Research Article
Volume 1 Issue 1 - 2014
1Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Immunology and Allergic Diseases, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University School of Medicine, Turkey
2Divison of Immunology and Allergic Diseases, Ataturk Chest Disease and Thoracic Surgery Trainig and Research Hospital, Turkey
3Department of Respiratory Medicine, Izzet Baysal University School of Medicine, Turkey
2Divison of Immunology and Allergic Diseases, Ataturk Chest Disease and Thoracic Surgery Trainig and Research Hospital, Turkey
3Department of Respiratory Medicine, Izzet Baysal University School of Medicine, Turkey
Received: August 12, 2014 | Published: August 21, 2014
*Corresponding author: Adile Berna Dursun, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Immunology and Allergic Diseases, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University School of Medicine, Rize, Turkey, Tel: 905325874868; Email: @
Citation: Dursun AB, Erkekol FO, Kurt OK (2014) Severe Asthma Phenotyping: The Applicability of Current Proposols in Daily Practice. J Lung Pulm Respir Res 1(1): 00003. http://dx.doi.org/10.15406/jlprr.2014.01.00003
Abstract
Background: Severe asthma (SA) is also need to be phenotyping. We aimed to demonstrate the applicability of current definition and classification proposals in daily practice.
Methods: SA patients, according to WHO definition of treatment resistant SA, were enrolled from the allergy clinic. The SARP algorith define and WHO proposal were applied to the subjects independently by asthma experts. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the subjects were used for the comparison.
Results: Ninety-five (F/M: 68/27) patients with a mean age of 45.97± 9.44 years (range25-71) were enrolled. The patients were grouped as controlled treatment-resistant SA (56%) and uncontrolled treatment resistant SA group (44%). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups but aspirin hypersensitivity. 49% of patients was classified as exacerbators, 26% as fixed airway obstruction group and 23% as undefined (other 2%). Age and mold sensitivity was higher; FEV1/FVC and FEF25-75 were lower in exacerbation-prone SA. More than half of the patients were define clustered at 4 and 5 according to SARP proposol. Patients with fixed obstruction were only in the clusters 4 and 5.
Conclusion: Current phenotyping proposols failed to cover all SA patients. Thus, there is still need further investigations in order to explore validity and applicability of the phenotyping of SA.
Methods: SA patients, according to WHO definition of treatment resistant SA, were enrolled from the allergy clinic. The SARP algorith define and WHO proposal were applied to the subjects independently by asthma experts. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the subjects were used for the comparison.
Results: Ninety-five (F/M: 68/27) patients with a mean age of 45.97± 9.44 years (range25-71) were enrolled. The patients were grouped as controlled treatment-resistant SA (56%) and uncontrolled treatment resistant SA group (44%). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups but aspirin hypersensitivity. 49% of patients was classified as exacerbators, 26% as fixed airway obstruction group and 23% as undefined (other 2%). Age and mold sensitivity was higher; FEV1/FVC and FEF25-75 were lower in exacerbation-prone SA. More than half of the patients were define clustered at 4 and 5 according to SARP proposol. Patients with fixed obstruction were only in the clusters 4 and 5.
Conclusion: Current phenotyping proposols failed to cover all SA patients. Thus, there is still need further investigations in order to explore validity and applicability of the phenotyping of SA.
Keywords: Adult asthma; Severe asthma; Phenotype; Cluster analysis; Refractory asthma; Difficult-to-treat asthma
No comments:
Post a Comment