Abstract
Aim The impact of blood eosinophil counts on the development of chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) is unknown. We investigated whether a higher blood eosinophil count was associated with the risk of developing obstructive lung disease (OLD) in a large cohort of men and women free from lung disease at baseline.
Methods This was a cohort study of 359 456 Korean adults without a history of asthma and without OLD at baseline who participated in health screening examinations including spirometry. OLD was defined as pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) <0.7 and FEV1 <80% predicted.
Results After a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 5.6 (2.9–9.2) years, 5008 participants developed incident OLD (incidence rate 2.1 (95% CI 2.1–2.2) per 1000 person-years). In the fully adjusted model, the hazard ratios for incident OLD comparing eosinophil counts of 100– <200, 200– <300, 300– <500 and ≥500 versus <100 cells·μL−1 were 1.07 (95% CI 1.00–1.15), 1.30 (95% CI 1.20–1.42), 1.46 (95% CI 1.33–1.60) and 1.72 (95% CI 1.51–1.95), respectively (ptrend<0.001). These associations were consistent in clinically relevant subgroups, including never-, ex- and current smokers.
Conclusion In this large longitudinal cohort study, blood eosinophil counts were positively associated with the risk of developing of OLD. Our findings indicate a potential role of the eosinophil count as an independent risk factor for developing COPD.
Abstract
Blood eosinophil counts were positively associated with the risk of developing obstructive lung disease in a large longitudinal cohort of young and middle-aged men and women https://bit.ly/37QeCeW
Footnotes
This article has supplementary material available from erj.ersjournals.com
This article has an editorial commentary: https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01105-2021
Author contributions: Conception and design: H.Y. Park, Y. Chang, J. Cho and S. Ryu. Experiments and data acquisition: Y. Chang, J. Ahn, E. Guallar, J. Cho and S. Ryu. Analysis and interpretation: H.Y. Park, Y. Chang, D. Kang, Y.S. Hong, D. Zhao, J. Ahn, D. Singh, E. Guallar, J. Cho and S. Ryu. Drafting the manuscript: H.Y. Park, Y. Chang, S.H. Shin, D. Singh, E. Guallar, J. Cho and S. Ryu. Critical revision of the manuscript: H.Y. Park, Y. Chang, D. Kang, Y.S. Hong, D. Zhao, J. Ahn, S.H. Shin, D. Singh, E. Guallar, J. Cho and S. Ryu. All authors contributed to and approved the final draft of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest: H.Y. Park has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Y. Chang has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: D. Kang has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Y.S. Hong has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: D. Zhao has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: J. Ahn has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: S.H. Shin has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: D. Singh reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Gossamerbio, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Peptinnovate, Pfizer, Pulmatrix, Theravance and Verona, outside the submitted work.
Conflict of interest: E. Guallar has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: J. Cho has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: S. Ryu has nothing to disclose.
Support statement: This article was supported by the SKKU Excellence in Research Award Research Fund, Sungkyunkwan University, 2020. D. Singh is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.
- Received October 13, 2020.
- Accepted February 22, 2021.
- Copyright ©The authors 2021. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org