Search

Background: We performed systematic reviews using the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) format to answer the following key clinical question: Are the CHEST 2006 classifications of acute, subacute and chronic cough and associated management algorithms in adults that were based on durations of cough useful?Methods: We used the CHEST Expert Cough Panel's protocol for the systematic reviews and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) methodological guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Data from the systematic reviews in conjunction with patient values and preferences and the clinical context were used to form recommendations or suggestions. Delphi methodology was used to obtain the final grading.Results: With respect to acute cough (< 3 weeks), only three studies met our criteria for quality assessment, and all had a high risk of bias. As predicted by the 2006 CHEST Cough Guidelines, the most common causes were respiratory infections, most likely of viral cause, followed by exacerbations of underlying diseases such as asthma and COPD and pneumonia. The subjects resided on three continents: North America, Europe, and Asia. With respect to subacute cough (duration, 3-8 weeks), only two studies met our criteria for quality assessment, and both had a high risk of bias. As predicted by the 2006 guidelines, the most common causes were postinfectious cough and exacerbation of underlying diseases such as asthma, COPD, and upper airway cough syndrome (UACS). The subjects resided in countries in Asia. With respect to chronic cough (> 8 weeks), 11 studies met our criteria for quality assessment, and all had a high risk of bias. As predicted by the 2006 guidelines, the most common causes were UACS from rhinosinus conditions, asthma, gastroesophageal reflux disease, nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis, combinations of these four conditions, and, less commonly, a variety of miscellaneous conditions and atopic cough in Asian countries. The subjects resided on four continents: North America, South America, Europe, and Asia.Conclusions: Although the quality of evidence was low, the published literature since 2006 suggests that CHEST's 2006 Cough Guidelines and management algorithms for acute, subacute, and chronic cough in adults appeared useful in diagnosing and treating patients with cough around the globe. These same algorithms have been updated to reflect the advances in cough management as of 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In response to occupational and environmental exposures, cough can be an isolated symptom reflecting exposure to an irritant with little physiological consequence, or it can be a manifestation of more significant disease. This document reviews occupational and environmental contributions to chronic cough in adults, focusing on aspects not previously covered in the 2006 ACCP Cough Guideline or our more recent systematic review, and suggests an approach to investigation of these factors when suspected.Methods: MEDLINE and TOXLINE literature searches were supplemented by articles identified by the cough panel occupational and environmental subgroup members, to identify occupational and environmental aspects of chronic cough not previously covered in the 2006 ACCP Cough Guideline. Based on the literature reviews and the Delphi methodology, the cough panel occupational and environmental subgroup developed guideline suggestions that were approved after review and voting by the full cough panel.Results: The literature review identified relevant articles regarding: mechanisms; allergic environmental causes; chronic cough and the recreational and involuntary inhalation of tobacco and marijuana smoke; nonallergic environmental triggers; laryngeal syndromes; and occupational diseases and exposures. Consensus-based statements were developed for the approach to diagnosis due to a lack of strong evidence from published literature.Conclusions: Despite increased understanding of cough related to occupational and environmental triggers, there remains a gap between the recommended assessment of occupational and environmental causes of cough and the reported systematic assessment of these factors. There is a need for further documentation of occupational and environmental causes of cough in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several recent cough guidelines have advised consideration of occupational or environmental causes for chronic cough, but it is unclear how frequently this recommendation has been routinely applied. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review to address this aspect.Methods: Cough guidelines and protocols were reviewed to identify recommendations for assessment of occupational and environmental aspects of chronic cough. The systematic search previously used to identify intervention fidelity to the use of protocols for diagnosis and management of chronic cough in adults was used for this review after extension to June 2015. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched using the same search terms and inclusion criteria as previously. Papers that met our criteria were then reviewed to identify methods used to assess occupational and environmental aspects of chronic cough and the outcomes of these assessments.Results: Among the 10 general chronic cough guidelines and protocols identified, only the three published since 2006 included details advising detailed occupational and environmental assessments. One additional cough statement focused entirely on occupational cough. Of the 28 cohort studies of patients with chronic cough that specifically noted that they followed guidelines or protocols, none provided details of occupational and environmental assessments.Conclusions: Despite published recommendations, it is not apparent that occupational and environmental causes for chronic cough are addressed in detail during assessments of patients with chronic cough. This leaves open to speculation whether lack of recognition of an occupational cause may delay important preventive measures, put additional workers at risk, and/or be the reason why a chronic cough may remain unexplained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unexplained chronic cough (UCC) causes significant impairments in quality of life. Effective assessment and treatment approaches are needed for UCC.Methods: This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) asked: What is the efficacy of treatment compared with usual care for cough severity, cough frequency, and cough-related quality of life in patients with UCC? Studies of adults and adolescents aged > 12 years with a chronic cough of > 8 weeks' duration that was unexplained after systematic investigation and treatment were included and assessed for relevance and quality. Based on the systematic review, guideline suggestions were developed and voted on by using the American College of Chest Physicians organization methodology.Results: Eleven RCTs and five systematic reviews were included. The 11 RCTs reported data on 570 participants with chronic cough who received a variety of interventions. Study quality was high in 10 RCTs. The studies used an assortment of descriptors and assessments to identify UCC. Although gabapentin and morphine exhibited positive effects on cough-related quality of life, only gabapentin was supported as a treatment recommendation. Studies of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) were affected by intervention fidelity bias; when this factor was addressed, ICS were found to be ineffective for UCC. Esomeprazole was ineffective for UCC without features of gastroesophageal acid reflux. Studies addressing nonacid gastroesophageal reflux disease were not identified. A multimodality speech pathology intervention improved cough severity.Conclusions: The evidence supporting the diagnosis and management of UCC is limited. UCC requires further study to establish agreed terminology and the optimal methods of investigation using established criteria for intervention fidelity. Speech pathology-based cough suppression is suggested as a treatment option for UCC. This guideline presents suggestions for diagnosis and treatment based on the best available evidence and identifies gaps in our knowledge as well as areas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]