4.5 Article

Comparison of therapeutic effects of inhaled corticosteroids on three subtypes of cough variant asthma as classified by the impulse oscillometry system

期刊

RESPIRATORY RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12931-019-1005-2

关键词

Chronic cough; Cough variant asthma; Inhaled corticosteroids; Impulse oscillometry system; Pulmonary function test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cough variant asthma (CVA) is one of the most common causes of chronic persistent cough, and early treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) is recommended to attenuate the inflammation and remodeling. The impulse oscillometry system (IOS) is a novel device for respiratory functional assessment that has not yet been assessed in terms of CVA. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between CVA and IOS, and the difference in therapeutic effects of ICSs among the subtype classifications by IOS. Methods: The following ICSs were randomly prescribed in daily medical care: coarse-particle ICS (fluticasone propionate [FP]), fine-particle ICS (mometasone furoate [MF]), and moderate-particle ICS (budesonide [BUD]). Treatment effects were assessed by the Leicester cough questionnaire (LCQ) and were compared among three separated subtypes based on IOS measurements: central, peripheral, and resistless. Results: Regarding LCQ scores, in the central type, the LCQ of the MF group was significantly lower than FP and BUD. In the peripheral type, the LCQ of the FP group was significantly lower than MF and BUD. In the resistless type, the LCQ of the MF group was significantly lower than BUD. Also, IOS factors were improved by 4 weeks of therapy with ICS. Thus, there was strong relationship between subtypes and particle size in terms of effectiveness. Conclusions: There is a strong relationship between IOS subtype classification and ICS particle size in terms of therapeutic efficiency in CVA. It appears important to determine the ICS particle size, based on the IOS subtype classification, before treatment.

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

4.5
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