[Integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of combined allergic rhinitis and asthma syndrome].

Combined allergic rhinitis and asthma syndrome (CARAS) refers to a common respiratory disease that occurs simultaneously with clinical or subclinical allergic symptoms of the upper respiratory tract (allergic rhinitis) and the lower respiratory tract (asthma). The incidence of CARAS is high and the quality of life of the patients is greatly affected. At present, treatment of this comprehensive disease is often carried out separately in the otorhinolaryngology and respiratory departments. One of the reasons is a lack of coordinated treatment consensus on the comprehensive management of this disease. As a common respiratory disease, this syndrome also has a profound clinical basis of traditional Chinese medicine in its diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, the Allergy Committee of Chinese Association of Integrative Medicine organized domestic experts in respiratory medicine, otolaryngology, allergy, pediatrics, traditional Chinese Medicine internal medicine and other related fields to discuss and summarize the etiology and anatomical characteristics, pathophysiology and pathogenesis, laboratory examination, diagnostic evaluation and differential diagnosis as well as treatment of both traditional Chinese medicine and western medicine, in order to provide integrated diagnosis and treatment opinions for this common integrative disease of upper and lower respiratory system in clinical practice.

Translation and Validation of the Chinese Language Version of the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis.

Objective: Due to the escalating global prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and its status as an independent risk factor for asthma, timely and effective control of AR is crucial. Achieving this often involves the accurate assessment of AR. Currently, the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) is widely used as an assessment tool, but its measurement effectiveness in Chinese AR patients remains unclear. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the CARAT10 scale (CARAT10-C) and analyze its application value in the assessment of allergic rhinitis and asthma control trials. Methods: The study enrolled 130 patients with AR from the Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) outpatient department of a comprehensive teaching hospital from March to May 2022 as participants. The reliability and validity of the CARAT10-C scale were assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient (CAC), Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), and Bartlett's sphericity test. Additionally, the study analyzed the effectiveness of the CARAT10-C scale in its application within the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT). Results: The Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranges between 0 and 1, with higher values indicating better reliability. Significant differences in exploratory factor analysis suggest good validity. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the CARAT10-C scale was 0.806. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the eigenvalues of Component 1 (3.851) and Component 2 (2.193) were both greater than 1, with a cumulative variance contribution rate (CVCR) of 60.436%. Items 6-10 were primarily loaded on Component 1 (Asthma), while items 1-4 were mainly influenced by Component 2 (AR), with loading ranges of 0.508-0.874, all significant at P < .001. The composite reliability (CAC) of the CARAT10-C scale was 0.806, exceeding 0.8, indicating high reliability. Component 1 had a CAC of 0.834, and Component 2 had a CACs of 0.807, both exceeding 0.8, indicating high reliability for both components. Conclusion: The CARAT10-C scale demonstrates good reliability and validity in the preliminary assessment of AR. It holds potential value in the evaluation and management of AR in China, although the specific application effects still require further investigation.

Impact of the pulmonary ventilation function on the prognosis of suspected asthma patients: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma is a common chronic respiratory diseases, and the relationship between pulmonary ventilation function and the prognosis of patients with suspected asthma is not well understood. This study aims to explore the impact of pulmonary ventilation functions on the prognosis of patients with suspected asthma. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included patients with suspected asthma who were diagnosed and treated at the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine between August 2015 and January 2020. The primary outcome of interest was improvement in asthma symptoms, as measured by bronchial provocation test (BPT) results within one year after diagnosis. The impact of pulmonary ventilation functions on prognosis was explored by multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included in the study. Patients with normal (OR = 0.123, p = .004) or generally normal (OR = 0.075, p = .039) pulmonary ventilation function were more likely to achieve improvement in asthma symptoms compared with patients with mild obstruction. There were no significant differences between the improvement and non-improvement groups in baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that suspected asthma patients with normal or generally normal pulmonary ventilation function are more likely to achieve improvement in asthma symptoms within one year compared to patients with mild obstruction.

[Standard technical specifications for methacholine chloride (Methacholine) bronchial challenge test (2023)].

