Background

The use of inflammatory biomarkers to delineate the type of lung inflammation present in asthmatic subjects is increasingly common. However, the effect of obesity on these markers is unknown.

Objectives

We aimed to determine the effect of obesity on conventional markers of inflammation in asthmatic subjects.

Methods

We performed secondary analysis of data from 652 subjects previously enrolled in 2 Asthma Clinical Research Network trials. We performed linear correlations between biomarkers and logistic regression analysis to determine the predictive value of IgE levels, blood eosinophil counts, and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide values in relationship to sputum eosinophil counts (>2%), as well as to determine whether cut points existed that would maximize the sensitivity and specificity for predicting sputum eosinophilia in the 3 weight groups.

Results

Overall, statistically significant but relatively weak correlations were observed among all 4 markers of inflammation. Within obese subjects, the only significant correlation found was between IgE levels and blood eosinophil counts (r = 0.33, P < .001); furthermore, all other correlations between inflammatory markers were approximately 0, including correlations with sputum eosinophil counts. In addition, the predictive value of each biomarker alone or in combination was poor in obese subjects. In fact, in obese subjects none of the biomarkers of inflammation significantly predicted the presence of high sputum eosinophil counts. Obese asthmatic subjects have lower cut points for IgE levels (268 IU), fraction of exhaled nitric oxide values (14.5 ppb), and blood eosinophil counts (96 cells/μL) than all other groups.

Conclusions

In obese asthmatic subjects conventional biomarkers of inflammation are poorly predictive of eosinophilic airway inflammation. As such, biomarkers currently used to delineate eosinophilic inflammation in asthmatic subjects should be approached with caution in these subjects.

Background

Preservatives are often necessary components of commercial products. Large-scale North American studies on preservative allergy are limited.

Objective

To evaluate demographics, positive patch test reactions (PPTRs), clinical relevance, and trends for preservatives tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch testing results of preservatives from 1994 through 2016.

Results

A total of 50,799 patients were tested; 11,338 (22.3%) had a PPTR to at least 1 preservative. The most frequent reactions were to methylisothiazolinone 0.2% aqueous (aq) (12.2%), formaldehyde 2% aq (7.8%), formaldehyde 1% aq (7.8%), quaternium-15 2% petrolatum (pet) (7.7%), and methyldibromo glutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol 2% pet (5.1%). Paraben mix 12% pet (1%), iodopropynyl butylcarbamate 0.1% pet (0.4%), benzyl alcohol 1% pet (0.3%), and phenoxyethanol 1% pet (0.2%) had the lowest PPTRs. Linear regression analysis of preservatives tested showed that only methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 0.01% aq (parameter estimate, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-0.66; P < .005) had a significant increase in PPTRs over time.

Limitations

Collected variables are dependent on clinical judgment. Results may be prone to referral selection bias.

Conclusions

This large North American study provides insight on preservative PPTRs and trends from 1994 through 2016.