Reference ranges for serum periostin in a population without asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of serum periostin as a type 2 biomarker in asthma is limited by lack of reference range values derived from a population without respiratory disease. OBJECTIVE: To derive age- and sex-related reference intervals for serum periostin from an adult population without asthma or COPD. METHODS: Serum periostin levels were measured in 480 individuals, comprising 60 female and 60 male adults in each of the 18- to 30-year, 31- to 45-year, 46- to 60-year and 61- to 75-year age groups. Key exclusion criteria included a doctor's diagnosis of asthma, chronic bronchitis or COPD, and a history of wheezing or use of respiratory inhalers in the last 12 months. The distribution of periostin and logarithm-transformed periostin levels was derived, and 90% confidence intervals for an individual prediction were calculated. RESULTS: The distribution of serum periostin was right skewed with a mean (SD) periostin of 51.2 (11.9) ng/mL, median (IQR) 50.1 (43.1 to 56.9) ng/mL and range 28.1 to 136.4 ng/mL. There was no association between logarithm periostin and age or sex, although levels were low in current smokers. The 90% confidence limits for periostin were 35.0 and 71.1 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Serum periostin levels in adults without asthma or COPD are similar to those in adults with asthma. Serum periostin measurements do not need to be adjusted to take account of a patient's age or sex, although levels are lower in current smokers. Reference values for serum periostin levels in adults without asthma or COPD are provided.

Randomized controlled trial of asthma risk with paracetamol use in infancy--a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: There is non-experimental evidence that paracetamol (acetaminophen) use may increase the risk of developing asthma. However, numerous methodological issues need to be resolved before undertaking a randomized controlled trial to investigate this hypothesis. OBJECTIVE: To establish the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of liberal paracetamol as usually given by parents/guardians vs. a comparator (restricted paracetamol in accordance with WHO guidelines, ibuprofen or placebo), and childhood asthma risk. METHODS: Questionnaires were completed by parents/guardians of infants admitted to Wellington Hospital with bronchiolitis to assess views about comparator treatments. Subsequently, infants of parents/guardians who provided informed consent were randomized to restricted or liberal paracetamol use for 3 months with paracetamol use recorded. RESULTS: Of 120 eligible participants, 72 (60%) parents/guardians completed the questionnaire. Ibuprofen, restricted paracetamol and placebo were acceptable to 42 (58%), 29 (40%) and 9 (12%) parents/guardians, respectively. 36 (30%) infants were randomized to restricted or liberal paracetamol. Paracetamol use was greater for the liberal vs. restricted group for reported [Hodges-Lehmann estimator of difference 0.94 mg/kg/day (95% CI 0.2-3.52), P = 0.02] and measured use [Hodges-Lehmann estimator of difference 2.11 mg/kg/day (95% CI 0.9-4.18), P = 0.004]. The median reported and measured use of paracetamol was 2.0-fold and 3.5-fold greater in the liberal vs. restricted group. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although separation in paracetamol dosing is likely to be achieved with a liberal vs. restricted paracetamol regime, ibuprofen is the preferred comparator treatment in the proposed RCT of paracetamol use and risk of asthma in childhood.