4.3 Article

Chronic cough in Germany: results from a general-population survey

期刊

ERJ OPEN RESEARCH
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00420-2021

关键词

-

资金

  1. Kantar LLC
  2. Merck Sharp Dohme Corp.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic cough is a common condition in German adults, especially in current and former smokers and those aged 50 or above. It is often associated with comorbidities, primarily respiratory system disorders, digestive tract disorders, and sleep disorders, which complicate management of these patients.
Background Chronic cough (CC) which is defined >= 8 weeks is a common condition in clinical practice. However, estimates of prevalence and associated comorbidities in German adults and key subgroups of age and gender are lacking. Methods Cross-sectional study based on a representative panel of 15 020 adult subjects of the general population who completed the German National Health and Wellness Survey, reporting CC and questions about comorbidities. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence are presented as unweighted estimates. Results The lifetime CC prevalence was 6.5% (range across age groups 5.1%-8.3%) and the 12-month prevalence was 4.9% (range 3.7-5.7%). The prevalence of diagnosed CC was 2.8% (range 0.9-4.1%) and the prevalence of persons currently on any prescription to treat CC was 0.6% (range 0.2-1.4%). Respondents who experienced CC were 52.0 +/- 17.0 years old, with a higher prevalence in those aged 50 years and older. Persons with CC had higher morbidity scores and were diagnosed with an increased number of comorbidities, most frequently diagnoses of the respiratory system (71.0%), followed by digestive tract disorders (34.0%) and sleep disorders (37.6%). Conclusions In a broadly representative sample of German adults, lifetime and 12-month prevalence of CC was greatest in current and former smokers and those older >= 50 years of age. Comorbidities are frequent and may complicate management of these patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据