The methacholine challenge test (MCT) is a standard evaluation method of assessing airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and its severity, and has significant clinical value in the diagnosis and treatment of bronchial asthma. A consensus working group consisting of experts from the Pulmonary Function and Clinical Respiratory Physiology Committee of the Chinese Association of Chest Physicians, the Task Force for Pulmonary Function of the Chinese Thoracic Society, and the Pulmonary Function Group of Respiratory Branch of the Chinese Geriatric Society jointly developed this consensus. Based on the "Guidelines for Pulmonary Function-Bronchial Provocation Test" published in 2014, the issues encountered in its use, and recent developments, the group has updated the Standard technical specifications of methacholine chloride (methacholine) bronchial challenge test (2023). Through an extensive collection of expert opinions, literature reviews, questionnaire surveys, and multiple rounds of online and offline discussions, the consensus addressed the eleven core issues in MCT's clinical practice, including indications, contraindications, preparation of provocative agents, test procedures and methods, quality control, safety management, interpretation of results, and reporting standards. The aim was to provide clinical pulmonary function practitioners in healthcare institutions with the tools to optimize the use of this technique to guide clinical diagnosis and treatment.Summary of recommendationsQuestion 1: Who is suitable for conducting MCT? What are contraindications for performing MCT?Patients with atypical symptoms and a clinical suspicion of asthma, patients diagnosed with asthma requiring assessment of the severity of airway hyperresponsiveness, individuals with allergic rhinitis who are at risk of developing asthma, patients in need of evaluating the effectiveness of asthma treatment, individuals in occupations with high safety risks due to airway hyperresponsiveness, patients with chronic diseases prone to airway hyperresponsiveness, others requiring assessment of airway reactivity.Absolute contraindications: (1) Patients who are allergic to methacholine (MCh) or other parasympathomimetic drugs, with allergic reactions including rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face, tongue, and throat), severe dizziness, and dyspnea; (2) Patients with a history of life-threatening asthma attacks or those who have required mechanical ventilation for asthma attacks in the past three months; (3) Patients with moderate to severe impairment of baseline pulmonary function [Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) less than 60% of the predicted value or FEV1<1.0 L]; (4) Severe urticaria; (5) Other situations inappropriate for forced vital capacity (FVC) measurement, such as myocardial infarction or stroke in the past three months, poorly controlled hypertension, aortic aneurysm, recent eye surgery, or increased intracranial pressure.Relative contraindications: (1) Moderate or more severe impairment of baseline lung function (FEV1%pred<70%), but individuals with FEV1%pred>60% may still be considered for MCT with strict observation and adequate preparation; (2) Experiencing asthma acute exacerbation; (3) Poor cooperation with baseline lung function tests that do not meet quality control requirements; (4) Recent respiratory tract infection (<4 weeks); (5) Pregnant or lactating women; (6) Patients currently using cholinesterase inhibitors (for the treatment of myasthenia gravis); (7) Patients who have previously experienced airway spasm during pulmonary function tests, with a significant decrease in FEV1 even without the inhalation of provocative.Question 2: How to prepare and store the challenge solution for MCT?Before use, the drug must be reconstituted and then diluted into various concentrations for provocation. The dilution concentration and steps for MCh vary depending on the inhalation method and provocation protocol used. It is important to follow specific steps. Typically, a specified amount of diluent is added to the methacholine reagent bottle for reconstitution, and the mixture is shaken until the solution becomes clear. The diluent is usually physiological saline, but saline with phenol (0.4%) can also be used. Phenol can reduce the possibility of bacterial contamination, and its presence does not interfere with the provocation test. After reconstitution, other concentrations of MCh solution are prepared using the same diluent, following the dilution steps, and then stored separately in sterile containers. Preparers should carefully verify and label the concentration and preparation time of the solution and complete a preparation record form. The reconstituted and diluted MCh solution is ready for immediate use without the need for freezing. It can be stored for two weeks if refrigerated (2-8 ℃). The reconstituted solution should not be stored directly in the nebulizer reservoir to prevent crystallization from blocking the capillary opening and affecting aerosol output. The temperature of the solution can affect the production of the nebulizer and cause airway spasms in the subject upon inhaling cold droplets. Thus, refrigerated solutions should be brought to room temperature before use.Question 3: What preparation is required for subjects prior to MCT?(1) Detailed medical history inquiry and exclusion of contraindications.(2) Inquiring about factors and medications that may affect airway reactivity and assessing compliance with medication washout requirements: When the goal is to evaluate the effectiveness of asthma treatment, bronchodilators other than those used for asthma treatment do not need to be discontinued. Antihistamines and cromolyn have no effect on MCT responses, and the effects of a single dose of inhaled corticosteroids and leukotriene modifiers are minimal, thus not requiring cessation before the test. For patients routinely using corticosteroids, whether to discontinue the medication depends on the objective of the test: if assisting in the diagnosis of asthma, differential diagnosis, aiding in step-down therapy for asthma, or exploring the effect of discontinuing anti-inflammatory treatment, corticosteroids should be stopped before the provocation test; if the patient is already diagnosed with asthma and the objective is to observe the level of airway reactivity under controlled medication conditions, then discontinuation is not necessary. Medications such as IgE monoclonal antibodies, IL-4Rα monoclonal antibodies, traditional Chinese medicine, and ethnic medicines may interfere with test results, and clinicians should decide whether to discontinue these based on the specific circumstances.(3) Explaining the test procedure and potential adverse reactions, and obtaining informed consent if necessary.Question 4: What are the methods of the MCT? And which ones are recommended in current clinical practice?Commonly used methods for MCT in clinical practice include the quantitative nebulization method (APS method), Forced Oscillalion method (Astograph method), 2-minute tidal breathing method (Cockcroft method), hand-held quantitative nebulization method (Yan method), and 5-breath method (Chai 5-breath method). The APS method allows for precise dosing of inhaled Methacholine, ensuring accurate and reliable results. The Astograph method, which uses respiratory resistance as an assessment indicator, is easy for subjects to perform and is the simplest operation. These two methods are currently the most commonly used clinical practice in China.Question 5: What are the steps involved in MCT?The MCT consists of the following four steps:(1) Baseline lung function test: After a 15-minute rest period, the subjects assumes a seated position and wear a nose clip for the measurement of pulmonary function indicators [such as FEV1 or respiratory resistance (Rrs)]. FEV1 should be measured at least three times according to spirometer quality control standards, ensuring that the best two measurements differ by less than 150 ml and recording the highest value as the baseline. Usually, if FEV1%pred is below 70%, proceeding with the challenge test is not suitable, and a bronchodilation test should be considered. However, if clinical assessment of airway reactivity is necessary and FEV1%pred is between 60% and 70%, the provocation test may still be conducted under close observation, ensuring the subject's safety. If FEV1%pred is below 60%, it is an absolute contraindication for MCT.(2) Inhalation of diluent and repeat lung function test for control values: the diluent, serving as a control for the inhaled MCh, usually does not significantly impact the subject's lung function. the higher one between baseline value and the post-dilution FEV1 is used as the reference for calculating the rate of FEV1 decline. If post-inhalation FEV1 decreases, there are usually three scenarios: ①If FEV1 decreases by less than 10% compared to the baseline, the test can proceed, continue the test and administer the first dose of MCh. ②If the FEV1 decreases by≥10% and<20%, indicating a heightened airway reactivity to the diluent, proceed with the lowest concentration (dose) of the provoking if FEV1%pred has not yet reached the contraindication criteria for the MCT. if FEV1%pred<60% and the risk of continuing the challenge test is considerable, it is advisable to switch to a bronchodilation test and indicate the change in the test results report. ③If FEV1 decreases by≥20%, it can be directly classified as a positive challenge test, and the test should be discontinued, with bronchodilators administered to alleviate airway obstruction.(3) Inhalation of MCh and repeat lung function test to assess decline: prepare a series of MCh concentrations, starting from the lowest and gradually increasing the inhaled concentration (dose) using different methods. Perform pulmonaryfunction tests at 30 seconds and 90 seconds after completing nebulization, with the number of measurements limited to 3-4 times. A complete Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) measurement is unnecessary during testing; only an acceptable FEV1 measurement is required. The interval between two consecutive concentrations (doses) generally should not exceed 3 minutes. If FEV1 declines by≥10% compared to the control value, reduce the increment of methacholine concentration (dose) and adjust the inhalation protocol accordingly. If FEV1 declines by≥20% or more compared to the control value or if the maximum concentration (amount) has been inhaled, the test should be stopped. After inhaling the MCh, close observation of the subject's response is necessary. If necessary, monitor blood oxygen saturation and auscultate lung breath sounds. The test should be promptly discontinued in case of noticeable clinical symptoms or signs.