4.6 Article

Exploring the role of CT densitometry: a randomised study of augmentation therapy in α1-antitrypsin deficiency

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 1345-1353

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00159408

关键词

alpha(1)-Antitrypsin deficiency; computed tomography; emphysema; exacerbations; lung densitometry; lung function

资金

  1. Talecris Biotherapeutics, Inc. (Research Triangle Park, NC, USA)
  2. Alpha-1 Foundation (Miami, FL, USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assessment of emphysema-modifying therapy is difficult, but newer outcome measures offer advantages over traditional methods. The EXAcerbations and Computed Tomography scan as Lung End-points (EXACTLE) trial explored the use of computed tomography (CT) densitometry and exacerbations for the assessment of the therapeutic effect of augmentation therapy in subjects with alpha(1)-antitrypsin (alpha(1)-AT) deficiency. In total, 77 subjects (protease inhibitor type Z) were randomised to weekly infusions of 60 mg.kg(-1) human alpha(1)-AT (Prolastin (R)) or placebo for 2-2.5 yrs. The primary end-point was change in CT lung density, and an exploratory approach was adopted to identify optimal methodology, including two methods of adjustment for lung volume variability and two statistical approaches. Other end-points were exacerbations, health status and physiological indices. CT was more sensitive than other measures of emphysema progression, and the changes in CT and forced expiratory volume in 1 s were correlated. All methods of densitometric analysis concordantly showed a trend suggestive of treatment benefit (p-values for Prolastin (R) versus placebo ranged 0.049-0.084). Exacerbation frequency was unaltered by treatment, but a reduction in exacerbation severity was observed. In patients with alpha(1)-AT deficiency, CT is a more sensitive outcome measure of emphysema-modifying therapy than physiology and health status, and demonstrates a trend of treatment benefit from alpha(1)-AT augmentation.

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

4.6
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