Clinical and inflammatory phenotyping by breathomics in chronic airway diseases irrespective of the diagnostic label.

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complex and overlapping diseases that include inflammatory phenotypes. Novel anti-eosinophilic/anti-neutrophilic strategies demand rapid inflammatory phenotyping, which might be accessible from exhaled breath.Our objective was to capture clinical/inflammatory phenotypes in patients with chronic airway disease using an electronic nose (eNose) in a training and validation set.This was a multicentre cross-sectional study in which exhaled breath from asthma and COPD patients (n=435; training n=321 and validation n=114) was analysed using eNose technology. Data analysis involved signal processing and statistics based on principal component analysis followed by unsupervised cluster analysis and supervised linear regression.Clustering based on eNose resulted in five significant combined asthma and COPD clusters that differed regarding ethnicity (p=0.01), systemic eosinophilia (p=0.02) and neutrophilia (p=0.03), body mass index (p=0.04), exhaled nitric oxide fraction (p<0.01), atopy (p<0.01) and exacerbation rate (p<0.01). Significant regression models were found for the prediction of eosinophilic (R2=0.581) and neutrophilic (R2=0.409) blood counts based on eNose. Similar clusters and regression results were obtained in the validation set.Phenotyping a combined sample of asthma and COPD patients using eNose provides validated clusters that are not determined by diagnosis, but rather by clinical/inflammatory characteristics. eNose identified systemic neutrophilia and/or eosinophilia in a dose-dependent manner.

Airway inflammation and mannitol challenge test in COPD.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic airway inflammation has successfully been used to tailor anti-inflammatory therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) by indirect challenges is associated with airway inflammation. We hypothesized that AHR to inhaled mannitol captures eosinophilia in induced sputum in COPD. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients (age 58 ± 7.8 yr, packyears 40 ± 15.5, post-bronchodilator FEV1 77 ± 14.0%predicted, no inhaled steroids ≥4 wks) with mild-moderate COPD (GOLD I-II) completed two randomized visits with hypertonic saline-induced sputum and mannitol challenge (including sputum collection). AHR to mannitol was expressed as response-dose-ratio (RDR) and related to cell counts, ECP, MPO and IL-8 levels in sputum. RESULTS: There was a positive correlation between RDR to mannitol and eosinophil numbers (r = 0.47, p = 0.03) and level of IL-8 (r = 0.46, p = 0.04) in hypertonic saline-induced sputum. Furthermore, significant correlations were found between RDR and eosinophil numbers (r = 0.71, p = 0.001), level of ECP (r = 0.72, p = 0.001), IL-8 (r = 0.57, p = 0.015) and MPO (r = 0.64, p = 0.007) in sputum collected after mannitol challenge. ROC-curves showed 60% sensitivity and 100% specificity of RDR for >2.5% eosinophils in mannitol-induced sputum. CONCLUSIONS: In mild-moderate COPD mannitol hyperresponsiveness is associated with biomarkers of airway inflammation. The high specificity of mannitol challenge suggests that the test is particularly suitable to exclude eosinophilic airways inflammation, which may facilitate individualized treatment in COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR1283.

Exhaled breath profiling enables discrimination of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma.

RATIONALE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma can exhibit overlapping clinical features. Exhaled air contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that may qualify as noninvasive biomarkers. VOC profiles can be assessed using integrative analysis by electronic nose, resulting in exhaled molecular fingerprints (breathprints). OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that breathprints by electronic nose can discriminate patients with COPD and asthma. METHODS: Ninety subjects participated in a cross-sectional study: 30 patients with COPD (age, 61.6 +/- 9.3 years; FEV(1), 1.72 +/- 0.69 L), 20 patients with asthma (age, 35.4 +/- 15.1 years; FEV(1) 3.32 +/- 0.86 L), 20 nonsmoking control subjects (age, 56.7 +/- 9.3 years; FEV(1), 3.44 +/- 0.76 L), and 20 smoking control subjects (age, 56.1 +/- 5.9 years; FEV(1), 3.58 +/- 0.78). After 5 minutes of tidal breathing through an inspiratory VOC filter, an expiratory vital capacity was collected in a Tedlar bag and sampled by electronic nose. Breathprints were analyzed by discriminant analysis on principal component reduction resulting in cross-validated accuracy values (accuracy). Repeatability and reproducibility were assessed by measuring samples in duplicate by two devices. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Breathprints from patients with asthma were separated from patients with COPD (accuracy 96%; P < 0.001), from nonsmoking control subjects (accuracy, 95%; P < 0.001), and from smoking control subjects (accuracy, 92.5%; P < 0.001). Exhaled breath profiles of patients with COPD partially overlapped with those of asymptomatic smokers (accuracy, 66%; P = 0.006). Measurements were repeatable and reproducible. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular profiling of exhaled air can distinguish patients with COPD and asthma and control subjects. Our data demonstrate a potential of electronic noses in the differential diagnosis of obstructive airway diseases and in the risk assessment in asymptomatic smokers. Clinical trial registered with www.trialregister.nl (NTR 1282).

Electronic nose breathprints are independent of acute changes in airway caliber in asthma.

Molecular profiling of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOC) by electronic nose technology provides breathprints that discriminate between patients with different inflammatory airway diseases, such as asthma and COPD. However, it is unknown whether this is determined by differences in airway caliber. We hypothesized that breathprints obtained by electronic nose are independent of acute changes in airway caliber in asthma. Ten patients with stable asthma underwent methacholine provocation (Visit 1) and sham challenge with isotonic saline (Visit 2). At Visit 1, exhaled air was repetitively collected pre-challenge, after reaching the provocative concentration (PC(20)) causing 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and after subsequent salbutamol inhalation. At Visit 2, breath was collected pre-challenge, post-saline and post-salbutamol. At each occasion, an expiratory vital capacity was collected after 5 min of tidal breathing through an inspiratory VOC-filter in a Tedlar bag and sampled by electronic nose (Cyranose 320). Breathprints were analyzed with principal component analysis and individual factors were compared with mixed model analysis followed by pairwise comparisons. Inhalation of methacholine led to a 30.8 ± 3.3% fall in FEV(1) and was followed by a significant change in breathprint (p = 0.04). Saline inhalation did not induce a significant change in FEV(1), but altered the breathprint (p = 0.01). However, the breathprint obtained after the methacholine provocation was not significantly different from that after saline challenge (p = 0.27). The molecular profile of exhaled air in patients with asthma is altered by nebulized aerosols, but is not affected by acute changes in airway caliber. Our data demonstrate that breathprints by electronic nose are not confounded by the level of airway obstruction.