(4) Inhalation of bronchodilator and repeat lung function test to assess recovery: when the bronchial challenge test shows a positive response (FEV1 decline≥20%) or suspiciously positive, the subject should receive inhaled rapid-acting bronchodilators, such as short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) or short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMA). Suppose the subject exhibits obvious symptoms of breathlessness, wheezing, or typical asthma manifestations, and wheezing is audible in the lungs, even if the positive criteria are not met. In that case, the challenge test should be immediately stopped, and rapid-acting bronchodilators should be administered. Taking salbutamol as an example, inhale 200-400 µg (100 µg per puff, 2-4 puffs, as determined by the physician based on the subject's condition). Reassess pulmonary function after 5-10 minutes. If FEV1 recovers to within 10% of the baseline value, the test can be concluded. However, if there is no noticeable improvement (FEV1 decline still≥10%), record the symptoms and signs and repeat the bronchodilation procedure as mentioned earlier. Alternatively, add Ipratropium bromide (SAMA) or further administer nebulized bronchodilators and corticosteroids for intensified treatment while keeping the subject under observation until FEV1 recovers to within 90% of the baseline value before allowing the subject to leave.Question 6: What are the quality control requirements for the APS and Astograph MCT equipment?(1) APS Method Equipment Quality Control: The APS method for MCT uses a nebulizing inhalation device that requires standardized flowmeters, compressed air power source pressure and flow, and nebulizer aerosol output. Specific quality control methods are as follows:a. Flow and volume calibration of the quantitative nebulization device: Connect the flowmeter, an empty nebulization chamber, and a nebulization filter in sequence, attaching the compressed air source to the bottom of the chamber to ensure airtight connections. Then, attach a 3 L calibration syringe to the subject's breathing interface and simulate the flow during nebulization (typically low flow:<2 L/s) to calibrate the flow and volume. If calibration results exceed the acceptable range of the device's technical standards, investigate and address potential issues such as air leaks or increased resistance due to a damp filter, then recalibrate. Cleaning the flowmeter or replacing the filter can change the resistance in the breathing circuit, requiring re-calibration of the flow.b. Testing the compressed air power source: Regularly test the device, connecting the components as mentioned above. Then, block the opening of the nebulization device with a stopper or hand, start the compressed air power source, and test its pressure and flow. If the test results do not meet the technical standards, professional maintenance of the equipment may be required.c. Verification of aerosol output of the nebulization chamber: Regularly verify all nebulization chambers used in provocation tests. Steps include adding a certain amount of saline to the chamber, weighing and recording the chamber's weight (including saline), connecting the nebulizer to the quantitative nebulization device, setting the nebulization time, starting nebulization, then weighing and recording the post-nebulization weight. Calculate the unit time aerosol output using the formula [(weight before nebulization-weight after nebulization)/nebulization time]. Finally, set the nebulization plan for the provocation test based on the aerosol output, considering the MCh concentration, single inhalation nebulization duration, number of nebulization, and cumulative dose to ensure precise dosing of the inhaled MCh.(2) Astograph method equipment quality control: Astograph method equipment for MCT consists of a respiratory resistance monitoring device and a nebulization medication device. Perform zero-point calibration, volume calibration, impedance verification, and nebulization chamber checks daily before tests to ensure the resistance measurement system and nebulization system function properly. Calibration is needed every time the equipment is turned on, and more frequently if there are significant changes in environmental conditions.a. Zero-point calibration: Perform zero-point calibration before testing each subject. Ensure the nebulization chamber is properly installed and plugged with no air leaks.b. Volume calibration: Use a 3 L calibration syringe to calibrate the flow sensor at a low flow rate (approximately 1 L/s).c. Resistance verification: Connect low impedance tubes (1.9-2.2 cmH2O·L-1·s-1) and high impedance tubes (10.2-10.7 cmH2O·L-1·s-1) to the device interface for verification.d. Bypass check: Start the bypass check and record the bypass value; a value>150 ml/s is normal.e. Nebulization chamber check: Check each