Clinical Characteristics and Impact of Inducible Laryngeal Obstruction in the UK National Registry.

BACKGROUND: Inducible laryngeal obstruction (ILO) describes inappropriate laryngeal closure during respiration, with airflow obstruction occurring at the glottic and/or supraglottic level, leading to breathlessness. OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of data describing the demographics and impact of ILO. We aimed to report the clinical and demographic features of ILO in individuals entered prospectively in the UK national ILO registry. METHODS: Data were entered into a Web-based registry from participants with endoscopically confirmed ILO who were attending four established UK-wide specialist ILO centers between March 2017 and November 2019. All patients provided written informed consent. RESULTS: Data from 137 individuals were included. Most (87%) had inspiratory ILO and required provocation during endoscopy to induce symptoms. There was a female predominance (80%), mean age 47 years (SD, 15 years). The most common comorbidities included asthma (68%) and reflux (57%). Health care use was high: 88% had attended emergency health care with symptoms at least once in the previous 12 months and nearly half had been admitted to the hospital. A fifth had required admission to critical care owing to ILO symptoms. Patient morbidity was substantial; 64% reported impaired functional capacity (≥3 on the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale) and a third stated that symptoms affected working capability. CONCLUSION: We describe the first multicenter prospective characterization of individuals with endoscopically diagnosed ILO. Analysis of our multicenter data set identified ILO as associated with a high burden of morbidity and health care use, comparable to severe asthma. These data will support the development of health care resources in the future and guide research priorities.

UK consensus statement on the diagnosis of inducible laryngeal obstruction in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, laryngoscopy was the mandatory gold standard for the accurate assessment and diagnosis of inducible laryngeal obstruction. However, upper airway endoscopy is considered an aerosol-generating procedure in professional guidelines, meaning routine procedures are highly challenging and the availability of laryngoscopy is reduced. In response, we have convened a multidisciplinary panel with broad experience in managing this disease and agreed a recommended strategy for presumptive diagnosis in patients who cannot have laryngoscopy performed due to pandemic restrictions. To maintain clinical standards whilst ensuring patient safety, we discuss the importance of triage, information gathering, symptom assessment and early review of response to treatment. The consensus recommendations will also be potentially relevant to other future situations where access to laryngoscopy is restricted, although we emphasize that this investigation remains the gold standard.

Triggers of breathlessness in inducible laryngeal obstruction and asthma.

BACKGROUND: Inducible laryngeal obstruction (ILO) is often misdiagnosed as, or may coexist with, asthma. Identifying differences in triggering factors may assist clinicians to differentiate between the two conditions and could give mechanistic insights. OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare patient-reported triggers in ILO and asthma. METHODS: This was a two-part study. Initially, we conducted a retrospective case note review of the triggers of ILO from endoscopically confirmed ILO patients to generate a Breathlessness Triggers Survey (BrTS). Triggers were categorized as scents, environmental factors, temperature, emotions, mechanical factors and daily activities. Secondly, ILO and/or asthma patients completed the BrTS prospectively, rating the likelihood of each item triggering their symptoms using a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Chi-square testing was performed to compare responses by cohort. RESULTS: Data from 202 patients with ILO [73% female, mean (SD) age 53(16) years] were included in the case note review. For the prospective study, 38 patients with ILO only [63% females, age 57(16) years], 39 patients with asthma only [(56% female, age 53(13) years] and 12 patients with both ILO and asthma [83% female, mean age, 57 (14) years)] completed the BrTS. The triggers identified in the case note review were confirmed in the independent sample of patients with ILO and/or asthma and identified several difference in prevalence of the triggers between disease types. Mechanical factors (talking [P < .001], shouting [P = .007] and swallowing [P = .002]) were more common in the ILO cohort compared to patients with asthma. Environmental factors (pollen/flowers [P = .005] and damp air [P = .012]) were more common in asthma. There were no differences between groups in frequency of reporting scents as triggers (except for vinegar, more common in ILO, P = .019), temperature, emotions or daily activities. CONCLUSION: There were notable differences between patient-reported triggers of ILO and asthma, which may support clinician differential diagnosis.

Speech and language therapy for management of chronic cough.

