Search

Background: Most studies assessing pathophysiological heterogeneity in asthma have been conducted in high-income countries (HICs), with little known about the prevalence and characteristics of different asthma inflammatory phenotypes in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study assessed sputum inflammatory phenotypes in five centres, in Brazil, Ecuador, Uganda, New Zealand (NZ) and the United Kingdom (UK).Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 998 asthmatics and 356 non-asthmatics in 2016-20. All centres studied children and adolescents (age range 8-20 years), except the UK centre which involved 26-27 year-olds. Information was collected using questionnaires, clinical characterization, blood and induced sputum.Results: Of 623 asthmatics with sputum results, 39% (243) were classified as eosinophilic or mixed granulocytic, i.e. eosinophilic asthma (EA). Adjusted for age and sex, with NZ as baseline, the UK showed similar odds of EA (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.37-2.94) with lower odds in the LMICs: Brazil (0.73, 0.42-1.27), Ecuador (0.40, 0.24-0.66) and Uganda (0.62, 0.37-1.04). Despite the low prevalence of neutrophilic asthma in most centres, sputum neutrophilia was increased in asthmatics and non-asthmatics in Uganda.Conclusions: This is the first time that sputum induction has been used to compare asthma inflammatory phenotypes in HICs and LMICs. Most cases were non-eosinophilic, including in settings where corticosteroid use was low. A lower prevalence of EA was observed in the LMICs than in the HICs. This has major implications for asthma prevention and management, and suggests that novel prevention strategies and therapies specifically targeting non-eosinophilic asthma are required globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevalence of allergy‐related diseases (ARDs), including rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis and eczema, is on the increase globally. The causes of this increase are not well established. Objectives: To investigate the risk factors associated with ARDs among schoolchildren in Uganda. Methods: We conducted a secondary data analysis of a large asthma case–control study involving 1700 schoolchildren, 5–17 years, in urban Uganda. ARDs were defined according to the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) questionnaire. Skin prick testing (SPT) was conducted using standard procedures and allergen‐specific IgE (asIgE) using ImmunoCAP®. We employed inverse probability weighted analysis to generate estimated prevalence data and weighted odds ratios. Results: The lifetime estimated weighted prevalence of reported rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis and eczema was 43.3%, 39.5% and 13.5%; weighted prevalence in 12 months was 10.1%, 9.1% and 2.3%, respectively. There was overlap of ARDs, with 66.3% of 1193 schoolchildren who reported having ever an ARDs (including asthma) reporting two or more. Risk factors associated with reported rhinitis in the last 12 months were city residence at birth [adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 2.66 (1.42–4.99) compared to rural]; father's [2.62 (1.79–3.83)] and mother's history of allergic disease [2.12 (1.48–3.02)]; frequent de‐worming in the last 12 months [2.01 (1.30–3.11), ≥2 versus none]; current high frequency of 'trucks passing on the street near home' [2.59 (1.48–4.52), 'almost all the time' versus rarely] and positive SPT [1.54 (1.09–2.18)] but not asIgE [1.38 (0.60–3.15)]. The same pattern of risk factors was observed for allergic conjunctivitis and eczema. Conclusion: We found extensive multi‐morbidity of, and overlap in the risk factors for, rhinitis, conjunctivitis and eczema—similar to asthma risk factors—among schoolchildren in urban Uganda. This suggests a similar underlying cause for all ARDs, associated with exposure to urban lifestyles and environment in Uganda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Immune responses induced by several important vaccines differ between populations, with reduced responses in low-income and rural settings compared with high-income and urban settings. BCG immunisation boosts immune responses to some unrelated vaccines in high-income populations. We aimed to test the hypothesis that BCG revaccination can enhance responses to unrelated vaccines in Ugandan schoolchildren., Methods: We conducted an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare the effects of BCG revaccination versus no BCG revaccination on the immunogenicity of subsequent unrelated vaccines among adolescents