of the 12 nebulization chambers daily, especially those containing bronchodilators, to ensure normal spraying. The software can control each nebulization chamber to produce spray automatically for a preset duration (e.g., 2 seconds). Observe the formation of water droplets on the chamber walls, indicating normal spraying. If no nebulization occurs, check for incorrect connections or blockages.Question 7: How to set up and select the APS method in MCT?The software program of the aerosol provocation system in the quantitative nebulization method can independently set the nebulizer output, concentration of the methacholine agent, administration time, and number of administrations and combine these parameters to create the challenge test process. In principle, the concentration of the methacholine agent should increase from low to high, and the dose should increase from small to large. According to the standard, a 2-fold or 4-fold incremental challenge process is generally used. In clinical practice, the dose can be simplified for subjects with good baseline lung function and no history of wheezing, such as using a recommended 2-concentration, 5-step method (25 and 50 g/L) and (6.25 and 25 g/L). Suppose FEV1 decreases by more than 10% compared to the baseline during the test to ensure subject safety. In that case, the incremental dose of the methacholine agent can be reduced, and the inhalation program can be adjusted appropriately. If the subject's baseline lung function declines or has recent daytime or nighttime symptoms such as wheezing or chest tightness, a low concentration, low dose incremental process should be selected.Question 8: What are the precautions for the operation process of the Astograph method in MCT?(1) Test equipment: The Astograph method utilizes the forced oscillation technique, applying a sinusoidal oscillating pressure at the mouthpiece during calm breathing. Subjects inhale nebulized MCh of increasing concentrations while continuous monitoring of respiratory resistance (Rrs) plots the changes, assessing airway reactivity and sensitivity. The nebulization system employs jet nebulization technology, comprising a compressed air pump and 12 nebulization cups. The first cup contains saline, cups 2 to 11 contain increasing concentrations of MCh, and the 12th cup contains a bronchodilator solution.(2) Provocation process: Prepare 10 solutions of MCh provocant with gradually increasing concentrations.(3) Operational procedure: The oscillation frequency is usually set to 3 Hz (7 Hz for children) during the test. The subject breathes calmly, inhales saline solution nebulized first, and records the baseline resistance value (if the subject's baseline resistance value is higher than 10 cmH2O·L-1·s-1, the challenge test should not be performed). Then, the subject gradually inhales increasing concentrations of methacholine solution. Each concentration solution is inhaled for 1 minute, and the nebulization system automatically switches to the next concentration for inhalation according to the set time. Each nebulizer cup contains 2-3 ml of solution, the output is 0.15 ml/min, and each concentration is inhaled for 1 minute. The dose-response curve is recorded automatically. Subjects should breathe tidally during the test, avoiding deep breaths and swallowing. Continue until Rrs significantly rises to more than double the baseline value, or if the subject experiences notable respiratory symptoms or other discomfort, such as wheezing in both lungs upon auscultation. At this point, the inhalation of the provocant should be stopped and the subject switchs to inhaling a bronchodilator until Rrs returns to pre-provocation levels. If there is no significant increase in Rrs, stop the test after inhaling the highest concentration of MCh.Question 9: How to interpret the results of the MCT?The method chosen for the MCT determines the specific indicators used for interpretation. The most commonly used indicator is FEV1, although other parameters such as Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF) and Rrs can also be used to assess airway hyperresponsiveness.Qualitative judgment: The test results can be classified as positive, suspiciously positive, or negative, based on a combination of the judgment indicators and changes in the subject's symptoms. If FEV1 decreases by≥20% compared to the baseline value after not completely inhaling at the highest concentration, the result can be judged as positive for Methacholine bronchial challenge test. If the patient has obvious wheezing symptoms or wheezing is heard in both lungs, but the challenge test does not meet the positive criteria (the highest dose/concentration has been inhaled), and FEV1 decreases between 10% and 20% compared to the baseline level, the result can also be judged as positive. If FEV1 decreases between 15% and 20% compared to the baseline value without dyspnea or wheezing attacks, the result can be judged as suspiciously positive. Astograph method: If Rrs rises to 2 times or more of the baseline resistance before reaching the highest inhalation concentration, or if the subject's lungs have wheezing and severe coughing, the challenge test can be judged as positive. Regardless of the result of the Methacholine