Eosinophilic Airway Inflammation in Patients with Stable Biomass Smoke- versus Tobacco Smoke-Associated Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an inflammatory disease with predominant involvement of neutrophils, macrophages and CD8+ lymphocytes. Eosinophilic airway inflammations are reported in stable state and during acute exacerbations of tobacco smoke-associated COPD (TS-COPD). Women exposed to biomass fuel smoke are known to have eosinophils in sputum. However, little is known about the sputum cellular inflammatory profile in biomass fuel smoke-associated COPD (BMS-COPD). We therefore aimed to compare the sputum cellular inflammatory profile in tobacco smoke- and biomass smoke-associated COPD.

methodsThe study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in Goa, India. A total of 113 patients with stable COPD reporting to the outpatient pulmonary clinic were recruited. All participants were ≥ 40 years of age. Sputum induction studies were performed by the method of Pizzichini

resultsThere were 85 TS-COPD and 28 BMS-COPD patients. The mean age [standard deviation (SD)] was 64.7 (7.8) and 63.0 years (8.3), p = 0.32 in TS and BMS-COPD, respectively. Eighteen subjects (21.1%) were female smokers. The smoking pack-year median [interquartile range (IQR)] was 36 (20, 58) and hour-years of biomass smoke exposure mean (SD) was 192.4 (61). The TS-COPD and BMS-COPD cases showed a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1%) mean (SD) of 57.9 (17.1), and 62.6 (19.4), p= 0.22, respectively. Both groups had similar symptoms and severity of disease. Induced sputum total cell count per gram of sputum × 10

conclusionsFor similar severity of disease and clinical symptoms, significant eosinophilic inflammation was observed in stable BMS-COPD, while both groups had similar neutrophilic inflammation. PARTICIPANT CONSENT: Obtained. ETHICS APPROVAL: The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Goa Medical College, Goa, India. COMPETING INTERESTS: The authors declare no competing financial interests.