Niki Fens

Exhaled Breath Profiling Enables Discrimination of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Asthma

RATIONALEnChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma can exhibit overlapping clinical features. Exhaled air contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that may qualify as noninvasive biomarkers. VOC profiles can be assessed using integrative analysis by electronic nose, resulting in exhaled molecular fingerprints (breathprints).nnnOBJECTIVESnWe hypothesized that breathprints by electronic nose can discriminate patients with COPD and asthma.nnnMETHODSnNinety subjects participated in a cross-sectional study: 30 patients with COPD (age, 61.6 +/- 9.3 years; FEV(1), 1.72 +/- 0.69 L), 20 patients with asthma (age, 35.4 +/- 15.1 years; FEV(1) 3.32 +/- 0.86 L), 20 nonsmoking control subjects (age, 56.7 +/- 9.3 years; FEV(1), 3.44 +/- 0.76 L), and 20 smoking control subjects (age, 56.1 +/- 5.9 years; FEV(1), 3.58 +/- 0.78). After 5 minutes of tidal breathing through an inspiratory VOC filter, an expiratory vital capacity was collected in a Tedlar bag and sampled by electronic nose. Breathprints were analyzed by discriminant analysis on principal component reduction resulting in cross-validated accuracy values (accuracy). Repeatability and reproducibility were assessed by measuring samples in duplicate by two devices.nnnMEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTSnBreathprints from patients with asthma were separated from patients with COPD (accuracy 96%; P < 0.001), from nonsmoking control subjects (accuracy, 95%; P < 0.001), and from smoking control subjects (accuracy, 92.5%; P < 0.001). Exhaled breath profiles of patients with COPD partially overlapped with those of asymptomatic smokers (accuracy, 66%; P = 0.006). Measurements were repeatable and reproducible.nnnCONCLUSIONSnMolecular profiling of exhaled air can distinguish patients with COPD and asthma and control subjects. Our data demonstrate a potential of electronic noses in the differential diagnosis of obstructive airway diseases and in the risk assessment in asymptomatic smokers. Clinical trial registered with www.trialregister.nl (NTR 1282).

External validation of exhaled breath profiling using an electronic nose in the discrimination of asthma with fixed airways obstruction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background Fixed airflow limitation can be found both in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), posing a day‐to‐day diagnostic challenge.

Exhaled air molecular profiling in relation to inflammatory subtype and activity in COPD

Eosinophilic inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is predictive for responses to inhaled steroids. We hypothesised that the inflammatory subtype in mild and moderate COPD can be assessed by exhaled breath metabolomics. Exhaled compounds were analysed using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and electronic nose (eNose) in 28 COPD patients (12/16 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage I/II, respectively). Differential cell counts, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) and myeloperoxidase (MPO) were measured in induced sputum. Relationships between exhaled compounds, eNose breathprints and sputum inflammatory markers were analysed and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed. Exhaled compounds were highly associated with sputum cell counts (eight compounds with eosinophils, 17 with neutrophils; p<0.01). Only one compound (alkylated benzene) overlapped between eosinophilic and neutrophilic profiles. GC-MS and eNose breathprints were associated with markers of inflammatory activity in GOLD stage I (ECP: 19 compounds, p<0.01; eNose breathprint r=0.84, p=0.002) (MPO: four compounds, p<0.01; eNose r=0.72, p=0.008). ROC analysis for eNose showed high sensitivity and specificity for inflammatory activity in mild COPD (ECP: area under the curve (AUC) 1.00; MPO: AUC 0.96) but not for moderate COPD. Exhaled molecular profiles are closely associated with the type of inflammatory cell and their activation status in mild and moderate COPD. This suggests that breath analysis may be used for assessment and monitoring of airway inflammation in COPD.

Exhaled breath analysis by electronic nose in airways disease. Established issues and key questions

Exhaled air contains many volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are the result of normal and disease‐associated metabolic processes anywhere in the body. Different omics techniques can assess the pattern of these VOCs. One such omics technique suitable for breath analysis is represented by electronic noses (eNoses), providing fingerprints of the exhaled VOCs, called breathprints. Breathprints have been shown to be altered in different disease states, including in asthma and COPD. This review describes the current status on clinical validation and application of breath analysis by electronic noses in the diagnosis and monitoring of chronic airways diseases. Furthermore, important methodological issues including breath sampling, modulating factors and incompatibility between eNoses are raised and discussed. Next steps towards clinical application of electronic noses are provided, including further validation in suspected disease, assessment of the influence of different comorbidities, the value in longitudinal monitoring of patients with asthma and COPD and the possibility to predict treatment responses. Eventually, a Breath Cloud may be constructed, a large database containing disease‐specific breathprints. When collaborative efforts are put into optimization of this technique, it can provide a rapid and non‐invasive first line diagnostic test.

