|
|
TABLE 1
SUBJECT DETAILS, SPUTUM CHARACTERISTICS, AND MEAN (SEM)
SPUTUM SUPERNATANT MEDIATOR CONCENTRATIONS*
|
|
|
|
Eosinophilic
Bronchitis |
|
Asthma |
|
Normal |
|
| Number |
|
8 |
|
17 |
|
10 |
| Male |
|
3 |
|
9 |
|
4 |
| Age, mean (range) |
|
53 (28-70) |
|
42 (15-62) |
|
41 (19-57) |
| Atopy |
|
3 |
|
11 |
|
0 |
| On inhaled steroids |
|
0 |
|
8 |
|
0 |
% FEV1 |
|
113 (93, 133) |
|
82 (74, 90) |
|
105 (92, 117) |
| % FEV1/FVC |
|
81 (76, 85) |
|
70 (65, 75) |
|
85 (79, 90) |
| Methacholine PC20 (mg/ml)§ |
|
> 16 |
|
1.22 (0.24) |
|
> 16 |
Total cell count × 106/ml  |
|
2.8 (2.1) |
|
3.4 (3.7) |
|
2.3 (2.0) |
| Squamous cell contamination, % |
|
4.2 (3.3) |
|
3.2 (3.9) |
|
5.1 (4.1) |
| Viability, % |
|
70 (31) |
|
65 (26) |
|
68 (30) |
| Sputum eosinophils, %§ |
|
12.5 (0.14)¶ |
|
13.4 (0.11)¶ |
|
0.2 (0.11) |
| Sputum macrophages, % |
|
22.5 (18.3) |
|
35 (34.4) |
|
59 (44.2) |
| Sputum neutrophils, % |
|
64 (39) |
|
41.9 (45.3) |
|
36.7 (47.6) |
| Sputum lymphocytes (%) |
|
0.15 (0.85) |
|
0.6 (1.7) |
|
0.8 (1.2) |
| Sputum epithelial cells (%) |
|
2 (2.8) |
|
1.7 (1.1) |
|
2.9 (6.1) |
| ECP, ng/ml§ |
|
604 (2.2)¶ |
|
735 (2.8)¶ |
|
95 (1.4) |
| LTC4/D4/E4, ng/ml§ |
|
9.27 (0.08) |
|
11.1 (0.08) |
|
5.86 (0.04) |
| Histamine, ng/ml§ |
|
168 (0.19)¶ |
|
25.1 (0.2) |
|
15.5 (0.16) |
| PGD2, ng/ml§ |
|
0.79 (0.11) |
|
0.32 (0.06) |
|
0.15 (0.05) |
| PGE2, ng/ml§ |
|
1.95 (0.07) |
|
1.36 (0.06) |
|
1.22 (0.10) |
PGF2 , ng/ml§ |
|
0.60 (0.11) |
|
0.53 (0.06) |
|
0.40 (0.07) |
| TXB2, ng/ml§ |
|
1.58 (0.07) |
|
0.94 (0.10) |
|
0.70 (0.10) |
|
|
Definition of abbreviations: %FEV1 = percent predicted FEV1; %FEV1/FVC = percent predicted FEV1/FVC; ECP = eosinophilic cationic protein.
|
|
*
Total sputum cell counts do not equal 100% as differentials are expressed as geometric means and medians.
|
Mean with range shown in parentheses.
|
p < 0.05 versus normal subjects by ANOVA.
|
|
§
Geometric mean with log SEM shown in parentheses.
|
Median with interquartile range shown in parentheses.
|
|
¶
p < 0.01 versus normal subjects by ANOVA.
|
|
