Observational studyRespiratory research2024
Association of asthma and bronchiectasis: Mendelian randomization analyses and observational study.
Observational study in Respiratory research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated that asthma is closely associated with bronchiectasis, however, the causal relationship between asthma and bronchiectasis has not been investigated in depth. Therefore, this study aims to explore the causal relationship and to identify potential factors that mediate between these two diseases.
methodAll the necessary summarized information were obtained from publicly available genome-wide association study (GWAS). Two-sample Mendelian randomization (two-sample MR) was employed to explore the causal relationship between asthma and bronchiectasis, with an additional dataset used for validation. Heterogeneity and pleiotropy analyses were utilized to verify the robustness of the results. Subsequently, mediation MR analyses were performed to identify potential mediating factors. Lastly, a retrospective observational study was conducted to validate the findings.
resultPreliminary inverse-variance weighted (IVW) results indicated there was a causal effect of asthma on bronchiectasis (odds ratio [OR] = 1.228, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.077-1.400, P = 0.002). Repetition validation yielded a consistent result. Mediation MR analysis demonstrated that the presence of nasal polyps (OR = 1.063, 95% CI: 1.015-1.113, mediation ratio = 30.492%, P = 0.009), acute sinusitis (OR = 1.062, 95% CI: 1.009-1.118, mediation ratio = 30.157%, P = 0.018), chronic sinusitis (OR = 1.085, 95% CI: 1.024-1.150, mediation ratio = 40.677%, P = 0.005), and peripheral eosinophil counts (OR = 1.013, 95% CI: 1.000-1.026, mediation ratio = 6.514%, P = 0.042) served as significant mediators in the occurrence and development of bronchiectasis induced by asthma. Furthermore, a retrospective observational study observed that bronchiectasis patients with asthma had a higher prevalence of sinusitis (5.043% vs 2.971%, P < 0.001), nasal polyps (0.536% vs 0.152%, P < 0.001), and rhinitis (13.197% vs 1.860%, P < 0.001). The ratio (1.950 (0.500, 5.600) vs 1.500 (0.500, 2.600), P = 0.006) and counts (0.125 (0.040, 0.363) vs 0.090 (0.030, 0.160), P < 0.001) of peripheral blood eosinophils were also elevated in bronchiectasis patients with asthma.
conclusionThe MR analysis uncovered a notable genetic association between asthma and bronchiectasis, which was partially mediated by sinusitis, nasal polyps, and eosinophils. A subsequent retrospective study provided further evidence by demonstrating that bronchiectasis patients with asthma had a higher prevalence of sinusitis, nasal polyps, an elevated proportion of eosinophils, and higher eosinophil counts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.