A European Respiratory Society technical standard: exhaled biomarkers in lung disease

Breath tests cover the fraction of nitric oxide in expired gas (FENO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), variables in exhaled breath condensate (EBC) and other measurements. For EBC and for FENO, official recommendations for standardised procedures are more than 10u2005years old and there is none for exhaled VOCs and particles. The aim of this document is to provide technical standards and recommendations for sample collection and analytic approaches and to highlight future research priorities in the field. For EBC and FENO, new developments and advances in technology have been evaluated in the current document. This report is not intended to provide clinical guidance on disease diagnosis and management. Clinicians and researchers with expertise in exhaled biomarkers were invited to participate. Published studies regarding methodology of breath tests were selected, discussed and evaluated in a consensus-based manner by the Task Force members. Recommendations for standardisation of sampling, analysing and reporting of data and suggestions for research to cover gaps in the evidence have been created and summarised. Application of breath biomarker measurement in a standardised manner will provide comparable results, thereby facilitating the potential use of these biomarkers in clinical practice. ERS technical standard: exhaled biomarkers in lung disease http://ow.ly/mAjr309DBOP

Effect of transportation and storage using sorbent tubes of exhaled breath samples on diagnostic accuracy of electronic nose analysis.

Many (multi-centre) breath-analysis studies require transport and storage of samples. We aimed to test the effect of transportation and storage using sorbent tubes of exhaled breath samples for diagnostic accuracy of eNose and GC-MS analysis. As a reference standard for diagnostic accuracy, breath samples of asthmatic patients and healthy controls were analysed by three eNose devices. Samples were analysed by GC-MS and eNose after 1, 7 and 14xa0days of transportation and storage using sorbent tubes. The diagnostic accuracy for eNose and GC-MS after storage was compared to the reference standard. As a validation, the stability was assessed of 15 compounds known to be related to asthma, abundant in breath or related to sampling and analysis. The reference test discriminated asthma and healthy controls with a median AUC (range) of 0.77 (0.72-0.76). Similar accuracies were achieved at t1xa0(AUC eNose 0.78; GC-MS 0.84), t7xa0(AUC eNose 0.76; GC-MS 0.79) and t14xa0(AUC eNose 0.83; GC-MS 0.84). The GC-MS analysis of compounds showed an adequate stability for all 15 compounds during the 14xa0day period. Short-term transportation and storage using sorbent tubes of breath samples does not influence the diagnostic accuracy for discrimination between asthma and health by eNose and GC-MS.

Electronic Nose Breathprints Are Independent of Acute Changes in Airway Caliber in Asthma

Molecular profiling of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOC) by electronic nose technology provides breathprints that discriminate between patients with different inflammatory airway diseases, such as asthma and COPD. However, it is unknown whether this is determined by differences in airway caliber. We hypothesized that breathprints obtained by electronic nose are independent of acute changes in airway caliber in asthma. Ten patients with stable asthma underwent methacholine provocation (Visit 1) and sham challenge with isotonic saline (Visit 2). At Visit 1, exhaled air was repetitively collected pre-challenge, after reaching the provocative concentration (PC20) causing 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and after subsequent salbutamol inhalation. At Visit 2, breath was collected pre-challenge, post-saline and post-salbutamol. At each occasion, an expiratory vital capacity was collected after 5 min of tidal breathing through an inspiratory VOC-filter in a Tedlar bag and sampled by electronic nose (Cyranose 320). Breathprints were analyzed with principal component analysis and individual factors were compared with mixed model analysis followed by pairwise comparisons. Inhalation of methacholine led to a 30.8 ± 3.3% fall in FEV1 and was followed by a significant change in breathprint (p = 0.04). Saline inhalation did not induce a significant change in FEV1, but altered the breathprint (p = 0.01). However, the breathprint obtained after the methacholine provocation was not significantly different from that after saline challenge (p = 0.27). The molecular profile of exhaled air in patients with asthma is altered by nebulized aerosols, but is not affected by acute changes in airway caliber. Our data demonstrate that breathprints by electronic nose are not confounded by the level of airway obstruction.

Subphenotypes of mild-to-moderate COPD by factor and cluster analysis of pulmonary function, CT imaging and breathomics in a population-based survey

