PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Background Cough is one of the most common presenting complaints for physicians across the world, with the potential to result in a significant influence on one\'s daily life. It is typically categorized into acute cough (<3 weeks), subacute cough (three to eight weeks), and chronic cough (>8 weeks). The lack of specific treatment guidelines and evidence-based recommendations for resolving cough creates reasonable controversy in the medical field. This retrospective study aims to identify the clinical features of cough and evaluate the comparative efficacy between different anti-asthmatic treatment modalities in the urban city of Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed on patients presenting to pulmonology or respiratory outpatient clinics with complaints of cough in the absence of any known history of chronic respiratory illness (e.g., asthma). Analysis was conducted via chi-squared and analysis of variance (ANOVA) testing. Results A total of 308 patients were eligible for inclusion, with 273 patients presenting for follow-up. Overall, patients with acute, subacute, and chronic coughs had similar clinical presentations, with no statistically significant differences noted. However, patients with pets were more likely to develop an acute cough (p = 0.04). Moreover, the follow-up outcomes of acute, subacute, and chronic cough were similar, with no significant statistical difference noted. Furthermore, patients receiving dual therapy using budesonide and montelukast, and patients receiving triple therapy using budesonide, montelukast, and tiotropium/ipratropium were most likely to gain complete relief of their symptoms, although triple therapy treatment was also associated with the highest rate of null improvement (p = 0.012). Additionally, chronic cough patients were more likely to be subject to higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in comparison to other cohorts (p = 0.26). Conclusion The comparative superiority of dual therapy using budesonide and montelukast, and triple therapy using budesonide, montelukast, and tiotropium/ipratropium were highlighted in this study. In the sparseness of specific treatment guidelines and evidence-based recommendations for cough, the use of anti-asthmatic therapy for cough patients has shown favorable results. Moreover, the lack of clinical differences between acute, subacute, and chronic cough may result in difficulties with the treatment of cough patients. To arrive at a valid conclusion, further comprehensive studies with larger and more diversified sample populations are encouraged.
摘要：
背景咳嗽是世界各地医生最常见的投诉之一，有可能对一个人的日常生活产生重大影响。通常分为急性咳嗽（<3周），亚急性咳嗽（三至八周），和慢性咳嗽（>8周）。缺乏解决咳嗽的具体治疗指南和循证建议在医学领域引起了合理的争议。这项回顾性研究旨在确定咳嗽的临床特征，并评估迪拜城市不同哮喘治疗方式之间的比较疗效。阿拉伯联合酋长国。方法对在没有任何已知的慢性呼吸系统疾病病史的情况下出现咳嗽的肺科或呼吸门诊的患者进行了回顾性横断面研究（例如，哮喘)。通过卡方和方差分析(ANOVA)测试进行分析。结果共有308例患者入选,273名患者进行随访。总的来说,急性患者，亚急性，慢性咳嗽也有类似的临床表现，没有统计上的显著差异。然而,有宠物的患者更容易出现急性咳嗽(p=0.04).此外，急性的随访结果，亚急性，和慢性咳嗽相似，没有显著的统计学差异。此外，接受布地奈德和孟鲁司特双重治疗的患者，接受布地奈德三联疗法的患者，孟鲁司特,噻托溴铵/异丙托溴铵最有可能完全缓解其症状，尽管三联疗法治疗的无效改善率也最高(p=0.012).此外,与其他队列相比,慢性咳嗽患者更有可能接受更高的C反应蛋白(CRP)水平(p=0.26).结论布地奈德和孟鲁司特双重治疗具有比较优势,和使用布地奈德的三联疗法，孟鲁司特,和噻托溴铵/异丙托溴铵在本研究中被强调。在具体的治疗指南和基于证据的咳嗽建议的稀疏，对咳嗽患者使用抗哮喘治疗已显示出良好的效果。此外，急性之间缺乏临床差异，亚急性，慢性咳嗽可能会导致咳嗽患者的治疗困难。为了得出一个有效的结论，我们鼓励对更大和更多样化的样本人群进行进一步的综合研究.
