职业性和非职业性哮喘患者特异性吸入激发试验结果的比较:监测呼气峰流量是否足以诊断?

Cebrail Şimşek, Bilge Akgunduz, Gulden Sari
{"title":"职业性和非职业性哮喘患者特异性吸入激发试验结果的比较:监测呼气峰流量是否足以诊断?","authors":"Cebrail Şimşek, Bilge Akgunduz, Gulden Sari","doi":"10.19080/ijoprs.2021.05.555666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: It is recommended to monitoring PEFR to diagnosing OA. Gold standard method is SIC test. The aim of this study is to evaluate comparison of SIC test results in patients with OA and non-OA and to discuss PEFR monitoring and underdiagnosed. Materials and Methods: 24 patients (16 OA, 8 non-OA) who underwent SIC test were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Although number of patients exposed to LMW (wood powders [n: 5]) was higher, IgE level was found significantly higher at OA (697.39 ± 839.36 kU/ml) (p: 0.027). Average PEFR monitoring days mean was 26.53±12.90.13 patients who diagnosed with OA with SIC was evaluated PEFR monitoring results were negative [%92.86]. Minimum FEV1 value on exposure day was lower in OA (p:0.001). Conclusion: We detected underdiagnosed cases rates were higher with diagnosing OA with PEFR monitoring alone. Our study also demonstrated that LMW agents cause immunological OA, independently from agent type and duration of exposure.","PeriodicalId":257243,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Sciences","volume":"294 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Specific Inhalation Challenge Test Results in Occupational and Non- Occupational Asthma Patients: Is Monitoring Peak Expiratory Flow Rate Sufficient for Diagnosis?\",\"authors\":\"Cebrail Şimşek, Bilge Akgunduz, Gulden Sari\",\"doi\":\"10.19080/ijoprs.2021.05.555666\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: It is recommended to monitoring PEFR to diagnosing OA. Gold standard method is SIC test. The aim of this study is to evaluate comparison of SIC test results in patients with OA and non-OA and to discuss PEFR monitoring and underdiagnosed. Materials and Methods: 24 patients (16 OA, 8 non-OA) who underwent SIC test were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Although number of patients exposed to LMW (wood powders [n: 5]) was higher, IgE level was found significantly higher at OA (697.39 ± 839.36 kU/ml) (p: 0.027). Average PEFR monitoring days mean was 26.53±12.90.13 patients who diagnosed with OA with SIC was evaluated PEFR monitoring results were negative [%92.86]. Minimum FEV1 value on exposure day was lower in OA (p:0.001). Conclusion: We detected underdiagnosed cases rates were higher with diagnosing OA with PEFR monitoring alone. Our study also demonstrated that LMW agents cause immunological OA, independently from agent type and duration of exposure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":257243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Sciences\",\"volume\":\"294 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19080/ijoprs.2021.05.555666\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19080/ijoprs.2021.05.555666","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:建议监测PEFR对OA进行诊断。金标准方法是SIC试验。本研究的目的是评估骨性关节炎和非骨性关节炎患者SIC检测结果的比较,并讨论PEFR监测和漏诊。材料与方法:对24例骨性关节炎患者(16例OA, 8例非OA)进行回顾性分析。结果:虽然暴露于LMW(木粉[n: 5])的患者人数较多,但OA组的IgE水平明显升高(697.39±839.36 kU/ml) (p: 0.027)。诊断为OA合并SIC的患者平均PEFR监测天数为26.53±12.90.13天,PEFR监测结果为阴性[%92.86]。暴露日最小FEV1值在OA组较低(p:0.001)。结论:单独使用PEFR监测诊断OA,漏诊率较高。我们的研究还表明,LMW病原体引起免疫性OA,与病原体类型和暴露时间无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Specific Inhalation Challenge Test Results in Occupational and Non- Occupational Asthma Patients: Is Monitoring Peak Expiratory Flow Rate Sufficient for Diagnosis?
Objective: It is recommended to monitoring PEFR to diagnosing OA. Gold standard method is SIC test. The aim of this study is to evaluate comparison of SIC test results in patients with OA and non-OA and to discuss PEFR monitoring and underdiagnosed. Materials and Methods: 24 patients (16 OA, 8 non-OA) who underwent SIC test were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Although number of patients exposed to LMW (wood powders [n: 5]) was higher, IgE level was found significantly higher at OA (697.39 ± 839.36 kU/ml) (p: 0.027). Average PEFR monitoring days mean was 26.53±12.90.13 patients who diagnosed with OA with SIC was evaluated PEFR monitoring results were negative [%92.86]. Minimum FEV1 value on exposure day was lower in OA (p:0.001). Conclusion: We detected underdiagnosed cases rates were higher with diagnosing OA with PEFR monitoring alone. Our study also demonstrated that LMW agents cause immunological OA, independently from agent type and duration of exposure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信