Acute lung injury (ALI) affects over 10% of patients hospitalised in critical care, with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) being the most severe form of ALI and having a mortality rate in the region of 40%. There has been slow but incremental progress in identification of biomarkers that contribute to the pathophysiology of ARDS, have utility in diagnosis and monitoring, and that are potential therapeutic targets (Calfee CS, Delucchi K, Parsons PE, Thompson BT, Ware LB, Matthay MA, Thompson T, Ware LB, Matthay MA, Lancet Respir Med 2014, 2:611–-620). However, a major issue is that ARDS is such a heterogeneous, multi-factorial, end-stage condition that the strategies for “lumping and splitting” are critical (Prescott HC, Calfee CS, Thompson BT, Angus DC, Liu VX, Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016, 194:147–-155). Nevertheless, sequencing of the human genome, the availability of improved methods for analysis of transcription to mRNA (gene expression), and development of sensitive immunoassays has allowed the application of network biology to ARDS, with these biomarkers offering potential for personalised or precision medicine (Sweeney TE, Khatri P, Toward precision medicine Crit Care Med; 2017 45:934-939).Biomarker panels have potential applications in molecular phenotyping for identifying patients at risk of developing ARDS, diagnosis of ARDS, risk stratification and monitoring. Two subphenotypes of ARDS have been identified on the basis of blood biomarkers: hypo-inflammatory and hyper-inflammatory. The hyper-inflammatory subphenotype is associated with shock, metabolic acidosis and worst clinical outcomes. Biomarkers of particular interest have included interleukins (IL-6 and IL-8), interferon gamma (IFN-γ), surfactant proteins (SPD and SPB), von Willebrand factor antigen, angiopoietin 1/2 and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1). In terms of gene expression (mRNA) in blood there have been found to be increases in neutrophil-related genes in sepsis-induced and influenza-induced ARDS, but whole blood expression does not give a robust diagnostic test for ARDS.Despite improvements in management of ARDS on the critical care unit, this complex disease continues to be a major life-threatening event. Clinical trials of β2-agonists, statins, surfactants and keratinocyte growth factor (KGF) have been disappointing. In addition, monoclonal antibodies (anti-TNF) and TNFR fusion protein have also been unconvincing. However, there have been major advances in methods of mechanical ventilation, a neuromuscular blocker (cisatracurium besilate) has shown some benefit, and stem cell therapy is being developed. In the future, by understanding the role of biomarkers in the pathophysiology of ARDS and lung injury, it is hoped that this will provide rational therapeutic targets and ultimately improve clinical care (Seymour CW, Gomez H, Chang CH, Clermont G, Kellum JA, Kennedy J, Yende S, Angus DC, Crit Care 2017, 21:257).

BackgroundRhinovirus infection is a major cause of asthma exacerbations.ObjectivesWe studied nasal and bronchial mucosal inflammatory responses during experimental rhinovirus-induced asthma exacerbations.MethodsWe used nasosorption on days 0, 2–5 and 7 and bronchosorption at baseline and day 4 to sample mucosal lining fluid to investigate airway mucosal responses to rhinovirus infection in patients with allergic asthma (n = 28) and healthy non-atopic controls (n = 11), by using a synthetic absorptive matrix and measuring levels of 34 cytokines and chemokines using a sensitive multiplex assay.ResultsFollowing rhinovirus infection asthmatics developed more upper and lower respiratory symptoms and lower peak expiratory flows compared to controls (all P < 0.05). Asthmatics also developed higher nasal lining fluid levels of an anti-viral pathway (including IFN-γ, IFN-λ/IL-29, CXCL11/ITAC, CXCL10/IP10 and IL-15) and a type 2 inflammatory pathway (IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, CCL17/TARC, CCL11/eotaxin, CCL26/eotaxin-3) (area under curve day 0–7, all P < 0.05). Nasal IL-5 and IL-13 were higher in asthmatics at day 0 (P < 0.01) and levels increased by days 3 and 4 (P < 0.01). A hierarchical correlation matrix of 24 nasal lining fluid cytokine and chemokine levels over 7 days demonstrated expression of distinct interferon-related and type 2 pathways in asthmatics. In asthmatics IFN-γ, CXCL10/IP10, CXCL11/ITAC, IL-15 and IL-5 increased in bronchial lining fluid following viral infection (all P < 0.05).ConclusionsPrecision sampling of mucosal lining fluid identifies robust interferon and type 2 responses in the upper and lower airways of asthmatics during an asthma exacerbation. Nasosorption and bronchosorption have potential to define asthma endotypes in stable disease and at exacerbation.

