5.2 Monitoring Airway Disease 2015
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.congress-2015.pa2083
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exhaled breath VOCs are associated with nocturnal wakening in asthmatic children

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Breathprints were significantly different in eosinophilic compared to neutrophilic (accuracy 73%, P = 0.008, AUROC = 0.92), as well as paucigranulocytic asthma (accuracy 74%, P = 0.004, AUROC = 0.79), and neutrophilic clustered distinctly from the paucigranulocytic phenotype (accuracy 90%, P = 0.001, AUROC = 0.88), suggesting the potential of using an e-NOSE as a less-invasive alternative to sputum cytology. Similarly, Wagener et al [ 74 ], by means of a platform with four different e-NOSEs (Tor Vergata, Cyranose 320, Owlstone Lonestar, and Common Invent) separated eosinophilic from non-eosinophilic asthma breathprints in 27 patients with an accuracy of 85% and AUROC of 99%[ 74 ]. In addition, Brinkman et al [ 43 ] used the aforementioned platform with four different e-NOSEs in a population of 78 patients with severe asthma, revealing exhaled molecular phenotypes which were associated with changing inflammatory profile and oral steroid use.…”
Section: E-nose Applications In Asthmamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Breathprints were significantly different in eosinophilic compared to neutrophilic (accuracy 73%, P = 0.008, AUROC = 0.92), as well as paucigranulocytic asthma (accuracy 74%, P = 0.004, AUROC = 0.79), and neutrophilic clustered distinctly from the paucigranulocytic phenotype (accuracy 90%, P = 0.001, AUROC = 0.88), suggesting the potential of using an e-NOSE as a less-invasive alternative to sputum cytology. Similarly, Wagener et al [ 74 ], by means of a platform with four different e-NOSEs (Tor Vergata, Cyranose 320, Owlstone Lonestar, and Common Invent) separated eosinophilic from non-eosinophilic asthma breathprints in 27 patients with an accuracy of 85% and AUROC of 99%[ 74 ]. In addition, Brinkman et al [ 43 ] used the aforementioned platform with four different e-NOSEs in a population of 78 patients with severe asthma, revealing exhaled molecular phenotypes which were associated with changing inflammatory profile and oral steroid use.…”
Section: E-nose Applications In Asthmamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is important because the lack of an easily accessible gold-standard test to diagnose asthma frequently results in misdiagnosis [1,2]. Recent research suggests the composition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath ('breathomics') may be suitable to diagnose, monitor and phenotype asthma in the future [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the abstracts not subsequently published in full—Gahleitner et al do not report any results; while Brinkman et al report a cluster analysis identifying groups which differ significantly in clinical parameters. Wang et al found a correlation with night waking but not with asthma control; whereas Vijverberg et al report an area under the curve of between 0.71 and 0.97 for the identification of disease control.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We identified 17 references to pediatric asthma breathomic studies. Six were abstracts, of which three were not published in full elsewhere [3][4][5] ; two presented identical data − early findings from a study by the review authors which is yet to be published 6,7 ; and one has since been published in full. 8 The list of full studies identified by our search is similar but not identical to that of Neerincx et al They included two papers 9,10 examining pre-school wheeze (not asthma), while we identified a paper published more than 10 years ago 11 Overall we found little to either challenge or expand the findings of their review; the future of pediatric breathomics now lies in the ability to validate these findings in prospective cohort studies.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%