Search

Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is the first nonpharmacologic interventional therapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2010 for severe asthma. This approval was based on randomized sham-controlled trial called Asthma Intervention Research (AIR) 2 published in 2010. BT involves the application of radiofrequency energy to airways with an aim to selectively ablate airway smooth muscle. BT is currently marketed for patients with "severe" asthma. Most practicing clinicians apply this severity category to patients with oral corticosteroid dependence, frequent exacerbations, or a significantly reduced forced expiratory volume in 1 second along with a poor quality of life. Did the patients studied in the AIR-2 trial have these clinical features? Was there a reduction in severe asthma exacerbation achieved in the intervention group? Did any of the primary or secondary end points in the AIR-2 trial show a positive signal? There continues to be controversy regarding patient selection and primary outcome. Its efficacy in the management of the patient with difficult-to-manage asthma is uncertain. This review covered pertinent aspects of BT, the design and results of the AIR-2 trial, and provides the practicing allergist with a comprehensive overview of this therapy.

Background: When first approved in the European Union (EU), the omalizumab dosing table had upper bodyweight and IgE limits of 150 kg and 700 IU/mL, respectively. In this study, we assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of omalizumab in patients with IgE/bodyweight combinations above those in the original dosing table., Methods: A multicentre, open-label, parallel-group study assessed the safety, PK and PD of omalizumab in 32 patients with mild-to-moderate allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma. Patients received two subcutaneous injections of omalizumab at one of three dosage levels (450, 525, or 600 mg), chosen according to baseline IgE (300-2000 IU/mL) and bodyweight (40-150 kg), with a 14-day interval between injections., Results: Overall, 69 adverse events (AEs), none of them serious, were reported by 26 (81.3%) patients. Analysis of laboratory measurements, vital signs and ECG data revealed no adverse findings of clinical relevance. The PK profile was consistent with previous data for lower doses. Mean maximum decrease of free IgE from screening was ≥99% for all three doses, and mean free IgE concentrations remained <25 ng/mL for at least 2 weeks after the second dose. The reductions in free IgE were consistent with levels previously associated with clinical improvements., Conclusions: The safety and PK/PD findings from this study are consistent with previous data, and supported the extension of the omalizumab dosing table to include those patients with higher IgE/bodyweight combinations. Clinical trial registry and registration number: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00546143)., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) involves the application of radiofrequency energy to visible proximal airways to selectively ablate airway smooth muscle. BT is the first nonpharmacologic interventional therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for severe asthma. This approval was based on the results of the pivotal Asthma Intervention Research (AIR)-2 trial, which is the only randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial of BT. The primary end point of the AIR-2 trial was improvement in the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). The results of the AIR-2 trial have generated enormous interest, controversy, and confusion regarding the true efficacy of BT for severe asthma. Current marketing of BT highlights its use for patients with "severe" asthma, which is interpreted by most practicing clinicians as meaning oral corticosteroid dependence, frequent exacerbations, or a significantly reduced FEV1 with a poor quality of life. Did the AIR-2 trial include patients with a low FEV1, oral steroid dependence, or frequent exacerbations? Did the trial show efficacy for any of the primary or secondary end points? The FDA approved the device based on the reduction in severe asthma exacerbations. However, were the rates of asthma exacerbations, ED visits, or hospitalizations truly different between the two groups, and was this type of analysis even justified given the original study design? This commentary is designed to specifically answer these questions and help the practicing clinician navigate the thermoplasty literature with confidence and clarity. We carefully dissect the design, conduct, and results of the AIR-2 trial and raise serious questions about the efficacy of bronchial thermoplasty.

