Understanding the outcomes of a home nursing programme for patients with epidermolysis bullosa: an Australian perspective.

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) consists of a spectrum of genodermatoses characterised by skin fragility and various degrees of skin and mucous membrane blistering. Minimal trauma and friction can cause extensive blistering in patients with EB, resulting in a number of complications. However, wound management is the main challenge for these patients because of a high risk of infection, fluid loss and potential development of aggressive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Indeed, patients with EB have an increased risk for developing skin cancers compared to the general population. In 2012, a home nursing programme was established in Australia to provide assistance to families or patients with severe forms of EB. Nursing care was provided to patients with severe EB during dressing changes in their homes over a period of 2 years. Both families of patients and nurses were surveyed periodically using a developed questionnaire to assess the benefits of this home nursing and its impact on the patients, their families and the nurses. Key findings included a perceived improvement in quality of life, a better provision of support and improved family life management. These findings are the first to highlight the benefits of this national home nursing programme for EB patients within Australia and demonstrate the continued need and benefit of home nursing for patients with severe skin blistering disorders.

A cross-sectional study of patterns of airway dysfunction, symptoms and morbidity in primary care asthma.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with asthma are managed exclusively in primary care. Little is known about the patterns of airway dysfunction in these patients and how these relate to other aspects of the disease. AIMS: We set out to assess this in a cross-sectional study of 262 patients. METHODS: Symptoms, spirometry, airway responsiveness, reversibility, and airway inflammation were all assessed. Exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids in the preceding year were enumerated. RESULTS: Patients had heterogeneous patterns of airway dysfunction. Those with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 sec/ forced vital capacity ratio of <0.7 had more exacerbations in the previous year (2.2 vs. 0.8; mean difference 1.4; 95% CI 0.4 to 2.4; p=0.007). Patients with normal results had less inflammation (proportion with a sputum eosinophil count of >1.9%, 20% vs. 48%, χ²=14.8, df=3; p<0.001) and fewer exacerbations (0.5 vs. 1.4; mean difference -0.9; 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4; p=0.001) but similar symptom scores (6.2 vs. 6.9; p=0.2) compared with patients with any abnormality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a diagnosis of asthma have mixed patterns of physiological impairment; many have no airflow obstruction or airway hyper-responsiveness. The physiological characterisation of asthma is not related to symptoms and is of little value in predicting exacerbations or eosinophilic airway inflammation.

Mannitol and AMP do not induce bronchoconstriction in eosinophilic bronchitis: further evidence for dissociation between airway inflammation and bronchial hyperresponsiveness.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Eosinophilic bronchitis (EB) shares many pathological features with asthma. However, patients with EB do not develop the characteristic physiological abnormalities of asthma: variable airflow obstruction and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) to a direct bronchial challenge with methacholine. Indirect bronchial challenges with AMP and mannitol are dependent on the presence of airway inflammation, and positive in 10% of asthmatic subjects who have a negative response to methacholine. We have therefore investigated whether subjects with EB are responsive to indirect airway challenge with AMP and mannitol. METHODS: Subjects with asthma, EB and healthy controls attended on up to four occasions. After screening, subjects performed bronchial provocation tests to methacholine and then either AMP or mannitol. Each challenge was followed immediately by sputum induction for the measurement of airway inflammation and mast cell-derived histamine. RESULTS: No subjects with EB responded to either AMP (n = 5) or mannitol (n = 7) while 4/8 and 7/10 subjects with asthma responded to the respective challenges (P = 0.057 for AMP, P = 0.004 for mannitol). There was no difference in induced sputum concentrations of histamine or eosinophil cell counts following methacholine challenge compared with AMP or mannitol. CONCLUSIONS: The airways of patients with EB are not responsive to either direct or indirect bronchial challenge. This supports the view that it is the presence of functionally abnormal airway smooth muscle that is the key determinant of BHR in asthma, and that while this may be aggravated by the presence of mucosal airway inflammation, it is not caused by it.

Detection of an activating c-kit mutation by real-time PCR in patients with anaphylaxis.

A well-characterised gain-of-function point mutation within exon 17 of the c-kit proto-oncogene known as Asp816Val is present in patients with mastocytosis. Activation of mast cells through this receptor primes them for IgE-dependent activation, and patients with mastocytosis are at increased risk of anaphylaxis. We hypothesised that the Asp816Val mutation is associated with a history of anaphylaxis in the general population. A mismatch amplification real-time PCR assay was developed and validated to test for the Asp816Val mutation. Subjects were recruited to four subject groups: normal non-atopics, atopics without anaphylaxis, food-induced anaphylactics and non-food anaphylactics. Blood samples collected from forty subjects were tested for the presence of Asp816Val. Thirteen subjects were found to carry the mutation; normals (2/9), atopics (2/10), food anaphylactics (5/11) and non-food anaphylactics (4/10). Statistical analysis of the data determined that there was no significant difference between the numbers of subjects found to carry the Asp816Val mutation in each of the groups although a trend towards an increased occurrence in anaphylactics was observed. In summary, the hypothesis that the presence of the Asp816Val mutation is linked to the occurrence of anaphylaxis was not supported, but interestingly, we have shown for the first time Asp816Val may occur more frequently than previously reported within the general population.

Vascular remodeling is a feature of asthma and nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis.

RATIONALE: Increased vascularity and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are recognized features of the asthmatic airway. The association of vascular remodeling with airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess vascular remodeling and sputum VEGF concentration in subjects with asthma, subjects with nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis (EB), and healthy controls. METHODS: In cohort 1, 19 patients with asthma (Global Initiative for Asthma [GINA] 1-2, n = 9; GINA 3-5, n = 10), 10 patients with EB, and 11 healthy matched controls were recruited. Expression of the endothelial marker EN4 was assessed in bronchial biopsy samples. Vessels were counted using the validated mean Chalkley count by a blind observer. For cohort 2, a second independent cohort of 31 patients with asthma (GINA 1-2, n = 11; GINA 3-5, n = 20), 14 patients with EB, and 15 matched controls was recruited. Induced sputum supernatant VEGF was measured by ELISA. RESULTS: The mean chalkley count was significantly greater in GINA 3-5 asthma (5.2 [0.4]) and EB (4.8 [0.3]) compared with controls (3.5 [0.5]) and demonstrated a significant inverse correlation with the postbronchodilator FEV(1)% predicted in patients with asthma (R(2) = 0.28; P = .02). Sputum VEGF concentration was also increased in GINA 3-5 asthma (2365 [1361-4110] pg/g) and EB (4699 [2818-7834] pg/g) compared with controls (1094 [676-1774] pg/g) and was inversely related to postbronchodilator FEV(1)% predicted in asthma (R(2) = 0.2; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Vascular remodeling is a feature of asthma, and EB and is inversely associated with the postbronchodilator FEV(1) in asthma, suggesting that vascular remodeling is associated with airflow obstruction but not AHR. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Vascular remodeling is dissociated from AHR in asthma and associated with airflow limitation.