Blood eosinophils as a predictor of treatment response in adults with difficult-to-treat chronic cough
- PMID: 34853786
- PMCID: PMC8628748
- DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00432-2021
Blood eosinophils as a predictor of treatment response in adults with difficult-to-treat chronic cough
Abstract
There is lack of evidence on the role of blood eosinophil count (BEC) as a predictor of treatment response in patients with chronic cough. The study aimed to evaluate BEC as a predictor of treatment response in all non-smoking adults with chronic cough and normal chest radiograph referred to cough clinic and in a subgroup of patients with chronic cough due to asthma or non-asthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis (NAEB). This prospective cohort study included 142 consecutive, non-smoking patients referred to our cough centre due to chronic cough. The management of chronic cough was performed according to the current recommendations. At least a 30-mm decrease of 100-mm visual analogue scale in cough severity and a 1.3 points improvement in Leicester Cough Questionnaire were classified as a good therapeutic response. There was a predominance of females (72.5%), median age 57.5 years with long-lasting, severe cough (median cough duration 60 months, severity 55/100 mm). Asthma and NAEB were diagnosed in 47.2% and 4.9% of patients, respectively. After 12-16 weeks of therapy, a good response to chronic cough treatment was found in 31.0% of all patients. A weak positive correlation was demonstrated between reduction in cough severity and BEC (r=0.28, p<0.001). Area under the curve for all patients with chronic cough was 0.62 with the optimal BEC cut-off for prediction of treatment response set at 237 cells·µL-1 and for patients with chronic cough due to asthma/NAEB was 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.81) with the cut-off at 150 cells·µL-1. BEC is a poor predictor of treatment response in adults with chronic cough treated in the cough centre.
Copyright ©The authors 2021.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest: A. Rybka-Fraczek reports personal fees from Polpharma outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Dabrowska reports personal fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: E.M. Grabczak reports personal fees from Polpharma and Merck outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: K. Bialek-Gosk has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: K. Klimowicz has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: O. Truba has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P. Nejman-Gryz has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Paplinska-Goryca has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Krenke reports a grant from the National Science Centre, Poland (grant number 2012/05/B/NZ5/01343), during the conduct of the study; and travel expenses and fees for attendance of the European Respiratory Society International Congress (2018 and 2019) from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants, travel expenses and fees for attendance of the 2019 American Thoracic Society (ATS) Conference, and a fee for lectures from Chiesi, grants, travel expenses and fees for attendance of the 2018 ATS Conference, and a fee for lectures from AstraZeneca, and a fee for lectures from Polpharma, outside the submitted work.
Figures




References
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources