青年人和老年人之间的哮喘差异：COREA研究结果
2013/10/11
摘要
背景：于哮喘在老年哮喘患者（EA）和非老年（如：青年）（NEA）哮喘患者中的差异，目前尚无大规模、综合性研究。
方法：我们在来自成人哮喘现状和进展（COREA）韩国队列中的2067例哮喘患者（EA 434例， NEA 1633例）中开展了主要成分分析（PCA）。EA定义为实际年龄≥65岁的哮喘患者，入组时检测11项临床指标以供PCA使用：症状评分、症状持续时间、过去一年内发作次数、吸烟年包数、哮喘控制的药物数量、体重指数、预测FEV1 %、预测FEC%、支气管扩张治疗后FEV1/FVC比值、过敏指数和外周嗜酸性粒细胞计数。
结果：所有哮喘患者的PCA显示：根据评分结果，EA和NEA可被哮喘个人图表中第一和第二主要成分明显区别开来。为了进一步分析，我们将所有哮喘患者分入EA和NEA组并在两组再次进行PCA分析。两组中均发现前4个主要成分的特征值≥1.0，这些数据解释了EA组和NEA组分别存在55.5%和52.4%的方差。EA组和NEA组的前4个主要成分的临床变量显示出明显不同的模式。
结论：EA和NEA具有不同的临床变量组成模式。这些观察有助于从包含多个临床方面的整体角度上理解EA和NEA的差异。
（苏楠 审校）
Respir Med. 2013 Aug 5. pii: S0954-6111(13)00269-2. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2013.07.016. [Epub ahead of print]
Differences between asthma in young and elderly: Results from the COREA study.
Park HW, Kwon HS, Kim TB, Kim SH, Chang YS, Jang AS, Cho YS, Nahm DH, Park JW, Yoon HJ, Cho YJ, Choi BW, Moon HB, Cho SH; the COREA Study Group.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been no large-scale and comprehensive study of the differences between asthma in elderly asthmatics (EA) and non-elderly (i.e. young) asthmatics (NEA).
METHODS: We performed principal component analysis (PCA) using 2067 asthmatics (434 EA and 1633 NEA) from the Korean Cohort for Reality and Evolution of adult Asthma (COREA). EA was defined as asthmatics with the chronological age of 65 or more and eleven clinical variables measured at enrollment were used for PCA; symptom score, symptom duration, number of exacerbation during previous one year, smoking pack year, number of controller medications, body mass index, predicted % of FEV1, predicted % FVC, post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio, atopy index and number of eosinophils in peripheral blood.
RESULTS: PCA of all asthmatics showed that EA and NEA were distinctly separated by the first and second principal component on the plot of individual asthmatics according to their scores. For further analysis, we divided all asthmatics into the EA and the NEA group and performed PCA again in each group. The first four principal components with eigenvalues ≥ 1.0 were identified in both groups and they explained 55.5% of the variance in the EA group and 52.4% in the NEA group respectively. Clinical variables showed distinctly different patterns of loading on the first four principal components between the EA and the NEA group.
CONCLUSION: EA and NEA have different compositional patterns underlying their clinical variables. These observations helped in understanding the differences between EA and NEA from the integrated view covering various clinical aspects.
Respir Med. 2013 Aug 5. pii: S0954-6111(13)00269-2. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2013.07.016. [Epub ahead of print]
