Objective of the Study: To evaluate serum periostin levels in children with repeated episodes of bronchial obstruction and positive or negative Asthma Predictive Index (API), and in healthy three- and four-year-olds.
Study Design: This was a cross-sectional study.
Materials and Methods: Serum periostin levels were measured in three independent samples of children aged three to four. Group I consisted of children with repeated episodes of bronchial obstruction and positive API; Group II was made up of children with repeated episodes of bronchial obstruction and negative API; and Group III comprised healthy children. There were 101 children in all in the study: 72 with repeated bronchial obstruction (more than three episodes within the past 12 months) and 29 healthy children in the control group. Thirty-nine out of the 72 children with repeated episodes of bronchial obstruction had positive API and 33 had negative API.
Study Results: There were no statistically significant differences in serum periostin levels among the three groups compared in the study. Serum periostin levels were 2.5 (1.8; 4.0) ng/mL in the children with positive API; 3.2 (1.9; 4.0) ng/mL in the children with negative API; and 2.7 (1.7; 3.6) ng/mL in the healthy children. The area under the ROC curve for serum periostin was 0.56.
Conclusion: Our findings are consistent with the data in previous publications. These data suggest that serum periostin cannot be viewed as a potential biomarker for predicting asthma in children with repeated episodes of bronchial obstruction. All of these studies, however, have been cross-sectional. This fact precludes an accurate assessment of the diagnostic value of serum periostin levels as a predictor of asthma in patients with repeated episodes of bronchial obstruction, which needs to be evaluated in a longitudinal study
Financing: The study was funded by a Rector’s grant from the Altai State Medical University(a Federal Government-funded Educational Institution of Higher Education), Russian Ministry of Health (Order No. 88-PK, dated February 12, 2018).
Contribution: Shakhova, N.V. created the study design, was responsible for the selection and examination of patients and for data processing, analysis, and interpretation, and wrote the manuscript. Kamaltynova, E.M. contributed to the examination of patients and data processing. Kashinskaya, T.S. participated in development of the study design and checked critically important content.
Conflict of interes: The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interests.