Search

The best method and strategy for the diagnosis of asthma remains unclear, especially in patients with negative bronchodilator reversibility test (BDRT). In our study, we aimed to investigate the diagnostic yield of peak expiratory flow (PEF) variability for this patient group. Methods: A total of 50 patients with suspected asthma, all with negative BDR test, were included in the study. Demographic information and symptoms were recorded and PEF variability was monitored for 2 weeks. Metacolinbronchial provocation test (mBPT) was performed. Asthma was diagnosed when PEF variability ≥ 20% and/or positive mBPT was observed. Results: 30 of 50 patients were diagnosed with asthma. After 1 month, 17 patients were evaluated for treatment outcomes. The sensitivity and specificity of PEF variability for different cut-off values (≥ 20%, > 15% and > 10%) were 61.5– 83.3, 88.5– 62.5 and 100– 16.7, respectively. One of the most important findings of our study was the absence of variable airflow limitation or airway hyper reactivity in 39% patients with a previous diagnosis of asthma. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that a low baseline FEF25-75 value was an independent predictive factor for the diagnosis of asthma (p= 0.05). Conclusion: The most efficient diagnostic test for asthma is still unclear due to many factors. Our study is one of the few studies on this subject. Although current diagnostic recommendations generally recommend a PEF variability of 10% for the diagnosis of asthma, this threshold may not be appropriate for the BDR-negative patient group. Our results suggest using a threshold value of < 15% for PEF variability when excluding asthma and ≥ 20% when confirming the diagnosis of asthma in patients with clinically suspected but unproven reversibility. Furthermore, FEF25-75 is considered to be an important diagnostic parameter that should be included in diagnostic recommendations for asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Recurrences occur when corticosteroid therapy is discontinued or reduced during the treatment of chronic eosinophilic pneumonia (CEP). The probability of recurrence is once in 50% of patients and twice or more in 25%. In such instances, new treatment options are deemed necessary. This study aims to assess the efficacy of omalizumab treatment as a steroid-sparing drug in patients with CEP., Materials and Methods: The clinical features of patients treated with omalizumab for recurrent CEP were evaluated retrospectively before and after treatment. All data from patients and diagnoses were reviewed. The effects of treatment on recurrence rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and lung functions, peripheral eosinophil values, and symptom scores were evaluated. Radiological regression was also evaluated., Result: In the final analysis, we included ten patients with a median follow-up of 22 months after initiation of omalizumab. During this follow-up period, the results were associated with a significant reduction in the number of asthma attacks per year, the number of CEP relapses, the rate of hospitalization, the amount of corticosteroids consumed daily, and the total corticosteroid dose. In addition, improvement was observed in the symptom scores and lung functions of the patients. Systemic steroids were completely discontinued in two patients receiving omalizumab treatment. In other patients, the mean steroid dose was reduced by 77.2 percent in the first year of omalizumab treatment and 82 percent in the second year, respectively. Nevertheless, there was no elevation in peripheral eosinophil count, and radiological regression was observed., Conclusions: Omalizumab can be an effective treatment for CEP and can be used as a steroid-sparing agent.