4.1 Article

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis and Aspergillus infection in cystic fibrosis

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN PULMONARY MEDICINE
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 598-603

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCP.0b013e32833e24a6

关键词

allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis; amphotericin B; Aspergillus fumigatus; cystic fibrosis; itraconazole; omalizumab; voriconazole

资金

  1. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
  2. GlaxoSmithKline
  3. Inspire
  4. Vertex
  5. PTC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review Recent literature on Aspergillus fumigatus infection and allergy in cystic fibrosis have expanded our understanding of many aspects of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, and bring new attention to A. fumigatus airways infection and A. fumigatus allergy without allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). Recent findings ABPA, A. fumigatus infection and A. fumigatus allergy without ABPA all likely worsen cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease. Studies examining utility of new serologic assays for diagnosing ABPA include evaluations of standardized measurement of A. fumigatus-specific IgG, serum chemokine TARC levels, and recombinant A. fumigatus allergens; as yet, none appear ideal. Although oral glucocorticoids remain primary therapy, toxicity and incomplete control have led to an ongoing search for further safe and effective agents including itraconazole and voriconazole, intravenous pulse methylprednisolone, nebulized amphotericin B and omalizumab. Little controlled treatment data is available. Summary Diagnosis of CF-ABPA remains difficult, but improvements in serologic assays are occurring. Treatment remains in many cases unsatisfactory, and new agents offer promise but await proper controlled trials of safety and efficacy. A. fumigatus airway infection and A. fumigatus allergy without ABPA are emerging as further complications of A. fumigatus respiratory colonization in patients with CF, but prospective studies are needed to corroborate largely retrospective findings.

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

4.1
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