Background: Serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) and periostin are reliable biomarkers in eosinophilic asthma. Objective: This study was carried out to determine the use of periostin and TARC as biomarkers in asthma and to compare the superiority of one over the other, especially in asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype. Methods: The study was conducted with 87 patients with asthma and 42 healthy control subjects. Patients with asthma were also divided into eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic phenotypes. A pulmonary function test was performed in all the participants, and serum and induced sputum TARC, periostin concentrations, eosinophils, and total immunoglobulin E values were examined. Results: TARC and periostin levels were significantly higher in the asthma group than in the control group (p < 0.001). The serum TARC level in the eosinophilic group was significantly higher than in the non-eosinophilic and control groups (p < 0.001). The induced sputum TARC level was significantly higher in the non-eosinophilic group than in the control group (p < 0.001). The TARC and periostin levels of the patients were evaluated by using receiver operator characteristic analysis. The cutoff value for TARC was determined to be 1415.39 ng/L; likewise, the cutoff value for periostin was 107.60 ng/L. The present study detected that serum levels of TARC correlated to serum levels of periostin (r = 0.54; p = 0.032). Furthermore, when evaluating correlations between serum and sputum levels, there was a correlation detected between TARC and periostin in serum, whereas this correlation was stronger in sputum: r = 0.66, p = 0.020; and r = 0.62, p = 0.028, respectively. Conclusion: Serum and sputum TARC and periostin may contribute for monitoring the improvement of patients, particularly those with asthma. Furthermore, TARC was a more reliable biomarker than periostin for patients with eosinophilic asthma.

Background/aim: While mortality rates decrease in many chronic diseases, it continues to increase in COPD. This situation has led to the need to develop new approaches such as phenotypes in the management of COPD. We aimed to investigate the distribution, characteristics and treatment preference of COPD phenotypes in Turkey. Materials and methods: The study was designed as a national, multicenter, observational and cross-sectional. A total of 1141 stable COPD patients were included in the analysis. Results: The phenotype distribution was as follows: 55.7% nonexacerbators (NON-AE), 25.6% frequent exacerbators without chronic bronchitis (AE NON-CB), 13.9% frequent exacerbators with chronic bronchitis (AE-CB), and 4.8% with asthma and COPD overlap (ACO). The FEV1 values were significantly higher in the ACO and NON-AE than in the AE-CB and AE NON-CB (p < 0.001). The symptom scores, ADO (age, dyspnoea and FEV1 ) index and the rates of exacerbations were significantly higher in the AE-CB and AE NON-CB phenotypes than in the ACO and NON-AE phenotypes (p < 0.001). Treatment preference in patients with COPD was statistically different among the phenotypes (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis was performed in terms of emphysema, chronic bronchitis and ACO phenotypes of 1107 patients who had thoracic computed tomography. A total of 202 patients had more than one phenotypic trait, and 149 patients showed no features of a specific phenotype. Conclusion: Most of the phenotype models have tried to classify the patient into a certain phenotype so far. However, we observed that some of the patients with COPD had two or more phenotypes together. Therefore, rather than determining which phenotype the patients are classified in, searching for the phenotypic traits of each patient may enable more effective and individualized treatment.

Lymphopenia is the most important criterion of the mortality and discharging feature for patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to investigate the clinical impact of a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) treatment on the clinical course of COVID-19. Patients? clinical symptoms, radiologic outcomes, hematologic, biochemical, D-dimer, and C-reactive protein (CRP) results were obtained from medical records. Participants were separated into two groups: one was treated with LMWH and the other was not. Improvement in the patients was compared before and after treatment. Ninety-six patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between April and May 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The multivariable analysis showed that the count of lymphocytes, D-dimer, and CRP levels were significantly improved in the LMWH group, as compared to the control group (OR, (95% CI) 0.628 (0.248?0.965), p < 0.001), OR, (95% CI) 0.356 (0.089?0.674), p < 0.001, respectively). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was AUC: 0.679 ± 0.055, 0.615 ± 0.058, 0.633 ± 0.057, respectively, the ß value was found as -1.032, -0.026, and -0.465, respectively. LMWH treatment group demonstrated better laboratory findings, including a recovery in the lymphocyte count, CRP, and D-dimer results.