Reduced epithelial suppressor of cytokine signalling 1 in severe eosinophilic asthma

Severe asthma represents a major unmet clinical need. Eosinophilic inflammation persists in the airways of many patients with uncontrolled asthma, despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Suppressors of cytokine signalling (SOCS) are a family of molecules involved in the regulation of cytokine signalling via inhibition of the Janus kinase-signal transducers and activators of transcription pathway. We examined SOCS expression in the airways of asthma patients and investigated whether this is associated with persistent eosinophilia.

Healthy controls, mild/moderate asthmatics and severe asthmatics were studied. Whole genome expression profiling, quantitative PCR and immunohistochemical analysis were used to examine expression of SOCS1, SOCS2 and SOCS3 in bronchial biopsies. Bronchial epithelial cells were utilised to examine the role of SOCS1 in regulating interleukin (IL)-13 signalling in vitro.

SOCS1 gene expression was significantly lower in the airways of severe asthmatics compared with mild/moderate asthmatics, and was inversely associated with airway eosinophilia and other measures of T-helper type 2 (Th2) inflammation. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated SOCS1 was predominantly localised to the bronchial epithelium. SOCS1 overexpression inhibited IL-13-mediated chemokine ligand (CCL) 26 (eotaxin-3) mRNA expression in bronchial epithelial cells.

Severe asthma patients with persistent airway eosinophilia and Th2 inflammation have reduced airway epithelial SOCS1 expression. SOCS1 inhibits epithelial IL-13 signalling, supporting its key role in regulating Th2-driven eosinophilia in severe asthma.

The epidemiology, healthcare and societal burden and costs of asthma in the UK and its member nations: analyses of standalone and linked national databases

Background: There are a lack of reliable data on the epidemiology and associated burden and costs of asthma. We sought to provide the first UK-wide estimates of the epidemiology, healthcare utilisation and costs of asthma. 

Methods: We obtained and analysed asthma-relevant data from 27 datasets: these comprised national health surveys for 2010-11, and routine administrative, health and social care datasets for 2011-12; 2011-12 costs were estimated in pounds sterling using economic modelling. 

Results: The prevalence of asthma depended on the definition and data source used. The UK lifetime prevalence of patient-reported symptoms suggestive of asthma was 29.5 % (95 % CI, 27.7-31.3; n = 18.5 million (m) people) and 15.6 % (14.3-16.9, n = 9.8 m) for patient-reported clinician-diagnosed asthma. The annual prevalence of patient-reported clinician-diagnosed-and-treated asthma was 9.6 % (8.9-10.3, n = 6.0 m) and of clinician-reported, diagnosed-and-treated asthma 5.7 % (5.7-5.7; n = 3.6 m). Asthma resulted in at least 6.3 m primary care consultations, 93,000 hospital in-patient episodes, 1800 intensive-care unit episodes and 36,800 disability living allowance claims. The costs of asthma were estimated at least £1.1 billion: 74 % of these costs were for provision of primary care services (60 % prescribing, 14 % consultations), 13 % for disability claims, and 12 % for hospital care. There were 1160 asthma deaths. 

Conclusions: Asthma is very common and is responsible for considerable morbidity, healthcare utilisation and financial costs to the UK public sector. Greater policy focus on primary care provision is needed to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, hospitalisations and deaths, and reduce costs.