aged 13-17 years who are participants in an urban Ugandan birth cohort study, in which BCG vaccination was documented at birth. Participants were excluded if they had received any of the trial vaccines or related agents when aged 5 years or older. Computer-generated 1:1 randomisation was implemented in REDCap. Participants were excluded if they were concurrently enrolled in other trials; had a clinically significant history of immunodeficiency, or serious psychiatric conditions or moderate to severe acute illnesses; were taking immunosuppressive medications; had allergies to vaccine components, a predisposition towards developing keloid scarring; positive HIV tests or pregnancy tests; were female participants who were lactating; or if they planned to use investigational drugs, vaccines, blood products, or any combination thereof. Trial participants assigned to the BCG revaccination group received the live parenteral BCG-Russia vaccine (Serum Institute of India, Pune, India; 0·1 mL intradermally, right upper arm) at week 0. All participants received yellow fever vaccine (YF-17D; Sanofi Pasteur, Lyon, France; 0·5 mL intramuscularly, left upper arm), live oral typhoid vaccine (Ty21a; PaxVax, London, UK; one capsule per day taken for three alternate days), and quadrivalent virus-like particle human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (Merck, Rahway, NJ, USA; 0·5 mL intramuscularly, left upper arm) at week 4; and toxoid vaccines (tetanus-diphtheria; Serum Institute of India; 0·5 mL intramuscularly, left upper arm) and an HPV booster at week 28. An additional HPV vaccination at week 8 was provided to female participants older than 14 years who had not previously been vaccinated. The primary outcomes were yellow fever neutralising antibody titres at 4 weeks post-YF-17D vaccination, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (henceforth S Typhi) O-lipopolysaccharide (O:LPS)-specific IgG concentration at 4 weeks post-Ty21a vaccination, and HPV-16 and HPV-18 L1 protein-specific IgG concentration at 4 weeks post-HPV vaccination. Primary outcome assays were conducted at week 8, and at week 52 for tetanus-diphtheria. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis comparing log-transformed outcomes between trial groups, with results back-transformed to geometric mean ratios (GMRs). The safety population comprised all randomly allocated participants. The trial was registered at the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10482904) and is complete., Findings: Between Aug 31 and Oct 12, 2020, we screened 376 potential participants for eligibility. We enrolled and randomly allocated 300 participants to the two groups (151 [50%] to the BCG group and 149 [50%] to the no BCG group). 178 (59%) of 300 participants were male and 122 (41%) were female. 142 (91%) of 151 participants in the BCG group and 139 (93%) of 149 in the no BCG group completed follow-up. There was no effect of BCG revaccination, compared with no BCG revaccination, on the response observed for any vaccine. Yellow fever plaque reduction neutralising reference tests (PRNT 50 ) titres (the reciprocal of the last plasma dilution that reduced by 50%) had a GMR of 0·95 (95% CI 0·75-1·19; p=0·62) and PRNT 90 (reciprocal of the last plasma dilution that reduced by 90%) had a GMR of 0·94 (0·74-1·19; p=0·60); IgG to S Typhi O:LPS was 0·99 (0·80-1·23; p=0·94); IgG to HPV-16 was 0·97 (0·69-1·35; p=0·85) and to HPV-18 was 1·03 (0·76-1·40; p=0·83); and toxoid-specific IgG for tetanus was 1·13 (0·87-1·47; p=0·36) and was 1·00 (0·87-1·16; p=0·97) for diphtheria. There were no serious adverse events in either group., Interpretation: We found no evidence that BCG revaccination is an effective strategy to improve immunogenicity of other vaccines in this low-income, urban setting., Funding: UK Medical Research Council., Translation: For the Luganda translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GN reports funding from the Wellcome Trust and from the EDCTP2 programme supported by the EU. AME, SC, and PK report funding from the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) for conduct of the study; AME and SC report funding from DELTAS Africa, outside the submitted work, and support from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). AME reports funding from the Science for Africa Foundation, outside the submitted work. AME and SC further report support from the Serum Institute of India, Uganda National Expanded Program on Immunization, and Emergent BioSolutions for conduct of the study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)