Background: Omalizumab has been shown to suppress responses to inhaled allergens in allergic asthma patients with pretreatment immunoglobulin E (IgE) ≤700 IU/ml. To extend current dosing tables, we evaluated the potential of high omalizumab doses to block allergen-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with higher IgE levels., Methods: Asthmatic adults (18-65 years; body weight 40-150 kg) were divided into groups according to screening IgE (group 1: 30-300 IU/ml; group 2: 700-2,000 IU/ml) and randomized 2:1 to omalizumab/placebo every 2 or 4 weeks for 12-14 weeks. Allergen bronchoprovocation (ABP) testing was performed before treatment and at weeks 8 and 16. The primary efficacy endpoint, the early-phase allergic response (EAR), was defined as the maximum percentage drop in forced expiratory volume in 1 s during the first 30 min after ABP. Serum free IgE was determined as a pharmacodynamic endpoint, and the exhaled fractional concentration of nitric oxide (FE(NO)) was an exploratory endpoint., Results: Fifty patients were included in the study. Omalizumab improved EAR; at week 8, EAR was 23.1% for placebo, 9.3% in group 1 (p = 0.018 versus placebo) and 5.6% in group 2 (p < 0.001). At week 16, EAR was 20%, 11.8% (p = 0.087) and 5.1% (p < 0.001), respectively. Free IgE decreased in groups 1 and 2 and remained <50 ng/ml in all patients during weeks 6-16. Omalizumab completely suppressed FE(NO) increases after ABP in both groups., Conclusions: Omalizumab blocked early asthmatic responses over a broad range of IgE/body weight combinations. Extending the dosing tables enables omalizumab to benefit a wider range of patients., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives: To describe how the types of healthcare expenditures for patients with asthma have changed over the past decade., Study Design: Cross-sectional comparison between individuals from 1996 to 1998 and 2004 to 2006., Methods: Expenditures among US individuals (aged 5 to 56 years) with asthma were compared using the 1996 to 1998 and the 2004 to 2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys. Direct expenditures (medications, inpatient, outpatient, and emergency services) and changes in productivity (missed school and work days) were compared over this time frame. The adjusted analyses controlled for age, education level, race/ethnicity, gender, poverty, region, metropolitan statistical area, self-reported health, and Charlson Comorbidity Index., Results: Mean annual per capita healthcare expenditures increased between 1996 to 1998 and 2004 to 2006 ($3802 vs $5322 inflated to 2010 US dollars, P <.0001). Annual medication expenditures doubled from $974 to $2010 per person (P <.0001) and outpatient visit expenditures increased from $861 to $1174 (P <.0001) while hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visit expenditures were similar over the same time period. Missed school and work days decreased between the 2 periods (9.23 days in 1996-1998 vs 6.39 days in 2004-2006, P = .001)., Conclusions: An increase in total direct expenditures in individuals with asthma was largely driven by an increase in spending on medications comparing 2004 to 2006 and 1996 to 1998 data. However, this increase was not offset by lower spending on hospitalization and ED visits.

Objective: This study tested the ability of an electronic prompt to promote an asthma assessment during primary care visits., Methods: We performed a prospective study of all eligible adult patients with previously diagnosed asthma in three geographically distinct ambulatory family medicine clinics within a 4-month period. The usual clinic visit process was performed at two geographically distinct control sites (n = 75 and n = 55 patients, respectively). The intervention group site (n = 64) had an electronic flag embedded in the Patient Check-in Locator field which prompted the distribution of a self-administered Asthma Management Questionnaire (AMQ) in the waiting room. The primary outcome measure was a documented asthma severity assessment., Results: The front desk distributed the AMQ successfully in 100% of possible opportunities and the AMQ was completed by 84% of patients. Providers in the intervention group were significantly more likely than providers in the two non-intervention groups to document asthma severity in the medical record during a non-asthma ambulatory clinic visit (63.3% vs. 18.7% vs. 3.6%; p < .001)., Conclusion: The provision of standardized asthma information triggered by an electronic prompt at the time of check-in effectively initiates an asthma assessment during the primary care visits.

