Background: Both being overweight and exposure to indoor pollutants, which have been associated with worse health of asthmatic patients, are common in urban minority populations. Whether being overweight is a risk factor for the effects of indoor pollutant exposure on asthma health is unknown.Objectives: We sought to examine the effect of weight on the relationship between indoor pollutant exposure and asthma health in urban minority children.Methods: One hundred forty-eight children (age, 5-17 years) with persistent asthma were followed for 1 year. Asthma symptoms, health care use, lung function, pulmonary inflammation, and indoor pollutants were assessed every 3 months. Weight category was based on body mass index percentile.Results: Participants were predominantly African American (91%) and had public health insurance (85%). Four percent were underweight, 52% were normal weight, 16% were overweight, and 28% were obese. Overweight or obese participants had more symptoms associated with exposure to fine particulate matter measuring less than 2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5) than normal-weight participants across a range of asthma symptoms. Overweight or obese participants also had more asthma symptoms associated with nitrogen dioxide (NO2) exposure than normal-weight participants, although this was not observed across all types of asthma symptoms. Weight did not affect the relationship between exposure to coarse particulate matter measuring between 2.5 and 10 μm in diameter and asthma symptoms. Relationships between indoor pollutant exposure and health care use, lung function, or pulmonary inflammation did not differ by weight.Conclusion: Being overweight or obese can increase susceptibility to indoor PM2.5 and NO2 in urban children with asthma. Interventions aimed at weight loss might reduce asthma symptom responses to PM2.5 and NO2, and interventions aimed at reducing indoor pollutant levels might be particularly beneficial in overweight children.

Background: Clinical outcomes are worse in current smokers and exsmokers with mild-to-moderate asthma compared with never smokers, but little is known about the influence of smoking status in patients with severe asthma.Objectives: We sought to examine the association of current or previous cigarette smoking with clinical and inflammatory variables in patients with severe asthma.Methods: We compared patients' demographics, disease characteristics, and biomarkers of inflammation in current smokers (n = 69 [9%]), exsmokers (n = 210 [28%]), and never smokers (n = 461 [62%]) with severe asthma (n = 760) recruited to the British Thoracic Society Severe Asthma Registry.Results: Current smokers had poorer asthma control, more unscheduled health care visits, more rescue courses of oral steroids, and higher anxiety and depression scale scores than exsmokers or never smokers. Current smokers had a reduced proportion of sputum eosinophils compared with never smokers (1% and 4%, respectively) and lower fraction of expired nitric oxide (50 mL/s; 14 ppb and 35 ppb, respectively). Exsmokers compared with never smokers had an increased proportion of sputum neutrophils (59% and 43%, respectively) but a similar proportion of sputum eosinophils (3%) and fraction of expired nitric oxide (50 mL/s; 35 ppb). Both current smokers and exsmokers had reduced serum specific IgE levels to several common environmental allergens.Conclusion: Current smokers with severe asthma exhibit worse clinical and health care outcomes compared with exsmokers and never smokers with severe asthma. Their inflammatory profiles in sputum and blood differ.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease that can significantly affect the well-being, productivity, and quality of life of children and adults. Allergen immunotherapy has been used to effectively treat AR for more than 100 years and is unique among available therapeutic interventions in its ability to modify AR’s course. In addition, there is evidence that it prevents new sensitizations. Thus, it is important to establish whether subcutaneously administered allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is associated with lower health care costs. In this issue, Hankin et al examine its cost benefits in adults and children.

This Current perspectives article will review and highlight the importance of accurate diagnosis of patients who have failed to produce specific antibodies to naturally encountered foreign proteins or polysaccharides or after vaccination and the appropriate institution of immunoglobulin replacement therapy. The field of primary immunodeficiency disease (PIDD) has expanded remarkably since the early descriptions 6 decades ago. With greater recognition and advanced cellular and molecular diagnostic technology, new entities and single-gene defects in patients with PIDD are rapidly being defined. This, combined with treatment advances and newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency, has resulted in improved outcomes and survival and even permanent cures. Awareness of PIDD has also increased, but the guidelines for recognition remain to be validated. The zeal for registering and enrolling patients has potentially created a large body of “patients” treated with immunoglobulin replacement unnecessarily. The complexity, diversity, and availability of laboratory testing have brought awareness of PIDD to the forefront, but because of an absence of standardization of certain assays, concerns about the correct diagnosis and appropriate treatment have increased. We hope to refocus the discussion on identifying clear laboratory and clinical guidelines for the establishment of an accurate diagnosis of antibody deficiency, its rationale, and, where indicated, institution of safe treatment.