TY - JOUR
T1 - Aetiological diagnosis in new adult outpatients with bronchiectasis:role of predictors derived from real life experience
AU - Ielpo, Antonella
AU - Crisafulli, Ernesto
AU - Alcaraz-Serrano, Victoria
AU - Gabarrús, Albert
AU - Oscanoa, Patricia
AU - Scioscia, Giulia
AU - Fernandez-Barat, Laia
AU - Cilloniz, Catia
AU - Amaro, Rosanel
AU - Torres, Antoni
N1 - Funding Information:
In patients with a new diagnosis, the European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines concerning the management of adult BE patients [10] suggest the performance of a standard number of aetiological tests including blood count, serum immunoglobulins (total IgG, IgA, IgM) and tests for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). However, the recommendation is conditional and has a very low level of evidence [10]. Furthermore, the recent British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidelines for adult patients with BE [11] suggest that a panel of investigations should be performed to establish the underlying cause of bronchiectasis (grade of recommendation: B). The BTS guidelines recommend: a) the recording of comorbidities and past medical history to identify possibly causative disease such as rheumatoid arthritis or COPD; b) measurement of full blood count, serum total IgE and assessment of sensitization to Aspergillus fumigatus; c) levels of total IgG, IgA, IgM; d) consideration of baseline antibodies against Streptococcus pneumoniae and response to vaccine; e) evaluation of tests for cystic fibrosis (CF) and for primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) in patients with supporting clinical features; f) performance of sputum cultures in all patients for bacterial and mycobacterial culture.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2020/10
Y1 - 2020/10
N2 - Background: In adult patients with bronchiectasis (BE) the identification of the underlying aetiology may be difficult. In a new patient with BE the performance of a panel of tests is recommended, even though this practice may be expensive and the level of evidence supporting is low. We aimed to identify a panel of variables able to predict the aetiological diagnosis of BE. Methods: Our prospective study derived from our real-life experience on the management of adult stable BE outpatients. We recorded variables concerning clinical, radiological, microbiological and laboratory features. We identified five groups of aetiological diagnosis of BE (idiopathic, post-infective, COPD, asthma and non-common diseases [immunodeficiency or other rare conditions]). Multivariate models were used to identify predictors of each aetiological diagnosis. The suitability of performing a specific test for the diagnosis was also considered. Results: We enrolled 354 patients with a new diagnosis of BE. Patients with different aetiological causes differed significantly with regard to age, sex, smoking habit, comorbidities, dyspnoea perception, airflow obstruction and severity scores. Various predictors were assessed, including sex, previous respiratory infections, diffuse localization of BE, risk scores, and laboratory variables (sodium and eosinophils). The levels of autoantibodies or immunoglobulins were reserved for the diagnosis of non-common disease. Conclusion: Our research confirms that some predictors are specific for the aetiological diagnosis of BE. The possibility of integrating this information may represent a useful tool for the diagnosis. The execution of certain specific tests should be reserved for patients with a non-common disease.
AB - Background: In adult patients with bronchiectasis (BE) the identification of the underlying aetiology may be difficult. In a new patient with BE the performance of a panel of tests is recommended, even though this practice may be expensive and the level of evidence supporting is low. We aimed to identify a panel of variables able to predict the aetiological diagnosis of BE. Methods: Our prospective study derived from our real-life experience on the management of adult stable BE outpatients. We recorded variables concerning clinical, radiological, microbiological and laboratory features. We identified five groups of aetiological diagnosis of BE (idiopathic, post-infective, COPD, asthma and non-common diseases [immunodeficiency or other rare conditions]). Multivariate models were used to identify predictors of each aetiological diagnosis. The suitability of performing a specific test for the diagnosis was also considered. Results: We enrolled 354 patients with a new diagnosis of BE. Patients with different aetiological causes differed significantly with regard to age, sex, smoking habit, comorbidities, dyspnoea perception, airflow obstruction and severity scores. Various predictors were assessed, including sex, previous respiratory infections, diffuse localization of BE, risk scores, and laboratory variables (sodium and eosinophils). The levels of autoantibodies or immunoglobulins were reserved for the diagnosis of non-common disease. Conclusion: Our research confirms that some predictors are specific for the aetiological diagnosis of BE. The possibility of integrating this information may represent a useful tool for the diagnosis. The execution of certain specific tests should be reserved for patients with a non-common disease.
KW - Aetiological diagnosis
KW - Bronchiectasis
KW - Predictors
KW - Real-life
KW - Tests
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090298001&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106090
DO - 10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106090
M3 - Article
C2 - 32916445
AN - SCOPUS:85090298001
SN - 0954-6111
VL - 172
JO - Respiratory Medicine
JF - Respiratory Medicine
M1 - 106090
ER -