reduction in COPD exacerbation rate and pneumonia incidence. An electronic search was performed using the keywords "COPD", "eosinophil", and "clinical trial" in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to retrieve articles, up to 2017, relevant to our focus. Data were extracted, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5 (version 5.3.5). Five studies comprising 12,496 patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD were included. At baseline, 60% of the patients had ≥2% blood eosinophils. Our meta-analysis showed a 17% reduction in exacerbation of moderate/severe COPD in patients with ≥2% blood eosinophils undergoing ICS therapy compared to the non-ICS/ICS withdrawal/placebo group. The difference between the two types of treatment was significant (risk ratio [RR], 0.816; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99; P=0.03). Furthermore, the risk of pneumonia-related events was significantly increased in the subgroup with eosinophil count ≥2% undergoing ICS-containing treatments (RR, 1.969; 95% CI, 1.369-2.833; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the subgroup with eosinophil count <2% (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.888-1.879; P<0.181). The results of our meta-analysis suggest that the 2% threshold for blood eosinophils could accurately predict ICS treatment response in patients with COPD, but increased the risk of pneumonia. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 18 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 46% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#2,404
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#302,660
of 345,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#85
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.