Background Biomarkers can be used to detect the presence of endothelial and/or alveolar epithelial injuries in case of ARDS. Angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), vascular cell adhesion protein-1 (VCAM-1), P-selectin and E-selectin are biomarkers of endothelial injury, whereas the receptor for advanced glycation end-products (RAGE) reflects alveolar epithelial injury. The aims of this study were to evaluate whether the plasma concentration of the above-mentioned biomarkers was different 1) in survivors and non-survivors of COVID-19-related ARDS and 2) in COVID-19-related and classical ARDS. Methods This prospective study was performed in two COVID-19-dedicated Intensive Care Units (ICU) and one non-COVID-19 ICU at Ferrara University Hospital. A cohort of 31 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS and a cohort of 11 patients with classical ARDS were enrolled. Ang-2, ICAM-1, VCAM-1, P-selectin, E-selectin and RAGE were determined with a bead-based multiplex immunoassay at three time points: inclusion in the study (T1), after 7 ± 2 days (T2) and 14 ± 2 days (T3). The primary outcome was to evaluate the plasma trend of the biomarker levels in survivors and non-survivors. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the differences in respiratory mechanics variables and gas exchanges between survivors and non-survivors. Furthermore, we compared the plasma levels of the biomarkers at T1 in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS and classical ARDS. Results In COVID-19-related ARDS, the plasma levels of Ang-2 and ICAM-1 at T1 were statistically higher in non-survivors than survivors, (p = 0.04 and p = 0.03, respectively), whereas those of P-selectin, E-selectin and RAGE did not differ. Ang-2 and ICAM-1 at T1 were predictors of mortality (AUROC 0.650 and 0.717, respectively). At T1, RAGE and P-selectin levels were higher in classical ARDS than in COVID-19-related ARDS. Ang-2, ICAM-1 and E-selectin were lower in classical ARDS than in COVID-19-related ARDS (all p < 0.001). Conclusions COVID-19 ARDS is characterized by an early pulmonary endothelial injury, as detected by Ang-2 and ICAM-1. COVID-19 ARDS and classical ARDS exhibited a different expression of biomarkers, suggesting different pathological pathways. Trial registration NCT04343053, Date of registration: April 13, 2020

The variable outcome of viral exposure is only partially explained by known factors. We administered respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) to 58 volunteers, of whom 57% became infected. Mucosal neutrophil activation before exposure was highly predictive of symptomatic RSV disease. This was associated with a rapid, presymptomatic decline in mucosal interleukin-17A (IL-17A) and other mediators. Conversely, those who resisted infection showed presymptomatic activation of IL-17– and tumor necrosis factor–related pathways. Vulnerability to infection was not associated with baseline microbiome but was reproduced in mice by preinfection chemokine-driven airway recruitment of neutrophils, which caused enhanced disease mediated by pulmonary CD8+ T cell infiltration. Thus, mucosal neutrophilic inflammation at the time of RSV exposure enhances susceptibility, revealing dynamic, time-dependent local immune responses before symptom onset and explaining the as-yet unpredictable outcomes of pathogen exposure.

No abstract

SummaryWe used nasosorption as a noninvasive method of respiratory mucosal sampling in a paediatric virology setting. Nasosorption was well tolerated and demonstrated respiratory syncytial virus load to be associated with disease severity and elevated mediators of inflammation.

The methods of nasal absorption (NA) and bronchial absorption (BA) use synthetic absorptive matrices (SAM) to absorb the mucosal lining fluid (MLF) of the human respiratory tract. NA is a non-invasive technique which absorbs fluid from the inferior turbinate, and causes minimal discomfort. NA has yielded reproducible results with the ability to frequently repeat sampling of the upper airway. By comparison, alternative methods of sampling the respiratory mucosa, such as nasopharyngeal aspiration (NPA) and conventional swabbing, are more invasive and may result in greater data variability. Other methods have limitations, for instance, biopsies and bronchial procedures are invasive, sputum contains many dead and dying cells and requires liquefaction, exhaled breath condensate (EBC) contains water and saliva, and lavage samples are dilute and variable.BA can be performed through the working channel of a bronchoscope in clinic. Sampling is well tolerated and can be conducted at multiple sites in the airway. BA results in MLF samples being less dilute than bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples.This article demonstrates the techniques of NA and BA, as well as the laboratory processing of the resulting samples, which can be tailored to the desired downstream biomarker being measured. These absorption techniques are useful alternatives to the conventional sampling techniques used in clinical respiratory research.

BackgroundPatients with asthma are at risk of hospitalisation with influenza, but the reasons for this predisposition are unknown.Study settingA prospective observational study of adults with PCR-confirmed influenza in 11 UK hospitals, measuring nasal, nasopharyngeal and systemic immune mediators and whole-blood gene expression.ResultsOf 133 admissions, 40 (30%) had previous asthma; these were more often female (70% versus 38.7%, OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.67–8.18; p=0.0012), required less mechanical ventilation (15% versus 37.6%, Chi-squared 6.78; p=0.0338) and had shorter hospital stays (mean 8.3 versus 15.3 days, p=0.0333) than those without. In patients without asthma, severe outcomes were more frequent in those given corticosteroids (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.02–6.96; p=0.0466) or presenting >4 days after disease onset (OR 5.49, 95% CI 2.28–14.03; p=0.0002). Influenza vaccination in at-risk groups (including asthma) were lower than intended by national policy and the early use of antiviral medications were less than optimal. Mucosal immune responses were equivalent between groups. Those with asthma had higher serum interferon (IFN)-α, but lower serum tumour necrosis factor, interleukin (IL)-5, IL-6, CXCL8, CXCL9, IL-10, IL-17 and CCL2 levels (all p<0.05); both groups had similar serum IL-13, total IgE, periostin and blood eosinophil gene expression levels. Asthma diagnosis was unrelated to viral load, IFN-α, IFN-γ, IL-5 or IL-13 levels.ConclusionsAsthma is common in those hospitalised with influenza, but may not represent classical type 2-driven disease. Those admitted with influenza tend to be female with mild serum inflammatory responses, increased serum IFN-α levels and good clinical outcomes.