Background: The relationship between asthma controller medication use and exacerbation rates over time is unclear at the population level., Objective: To estimate the change in asthma controller medication use between 2 time periods as measured by the controller-to-total asthma medication ratio and its association with changes in asthma exacerbation rates between 1997-1998 and 2004-2005., Methods: The study design was a cross-sectional population-level comparison between individuals from 1997-1998 and 2004-2005. Study participants were individuals aged 5 to 56 years identified as having asthma in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). The main outcome measures were a controller-to-total asthma medication ratio greater than 0.5 and asthma exacerbation rates (dispensing of systemic corticosteroid or emergency department visit/hospitalization for asthma) in 1997-1998 compared with 2004-2005., Results: The proportion of individuals with a controller-to-total asthma medication ratio greater than 0.5, when adjusted for other demographic factors, has improved by 16.1% (95% CI: 10.8%, 21.3%) for all individuals from 1997-1998 to 2004-2005. Annual asthma exacerbation rates did not change significantly in any group from 1997-1998 to 2004-2005 (0.27/year to 0.23/year). African American and Hispanic individuals with asthma had higher asthma exacerbation rates and a lower proportion with a controller-to-total asthma medication ratio greater than 0.5 than whites in both 1997-1998 and 2004-2005; however, these differences were not statistically significant., Conclusions: An increase in asthma controller-to-total medication ratio in a sample reflective of the US population was not associated with a decreased asthma exacerbation rate comparing 1997-1998 and 2004-2005., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Self-report is the most commonly used method for collecting information regarding asthma medication possession and adherence in clinical practice., Objective: To determine the agreement between self-report and pharmacy claims data for asthma medication possession., Methods: This is a retrospective study that examined pharmacy claims data 12 months before and after participants completed a structured asthma survey. This study was performed in a sample of health care workers and dependents >17 years old in a large, self-insured Midwestern United States health care center. The main outcome measure was agreement (kappa calculation) between self-report and pharmacy claims data of asthma medication possession., Results: Self-report of asthma medication use agreed moderately with pharmacy claims data for short-acting albuterol (κ=0.47 ± 0.03), salmeterol (κ=0.79 ± 0.04), and montelukast (κ=0.69 ± 0.03) but only slightly for inhaled corticosteroids (κ=0.18 ± 0.03) and prednisone (κ=0.10 ± 0.03) (n=1050 respondents). Both under self-reporting and over self-reporting were common with inhaled corticosteroids (14.4% and 23.1%, respectively) and varied significantly by specific drug type., Conclusions: Self-report moderately agrees with asthma medication possession for most adult asthma patients, though the agreement differs considerably between and within asthma medication classes.

Written asthma action plans (WAAPs) are recommended by national and international guidelines to help patients recognize and manage asthma exacerbations. Despite this recommendation, many patients with asthma do not have a WAAP. In addition, WAAPs vary widely in their readability and usability. To promote issuance and patient use, the WAAP should clearly define the decision (action) points, expected response, and expected time of response. The WAAP should also be easily integrated into a physician's busy practice. Herein, we describe the key elements of an effective WAAP, including concise, detailed recommendations regarding asthma exacerbation recognition (patient self-monitoring) and treatment.

Objective: To test several patient-oriented asthma outcome measures and the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure of appropriate medication for persistent asthma to determine the most useful quality indicator of asthma care., Design: Prospective mail survey of adult employees and dependents with asthma., Methods: The medical and pharmacy claims of all subjects from 12 months before and after the survey were abstracted. Outcomes measures included the Asthma Control Test (ACT), workday loss, unscheduled healthcare utilization (emergency department and inpatient care), and satisfaction with care., Results: Although 81% of all responders had wellcontrolled asthma, persistent asthma was uncontrolled in 28%. Only 64.5% received appropriate controller medication. Well-controlled asthma is associated with a high degree of satisfaction, less workday loss, fewer prednisone bursts, and minimal unscheduled healthcare utilization. Except for a reduced incidence of more than 2 oral corticosteroid dispensings (6.4% vs 13.6%, P = .012), compliance with the HEDIS appropriate medication for asthma was not positively associated with any of the patient-centered outcomes studied., Conclusions: Asthma control was the most useful patient outcome quality indicator in this study. Compliance with the HEDIS asthma measure in this population was not associated with a better patient-oriented outcome. This finding may be different with different levels of asthma control. The positive association between well-controlled asthma and patient satisfaction, minimal unscheduled healthcare utilization, and low workday loss suggests that asthma control as measured by ACT may be a better performance measure in asthma.

