Asthma can be divided into at least two distinct molecular phenotypes defined by degree of Th2 inflammation. Th2 cytokines are likely to be a relevant therapeutic target in only a subset of patients with asthma. Furthermore, current models do not adequately explain non-Th2-driven asthma, which represents a significant proportion of patients and responds poorly to current therapies.

Asthma is an increasingly common disease that remains poorly understood and difficult to manage. This disease is characterized by airway hyperreactivity (AHR, defined by exaggerated airflow obstruction in response to bronchoconstrictors), mucus overproduction and chronic eosinophilic inflammation. AHR and mucus overproduction are consistently linked to asthma symptoms and morbidity. Asthma is mediated by Th2 lymphocytes, which produce a limited repertoire of cytokines, including interleukin-4 (IL-4), IL-5, IL-9 and IL-13. Although each of these cytokines has been implicated in asthma, IL-13 is now thought to be especially critical. In animal models of allergic asthma, blockade of IL-13 markedly inhibits allergen-induced AHR, mucus production and eosinophilia. Furthermore, IL-13 delivery to the airway causes all of these effects. IL-13 is thus both necessary and sufficient for experimental models of asthma. However, the IL-13-responsive cells causing these effects have not been identified. Here we show that mice lacking signal transducer and activator of transcription 6 (STAT6) were protected from all pulmonary effects of IL-13. Reconstitution of STAT6 only in epithelial cells was sufficient for IL-13-induced AHR and mucus production in the absence of inflammation, fibrosis or other lung pathology. These results demonstrate the importance of direct effects of IL-13 on epithelial cells in causing two central features of asthma.

Background: The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is not standardized but is based on three major criteria: a compatible clinical presentation, finding nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammation in one or more tissue samples, and the exclusion of alternative causes of granulomatous disease. There are no universally accepted measures to determine if each diagnostic criterion has been satisfied; therefore, the diagnosis of sarcoidosis is never fully secure. Methods: Systematic reviews and, when appropriate, meta-analyses were performed to summarize the best available evidence. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and then discussed by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations for or against various diagnostic tests were formulated and graded after the expert panel weighed desirable and undesirable consequences, certainty of estimates, feasibility, and acceptability. Results: The clinical presentation, histopathology, and exclusion of alternative diagnoses were summarized. On the basis of the available evidence, the expert committee made 1 strong recommendation for baseline serum calcium testing, 13 conditional recommendations, and 1 best practice statement. All evidence was very low quality. Conclusions: The panel used systematic reviews of the evidence to inform clinical recommendations in favor of or against various diagnostic tests in patients with suspected or known sarcoidosis. The evidence and recommendations should be revisited as new evidence becomes available.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence, characteristics and outcomes of patients with unclassifiable interstitial lung disease (ILD) and to develop a simple method of predicting disease behaviour.Unclassifiable ILD patients were identified from an ongoing longitudinal cohort. Unclassifiable ILD was diagnosed after a multidisciplinary review did not secure a specific ILD diagnosis. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-IPF ILDs. Independent predictors of mortality were determined using Cox proportional-hazards analysis to identify subgroups with distinct disease behaviour.Unclassifiable ILD was diagnosed in 10% of the ILD cohort (132 out of 1370 patients). The most common reason for being unclassifiable was missing histopathological assessment due to a high risk of surgical lung biopsy. Demographic and physiological features of unclassifiable ILD were intermediate between IPF and non-IPF disease controls. Unclassifiable ILD had longer survival rates when compared to IPF on adjusted analysis (hazard ratio 0.62, p50.04) and similar survival compared to non-IPF ILDs (hazard ratio 1.54, p50.12). Independent predictors of survival in unclassifiable ILD included diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (p50.001) and a radiological fibrosis score (p50.02).Unclassifiable ILD represents approximately 10% of ILD cases and has a heterogeneous clinical course, which can be predicted using clinical and radiological variables. @ERSpublications Unclassifiable ILD has a heterogeneous clinical course that can be predicted using clinical and radiological variables