Prognostic role of blood eosinophils in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 0.8 Q4 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease Pub Date : 2025-03-27 DOI:10.4081/monaldi.2025.3298
Ombretta Para, Giuliano Cassataro, Chiara Fantoni, Lorenza Bertù, Claudia Tieri, Lorenzo Caruso, Sara Rotunno, Francesco Dentali
{"title":"Prognostic role of blood eosinophils in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Ombretta Para, Giuliano Cassataro, Chiara Fantoni, Lorenza Bertù, Claudia Tieri, Lorenzo Caruso, Sara Rotunno, Francesco Dentali","doi":"10.4081/monaldi.2025.3298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is a major cause of hospitalization and mortality worldwide. While blood eosinophils have been suggested as a prognostic biomarker of COPD, their predictive value in AECOPD remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the prognostic role of blood eosinophil counts in predicting mortality and hospital readmission in these patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. We included studies that evaluated the prognostic role of blood eosinophils in AECOPD, with predefined cut-offs. Data on mortality and readmission rates were extracted, and statistical analyses were performed to assess sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. A total of 14 studies with 23,625 patients were included. High blood eosinophil counts during AECOPD hospitalization had low sensitivity (28.1%) and specificity (66.2%) in predicting 12-month mortality and readmission. Positive and negative likelihood ratios were also suboptimal, with values of 0.8 and 1.1, respectively. Sensitivity analyses, including only high-quality studies, confirmed these findings. The results suggest that blood eosinophil counts have limited prognostic value in predicting mortality and readmission in AECOPD patients. The variability in eosinophil cut-offs and lack of consistent data across studies contribute to this limitation. Further large-scale prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of eosinophils as a prognostic marker in AECOPD. Consequently, routine measurement of blood eosinophils during acute exacerbations may not be warranted for prognostic purposes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51593,"journal":{"name":"Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/monaldi.2025.3298","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is a major cause of hospitalization and mortality worldwide. While blood eosinophils have been suggested as a prognostic biomarker of COPD, their predictive value in AECOPD remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the prognostic role of blood eosinophil counts in predicting mortality and hospital readmission in these patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. We included studies that evaluated the prognostic role of blood eosinophils in AECOPD, with predefined cut-offs. Data on mortality and readmission rates were extracted, and statistical analyses were performed to assess sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. A total of 14 studies with 23,625 patients were included. High blood eosinophil counts during AECOPD hospitalization had low sensitivity (28.1%) and specificity (66.2%) in predicting 12-month mortality and readmission. Positive and negative likelihood ratios were also suboptimal, with values of 0.8 and 1.1, respectively. Sensitivity analyses, including only high-quality studies, confirmed these findings. The results suggest that blood eosinophil counts have limited prognostic value in predicting mortality and readmission in AECOPD patients. The variability in eosinophil cut-offs and lack of consistent data across studies contribute to this limitation. Further large-scale prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of eosinophils as a prognostic marker in AECOPD. Consequently, routine measurement of blood eosinophils during acute exacerbations may not be warranted for prognostic purposes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
血液嗜酸性粒细胞在慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重中的预后作用:系统回顾和荟萃分析
慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期(AECOPD)是全球住院和死亡的主要原因。虽然血液中的嗜酸性粒细胞被认为是慢性阻塞性肺病的预后生物标志物,但其在 AECOPD 中的预测价值仍不确定。本荟萃分析旨在评估血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数在预测这些患者的死亡率和再入院率方面的预后作用。我们根据 PRISMA 指南进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们纳入了评估血液嗜酸性粒细胞在 AECOPD 中预后作用的研究,并预先设定了临界值。我们提取了死亡率和再入院率的数据,并进行了统计分析以评估敏感性、特异性和似然比。共纳入了 14 项研究,23625 名患者。在 AECOPD 住院期间,高血嗜酸性粒细胞计数对预测 12 个月死亡率和再入院率的敏感性(28.1%)和特异性(66.2%)较低。阳性和阴性似然比也不理想,分别为 0.8 和 1.1。仅包括高质量研究在内的敏感性分析证实了这些结果。结果表明,血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数在预测 AECOPD 患者的死亡率和再入院方面的预后价值有限。嗜酸性粒细胞临界值的变化以及各研究中缺乏一致的数据是造成这一局限性的原因。需要进一步开展大规模前瞻性研究,以明确嗜酸性粒细胞作为 AECOPD 预后标志物的作用。因此,在急性加重期常规测量血液中的嗜酸性粒细胞可能不适合用于预后目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic yield of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for isolated mediastinal lymphadenopathy in a tuberculosis-endemic region: first study from Northeast India. Malignant ventricular arrhythmias during acute infectious illness: mechanisms, mapping, and targeted therapy - illustrative cases. Successful pregnancy under benralizumab: a case of severe eosinophilic asthma. From basic to advanced cardiac imaging to identify the benefits of revascularization in ischemic heart disease. Pneumonia due to respiratory syncytial virus does not cause long-lasting disorders in respiratory gas transport after clinical resolution in adults. Comparison vs. SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1