The new asthma guidelines have introduced impairment and risk assessments into the management of asthma. Impairment assessment is based on symptom frequency and pulmonary function, whereas risk assessment is based on exacerbation frequency and severity. These 2 measures determine the initial severity of asthma in the untreated patient as well as the degree of control in asthma once treatment has been initiated. The focus on asthma control is important because the attainment of control correlates with a better quality of life and reduction in health care use. We describe 4 easy steps to achieving asthma control in the ambulatory practice setting: (1) a standardized assessment of asthma symptoms using a 5-question assessment tool called the Asthma Control Test, (2) a simple mnemonic that provides a systematic review of the comorbidities and clinical variables that contribute to uncontrolled asthma, (3) directed patient education, and (4) a schedule for ongoing care. Most if not all patients can achieve good control of their asthma with optimal care through an active partnership with their health care professionals.

The measurement of the fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a convenient, noninvasive, point-of-service office test for airway inflammation. The first half of this practice management review presents the methodological, interpretative, and clinical applications of FeNO. The second half discusses practical management issues, including current and future technology, equipment specifications, US Food and Drug Administration regulations, cost, current procedural terminology coding, and reimbursement. The measurement of FeNO is helpful in the diagnosis of asthma. It is predictive of a response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Monitoring FeNO is useful in maintaining asthma control by allowing the assessment of adherence to medication and dose titration of ICSs. An elevated level of FeNO is predictive of asthma relapse following corticosteroid withdrawal especially in children. The advances in technology, ease of use, and clinical utility will lead to greater availability, acceptance, and routine application in the care of asthma.

The Certihaler is a new multi-dose dry powder inhaler for the delivery of formoterol (Foradil), a long-acting beta(2)-agonist. This dose-ranging study compared the efficacy and safety of formoterol 5, 10, 15 and 30 microg and placebo administered via the Certihaler or formoterol 12 microg via a single-dose dry powder inhaler (Aerolizer) in children with persistent asthma. This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, incomplete block crossover, dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study. Children (5-12 years, n = 77) received four of the active treatments twice weekly (BID) for 1 week separated by 1-week single-blind washouts. The primary efficacy variable was 12-h AUC of FEV(1) after 1 week's treatment. Secondary variables included serial 12-h FEV(1). A subset of patients (n = 37) participated in a pharmacokinetic analysis. All formoterol doses resulted in significant increases in 12-h AUC of FEV(1) compared with placebo, and there was no difference between active treatments. The onset of action of formoterol was <3 min for all active treatments. Doses of formoterol > or =10 microg via the Certihaler increased FEV(1) significantly for up to 12 h compared with placebo. The 5 microcg dose via the Certihaler and 12 microg dose via the Aerolizer had a significant effect up to 8 and 7 h post-dose, respectively. Urinary excretion of formoterol via the Certihaler increased in a dose-proportional manner. All formoterol doses were well tolerated, but some patients experienced tremor at the 15 and 30 microg doses. Despite the lack of significant differences between the active doses in the overall bronchodilation, formoterol 10 microg BID via the Certihaler was the dose that provided the best balance between efficacy and tolerability: its duration of action was sustained over 12 h, contrary to that the lower dose (5 microg BID), whereas its tolerability, especially with regard to tremor, was better than the higher doses (15 and 30 microg BID). Overall, Certihaler 10 microg BID was not significantly different from formoterol 12 microg BID via Aerolizer.

Mild persistent asthma has greater airway hyperresponsiveness than mild intermittent asthma and may also have more persistent respiratory symptoms and more severe consequences. By other measures, the two conditions are not always easy to differentiate. Nevertheless, primary care physicians need to be able to recognize and treat mild persistent asthma in order to reduce the number of severe exacerbations, and even fatalities, that can occur if it is not properly managed. In this article, Dr Lim discusses how to differentiate mild persistent asthma from mild intermittent asthma and explores the best options for pharmacologic treatment.