Abstract Introduction: Classification of COPD is currently based on the presence and severity of airways obstruction. However, this may not fully reflect the phenotypic heterogeneity of COPD in the (ex-) smoking community. We hypothesized that factor analysis followed by cluster analysis of functional, clinical, radiological and exhaled breath metabolomic features identifies subphenotypes of COPD in a community-based population of heavy (ex-) smokers. Methods: Adults between 50–75 years with a smoking history of at least 15 pack-years derived from a random population-based survey as part of the NELSON study underwent detailed assessment of pulmonary function, chest CT scanning, questionnaires and exhaled breath molecular profiling using an electronic nose. Factor and cluster analyses were performed on the subgroup of subjects fulfilling the GOLD criteria for COPD (post-BD FEV1/FVC < 0.70). Results: Three hundred subjects were recruited, of which 157 fulfilled the criteria for COPD and were included in the factor and cluster analysis. Four clusters were identified: cluster 1 (n = 35; 22%): mild COPD, limited symptoms and good quality of life. Cluster 2 (n = 48; 31%): low lung function, combined emphysema and chronic bronchitis and a distinct breath molecular profile. Cluster 3 (n = 60; 38%): emphysema predominant COPD with preserved lung function. Cluster 4 (n = 14; 9%): highly symptomatic COPD with mildly impaired lung function. In a leave-one-out validation analysis an accuracy of 97.4% was reached. Conclusions: This unbiased taxonomy for mild to moderate COPD reinforces clusters found in previous studies and thereby allows better phenotyping of COPD in the general (ex-) smoking population.

Integration of electronic nose technology with spirometry: validation of a new approach for exhaled breath analysis

New omics-technologies have the potential to better define airway disease in terms of pathophysiological and clinical phenotyping. The integration of electronic nose (eNose) technology with existing diagnostic tests, such as routine spirometry, can bring this technology to point-of-care. We aimed to determine and optimize the technical performance and diagnostic accuracy of exhaled breath analysis linked to routine spirometry. Exhaled breath was collected in triplicate in healthy subjects by an eNose (SpiroNose) based on five identical metal oxide semiconductor sensor arrays (three arrays monitoring exhaled breath and two reference arrays monitoring ambient air) at the rear end of a pneumotachograph. First, the influence of flow, volume, humidity, temperature, environment, etc, was assessed. Secondly, a two-centre case-control study was performed using diagnostic and monitoring visits in day-to-day clinical care in patients with a (differential) diagnosis of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or lung cancer. Breathprint analysis involved signal processing, environment correction based on alveolar gradients and statistics based on principal component (PC) analysis, followed by discriminant analysis (Matlab2014/SPSS20). Expiratory flow showed a significant linear correlation with raw sensor deflections (R(2)u2009u2009=u2009u20090.84) in 60 healthy subjects (age 43u2009u2009±u2009u200911 years). No correlation was found between sensor readings and exhaled volume, humidity and temperature. Exhaled data after environment correction were highly reproducible for each sensor array (Cohens Kappa 0.81-0.94). Thirty-seven asthmatics (41u2009u2009±u2009u200914.2 years), 31 COPD patients (66u2009u2009±u2009u20098.4 years), 31 lung cancer patients (63u2009u2009±u2009u200910.8 years) and 45 healthy controls (41u2009u2009±u2009u200912.5 years) entered the cross-sectional study. SpiroNose could adequately distinguish between controls, asthma, COPD and lung cancer patients with cross-validation values ranging between 78-88%. We have developed a standardized way to integrate eNose technology with spirometry. Signal processing techniques and environmental background correction ensured that the multiple sensor arrays within the SpiroNose provided repeatable and interchangeable results. SpiroNose discriminated controls and patients with asthma, COPD and lung cancer with promising accuracy, paving the route towards point-of-care exhaled breath diagnostics.

Breathomics as a diagnostic tool for pulmonary embolism.

1 Pengo V, Tripodi A, Reber G, Rand JH, Ortel TL, Galli M, de Groot PG. Update of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7: 1737–40. 2 Brandt JT, Triplett DA, Alving B, Scharrer I. Criteria for the diagnosis of lupus anticoagulants: an update On behalf of the Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibody of the Scientific and Standardisation Committee of the ISTH. Thromb Haemost 1995; 74: 1185–90. 3 Miyakis S, LockshinMD, Atsumi T, BranchDW, Brey RL, Cervera R, Derksen RHWM, de Groot PG, Koike T, Meroni PL, Reber G, Shoenfeld Y, Tincani A, Vlachoyiannopoulos PG, Krilis SA. International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J ThrombHaemost 2006; 4: 295–306. 4 Aboud M, Roddie C, Ward C, Coyle L. To mix with pooled normal plasma or not to mix: a comparative study of two approaches to assess lupus anticoagulant inhibitory activity in the dilute Russell Viper venom method. Clin Chem 2007; 53: 143–5. 5 Thom J, Ivey L, Eikelboom J. Normal plasma mixing studies in the laboratory diagnosis of lupus anticoagulant. J ThrombHaemost 2003; 1: 2689–91. 6 Devreese KMJ. No more mixing tests required for integrated assay systems in the laboratory diagnosis of lupus anticoagulants? J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 1120–2. 7 Details of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) Haematology Quality Assurance Program (QAP) and test modules. http://www.rcpaqap.com.au/haematology/. Accessed 19 August 2010.