ArticleJournal of asthma and allergy2026
A Multi-Compartment Cytological Approach to Severe Asthma Phenotyping: The BRISA Study (Biomedical Research in Severe Asthma).
Article in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nasal Cytology as a Complementary Cellular Window in Severe Asthma Phenotyping: Comments on the BRISA Study [Letter].Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate inflammatory phenotyping in asthma remains challenging. Nasal cytology has emerged as a potential non-invasive tool to assess airway inflammation in asthma. However, its relationship with lower airway inflammation and systemic biomarkers remains unclear, particularly in severe asthma (SA). Objective: To evaluate whether a multi-compartment approach could improve the characterisation of type 2 inflammation and the relationship between nasal cytology, induced sputum, and systemic inflammatory biomarkers in patients with severe asthma. Methods: In this cross-sectional exploratory BRISA study, twenty-two patients with SA underwent nasal cytology by mucosal scraping, induced sputum analysis, and serum biomarker assessment (periostin, eosinophil cationic protein, thymic stromal lymphopoietin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4, and total IgE). Patients were stratified according to blood eosinophil count (BEC <300 vs ≥300 cells/µL). Correlations between compartments and associations with clinical and inflammatory variables were analysed. Results: Higher blood eosinophil counts were associated with worse lung function, increased exacerbations, and higher serum periostin levels. Valid induced sputum samples were obtained in 16 patients: 7 eosinophilic, 3 neutrophilic, 2 mixed eosinophilic-neutrophilic and 4 paucigranulocytic. Nasal cytology predominantly showed limited agreement with induced sputum inflammatory phenotypes. Serum TSLP, DPP4, and IgE also showed an upward trend in patients with higher blood eosinophil counts, although these differences were not statistically significant. Correlation analysis demonstrated a significant positive association between sputum and blood eosinophils, as well as between blood eosinophils and serum periostin. A strong positive correlation was also observed between serum eotaxin and TSLP. Conclusion: Nasal cytology alone cannot replace induced sputum for inflammatory phenotyping in SA, although it may provide complementary information on upper airway inflammation. Among the evaluated systemic biomarkers, periostin emerged as the most consistent marker associated with blood eosinophilia, while other biomarkers showed only non-significant trends. Further studies are needed to validate the role of combined biomarkers in predicting airway inflammation.
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.