The main goals of asthma therapy are to control symptoms, prevent acute attacks, and maintain lung function as close to normal as possible. Customizing the regimen to relieve the patient's symptoms and control airway inflammation is important. If asthma is not well controlled, an initial inhaled corticosteroid boost will treat the underlying heightened airway inflammation, and the addition of a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist or leukotriene receptor antagonist will rapidly control symptoms. Most patients do not require prolonged treatment with expensive combination or additive agents. Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction is a common source of symptoms. Treatments for scheduled and unscheduled exercises differ. Inhaled corticosteroids prevent frequent and severe asthma exacerbations. When patients have persistent symptoms despite a pharmacological regimen, environmental factors and nonpharmacological interventions must be considered before medication is increased. When an inhaled corticosteroid is being considered, issues of compliance, drug delivery device, and proper inhaler techniques are as important as issues of potency, clinical efficacy, and adverse effects. The new hydrofluoroalkane preparations offer more lung deposition and may be important in treating inflammation of the small airways in patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Methacholine challenge testing (MCT) is a common bronchoprovocation technique used to assess airway hyper-responsiveness. We previously demonstrated that the addition of a viral filter to the nebulizer exhalation limb substantially reduced expelled particles during MCT. Our aim was to evaluate whether this modification affects the delivered dose of methacholine. METHODS: A mechanical ventilator was connected to a lung simulator with breathing frequency 15 breaths/min, tidal volume 500 mL, inspiratory-expiratory ratio 1:1, with a sinusoidal waveform. We compared methacholine dose delivery using the Hudson Micro Mist or AeroEclipse II BAN nebulizers powered by either a dry gas source or a compressor system. A filter placed in line between the nebulizer and test lung was weighed before and after 1 min of nebulized methacholine delivery. Mean inhaled mass was measured with and without a viral filter on the exhalation limb. Dose delivery was calculated by multiplying the mean inhaled mass by the respirable fraction (particles < 5 lm) and inhalation time. Unpaired t test was used to compare methacholine dose delivery with and without viral filter placement. RESULTS: The addition of a viral filter did not significantly affect methacholine dose delivery across all devices tested. Using a 50-psi dry gas source, dose delivered with or without a viral filter did not differ with the Hudson (422.3 lg vs 282.0 lg, P 5 .11) or the AeroEclipse nebulizer (563.0 lg vs 657.6 lg, P 5 .59). Using the compressor, dose delivered with and without a viral filter did not differ with the Hudson (974.0 lg vs 868.0 lg, P 5 .03) or the AeroEclipse nebulizer (818.0 lg vs 628.5 lg, P 5 .42). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a viral filter to the nebulizer exhalation limb did not affect methacholine dose during bronchoprovocation testing. Routine use of a viral filter should be considered to improve pulmonary function technician safety and infection control measures during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Residual volume (RV) is a derived lung compartment that correlates with air trapping in the context of air flow obstruction on spirometry. The significance of an isolated elevation in RV in the absence of other pulmonary function test (PFT) abnormalities is not well defined. We sought to assess the clinical and radiologic findings associated with isolated elevation in RV. METHODS: We searched our out-patient PFT database at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) from 2016-2018 for adult patients with isolated elevation in RV. We defined isolated elevation in RV as RV ≥ upper limit of normal or ≥ 130% predicted with normal total lung capacity (TLC), spirometry, and diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO). We then matched this high-RV group by age and sex to an equal number of individuals with normal RV, TLC, spirometry, and DLCO (normal-RV group). RESULTS: We identified 169 subjects with isolated elevation in RV on PFTs, with a median age of 73 y; 55.6% were female, and median body mass index was 26.8 (vs 29.8 in the normal-RV group). The median RV was 3.08 L (134% predicted, interquartile range [IQR] 130-141) in the high-RV group and 2.26 L (99% predicted, IQR 90-109) in the normal-RV group (P < .001). Subjects with high RV were more likely to have smoked (54% vs 40%, P = .01) and almost twice as likely to have a maximum voluntary ventilation < 30 times the FEV1 (21% vs 12%, P = .02). Clinically, asthma (21% vs 11%, P = .01) and non-tuberculous mycobacterial lung infections (12% vs 2%, P = .001) were more prevalent in the high-RV group. On chest computed tomography, bronchiectasis (31% vs 15%, P = .008), bronchial thickening or mucus plugging (46% vs 22%, P < .001), and emphysema (13% vs 5%, P = .046) were more common in the high-RV group. