Abstract
Abstract
Background
Recognition of disorder phenotypes may help to estimate prognosis and to guide the clinical management. Current cough management guidelines classify patients according to the duration of the cough episode. However, this classification is not based on phenotype analyses. The present study aimed to identify cough phenotypes by clustering.
Methods
An email survey among employed, working-age subjects identified 975 patients with current cough. All filled in a comprehensive 80-item questionnaire including the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. Phenotypes were identified utilizing K-means partitional clustering. A subgroup filled in a follow-up questionnaire 12 months later to investigate the possible differences in the prognosis between the phenotypes.
Results
Two clusters were found. The cluster A included 608 patients (62.4% of the population) and the cluster B 367 patients (37.6%). The three most important variables to separate the clusters were the number of the triggers of cough (mean 2.63 (SD 2.22) vs. 6.95 (2.30), respectively, p < 0.001), the number of the cough background disorders (chronic rhinosinusitis, current asthma, gastroesophageal reflux disease, 0.29 (0.50) vs. 1.28 (0.75), respectively, p < 0.001), and the Leicester Cough Questionnaire physical domain (5.33 (0.76) vs. 4.25 (0.84), respectively, p < 0.001). There were significant interrelationships between these three variables (each p < 0.001). Duration of the episode was not among the most important variables to separate the clusters. At 12 months, 27.0% of the patients of the cluster A and 46.1% of the patients of the cluster B suffered from cough that had continued without interruptions from the first survey (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Two cough phenotypes could be identified. Cluster A represents phenotype A, which includes the majority of patients and has a tendency to heal by itself. The authors propose that cluster B represents phenotype TBQ (Triggers, Background disorders, Quality of life impairment). Given the poor prognosis of this phenotype, it urges a prompt and comprehensive clinical evaluation regardless of the duration of the cough episode.
Funder
Kuopion Seudun Hengityssäätiö
Hengityssairauksien Tutkimussäätiö
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference26 articles.
1. Wandell P, Carlsson AC, Wettermark B, Lord G, Cars T, Ljunggren G. Most common diseases diagnosed in primary care in Stockholm, Sweden, in 2011. Fam Pract. 2013;30:506–13.
2. Centers for disease control and prevention, USA. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2015 Summary Tables. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ahcd/web_tables.htm#2015. Accessed 13 May 2020.
3. Irwin RS, French CL, Chang AB, Altman KW. Classification of cough as a symptom in adults and management algorithms: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2018;153:196–209.
4. Morice AH, McGarvey L, Pavord I, British Thoracic Society Cough Guideline Group. Recommendations for the management of cough in adults. Thorax. 2006;61(Suppl 1):i1–i24.
5. Kohno S, Ishida T, Uchida Y, Kishimoto H, Sasaki H, Shioya T, et al. The Japanese Respiratory Society guidelines for management of cough. Respirology. 2006;11(Suppl 4):135.
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献