BACKGROUND: Cough both protects and clears the airway. Cough has three phases: breathing in (inspiration), closure of the glottis, and a forced expiratory effort. Chronic cough has a negative, far-reaching impact on quality of life. Few effective medical treatments for individuals with unexplained (idiopathic/refractory) chronic cough (UCC) are known. For this group, current guidelines advocate the use of gabapentin. Speech and language therapy (SLT) has been considered as a non-pharmacological option for managing UCC without the risks and side effects associated with pharmacological agents, and this review considers the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of SLT in this context. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of speech and language therapy for treatment of people with unexplained (idiopathic/refractory) chronic cough. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, trials registries, and reference lists of included studies. Our most recent search was 8 February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs in which participants had a diagnosis of UCC having undergone a full diagnostic workup to exclude an underlying cause, as per published guidelines or local protocols, and where the intervention included speech and language therapy techniques for UCC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of 94 records. Two clinical trials, represented in 10 study reports, met our predefined inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study and extracted outcome data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs), and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or geometric mean differences. We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS: We found two studies involving 162 adults that met our inclusion criteria. Neither of the two studies included children. The duration of treatment and length of sessions varied between studies from four sessions delivered weekly, to four sessions over two months. Similarly, length of sessions varied slightly from one 60-minute session and three 45-minute sessions to four 30-minute sessions. The control interventions were healthy lifestyle advice in both studies.One study contributed HRQoL data, using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), and we judged the quality of the evidence to be low using the GRADE approach. Data were reported as between-group difference from baseline to four weeks (MD 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 2.85; participants = 71), revealing a statistically significant benefit for people receiving a physiotherapy and speech and language therapy intervention (PSALTI) versus control. However, the difference between PSALTI and control was not observed between week four and three months. The same study provided information on SAEs, and there were no SAEs in either the PSALTI or control arms. Using the GRADE approach we judged the quality of evidence for this outcome to be low.Data were also available for our prespecified secondary outcomes. In each case data were provided by only one study, therefore there were no opportunities for aggregation; we judged the quality of this evidence to be low for each outcome. A significant difference favouring therapy was demonstrated for: objective cough counts (ratio for mean coughs per hour on treatment was 59% (95% CI 37% to 95%) relative to control; participants = 71); symptom score (MD 9.80, 95% CI 4.50 to 15.10; participants = 87); and clinical improvement as defined by trialists (OR 48.13, 95% CI 13.53 to 171.25; participants = 87). There was no significant difference between therapy and control regarding subjective measures of cough (MD on visual analogue scale of cough severity: -9.72, 95% CI -20.80 to 1.36; participants = 71) and cough reflex sensitivity (capsaicin concentration to induce five coughs: 1.11 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.54; participants = 49) times higher on treatment than on control). One study reported data on adverse events, and there were no adverse events reported in either the therapy or control arms of the study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of data in this review highlights the need for more controlled trial data examining the efficacy of SLT interventions in the management of UCC. Although a large number of studies were found in the initial search as per protocol, we could include only two studies in the review. In addition, this review highlights that endpoints vary between published studies.The improvements in HRQoL (LCQ) and reduction in 24-hour cough frequency seen with the PSALTI intervention were statistically significant but short-lived, with the between-group difference lasting up to four weeks only. Further studies are required to replicate these findings and to investigate the effects of SLT interventions over time. It is clear that SLT interventions vary between studies. Further research is needed to understand which aspects of SLT interventions are most effective in reducing cough (both objective cough frequency and subjective measures of cough) and improving HRQoL. We consider these endpoints to be clinically important. It is also important for future studies to report information on adverse events.Because of the paucity of data, we can draw no robust conclusions regarding the efficacy of SLT interventions for improving outcomes in unexplained chronic cough. Our review identifies the need for further high-quality research, with comparable endpoints to inform robust conclusions.

Heliox for inducible laryngeal obstruction (vocal cord dysfunction): A systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic literature review on the use of Heliox with patients with inducible laryngeal obstruction/vocal cord dysfunction to: i) identify current evidence base; and ii) establish the methodological quality of published research. METHODS: Articles published up to March 2018 were searched for key words and terms using Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Dynamed. Studies were included if they presented original research into the use of Heliox for vocal cord dysfunction. RESULTS: Only three studies met the inclusion criteria for review. All reported favorable results for the use of Heliox as an adjunctive therapy for vocal cord dysfunction but none had sufficient methodological quality to support their conclusions. CONCLUSION: Despite review articles recommending the use of Heliox in vocal cord dysfunction, there is a lack of good quality research to support this conclusion. There is a need for further research to investigate the effectiveness of Heliox as an adjunctive therapy for vocal cord dysfunction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.