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated elevation in RV on PFTs is a clinically relevant abnormality associated with airway-centered diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Peak flow testing is a common procedure performed in ambulatory care. There are currently no data regarding aerosol generation during this procedure. Given the ongoing debate regarding the potential for aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, we aimed to quantify and characterize aerosol generation during peak flow testing. METHODS: Five healthy volunteers performed peak flow maneuvers in a particle-free laboratory space. Two devices continuously sampled the ambient air during the procedure. One device can detect ultrafine particles 0.02-1 µm in diameter, while the second device can detect particles 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, and 10 lm in diameter. Five different peak flow meters were compared to ambient baseline during masked and unmasked tidal breathing. RESULTS: Ultrafine particles (0.02-1 µm) were generated during peak flow measurement. There was no significant difference in ultrafine particle mean concentration between peak flow meters (P = .23): Respironics (1.25 ± 0.47 particles/mL), Philips (3.06 ± 1.22), Clement Clarke (3.55 ± 1.22 particles/mL), Respironics Low Range (3.50 ± 1.52 particles/mL), and Monaghan (3.78 ± 1.31 particles/mL). Ultrafine particle mean concentration with peak flow testing was significantly higher than masked (0.22 ± 0.29 particles/mL) and unmasked tidal breathing (0.15 ± 0.18 particles/mL, P = .01), but the ultrafine particle concentrations were small compared to ambient particle concentrations in a pulmonary function testing room (89.9 ± 8.95 particles/mL). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, aerosol generation was present during peak flow testing, but concentrations were small compared to the background particle concentration in the ambient clinical environment. Surgical masks and eye protection are likely sufficient infection control measures during peak expiratory flow testing in asymptomatic patients with well controlled respiratory symptoms, but COVID-19 testing remains prudent in patients with acute respiratory symptoms prior to evaluation and peak expiratory flow assessment while the community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 cases remains high. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic cough is a common symptom-based diagnostic challenge for primary care physicians and respiratory specialists. Measurement of exhaled nitric oxide is a convenient, reproducible, and inexpensive point-of-service test. It can simplify the evaluation process of chronic cough by providing information regarding the state of airway inflammation. If exhaled nitric oxide is elevated, this is predictive of a favorable response to inhaled corticosteroids. This has the effect of reducing empirical trials for cough-variant asthma or eosinophilic bronchitis. The inclusion of exhaled nitric oxide in the diagnostic approach to chronic cough should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate our experience with patients who presented with chronic cough and how exhaled nitric oxide predicted response to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study of 114 patients evaluated for chronic cough with measured exhaled nitric oxide and methacholine challenge testing was conducted from December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. Clinical records were extracted. Patients with no documented follow-up were contacted by telephone and administered a questionnaire. RESULTS: In 64 patients, ICS therapy was started or the current ICS dose increased. Forty-one patients had elevated exhaled nitric oxide levels (defined as ⩾35 ppb), 36 (88%) of whom had significant improvement in their chronic cough (likelihood ratio of a positive response, 4.9; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-10.9). Twenty-three patients with exhaled nitric oxide levels in the reference range were also prescribed ICS, and only 2 had cough improvement (likelihood ratio of a negative response, 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.25). Patients had documented follow- up that ranged from 4 weeks to 16 months. A cutoff of 38 ppb was found to best differentiate ICS responders and nonresponders. CONCLUSION: Measurement of exhaled nitric oxide accurately predicted response to ICS therapy for chronic cough. Patients with a positive exhaled nitric oxide test result had a strong likelihood of response to ICS, whereas a negative exhaled nitric oxide test result indicated an unlikely response to ICS. This finding may potentially have an impact on how patients with chronic cough are evaluated and treated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]