bronchial challenge test, factors that affect airway reactivity, such as drugs, seasons, climate, diurnal variations, and respiratory tract infections, should be excluded.Quantitative judgment: When using the APS method, the severity of airway hyperresponsiveness can be graded based on PD20-FEV1 or PC20-FEV1. Existing evidence suggests that PD20 shows good consistency when different nebulizers, inhalation times, and starting concentrations of MCh are used for bronchial provocation tests, whereas there is more variability with PC20. Therefore, PD20 is often recommended as the quantitative assessment indicator. The threshold value for PD20 with the APS method is 2.5 mg.The Astograph method often uses the minimum cumulative dose (Dmin value, in Units) to reflect airway sensitivity. Dmin is the minimum cumulative dose of MCh required to produce a linear increase in Rrs. A dose of 1 g/L of the drug concentration inhaled for 1-minute equals 1 unit. It's important to note that with the continuous increase in inhaled provocant concentration, the concept of cumulative dose in the Astograph method should not be directly compared to other methods. Most asthma patients have a Dmin<10 Units, according to Japanese guidelines. The Astograph method, having been used in China for over twenty years, suggests a high likelihood of asthma when Dmin≤6 Units, with a smaller Dmin value indicating a higher probability. When Dmin is between 6 and 10 Units, further differential diagnosis is advised to ascertain whether the condition is asthma.Precautions:A negative methacholine challenge test (MCT) does not entirely rule out asthma. The test may yield negative results due to the following reasons:(1) Prior use of medications that reduce airway responsiveness, such as ß2 agonists, anticholinergic drugs, antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, theophylline, corticosteroids, etc., and insufficient washout time.(2) Failure to meet quality control standards in terms of pressure, flow rate, particle size, and nebulization volume of the aerosol delivery device.(3) Poor subject cooperation leads to inadequate inhalation of the methacholine agent.(4) Some exercise-induced asthma patients may not be sensitive to direct bronchial challenge tests like the Methacholine challenge and require indirect bronchial challenge tests such as hyperventilation, cold air, or exercise challenge to induce a positive response.(5) A few cases of occupational asthma may only react to specific antigens or sensitizing agents, requiring specific allergen exposure to elicit a positive response.A positive MCT does not necessarily indicate asthma. Other conditions can also present with airway hyperresponsiveness and yield positive results in the challenge test, such as allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, viral upper respiratory infections, allergic alveolitis, tropical eosinophilia, cystic fibrosis, sarcoidosis, bronchiectasis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, post-cardiopulmonary transplant, congestive heart failure, and more. Furthermore, factors like smoking, air pollution, or exercise before the test may also result in a positive bronchial challenge test.Question 10: What are the standardized requirements for the MCT report?The report should include: (1) basic information about the subject; (2) examination data and graphics: present baseline data, measurement data after the last two challenge doses or concentrations in tabular form, and the percentage of actual measured values compared to the baseline; flow-volume curve and volume-time curve before and after challenge test; dose-response curve: showing the threshold for positive challenge; (3) opinions and conclusions of the report: including the operator's opinions, quality rating of the examination, and review opinions of the reviewing physician.Question 11: What are the adverse reactions and safety measures of MCT?During the MCT, the subject needs to repeatedly breathe forcefully and inhale bronchial challenge agents, which may induce or exacerbate bronchospasm and contraction and may even cause life-threatening situations. Medical staff should be fully aware of the indications, contraindications, medication use procedures, and emergency response plans for the MCT.

Tobacco Exposure and Efficacy of Biologic Therapy in Patients With Severe Asthma: A Nationwide Study From the Danish Severe Asthma Register.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of biologics in severe, uncontrolled asthma have excluded patients with a cumulative tobacco exposure of more than 10 pack-years. Therefore, our knowledge of the impact of smoking exposure on the clinical effects of biologics in severe asthma remains incomplete. However, because many patients with asthma are current or former smokers, investigating the potential impacts of tobacco exposure on the effects of biologic treatment is clinically important. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of smoking history and tobacco exposure on the effectiveness of biologic therapy in real-life patients with severe asthma. METHODS: We used data from a complete nationwide cohort of patients with severe asthma who were receiving biologics, the Danish Severe Asthma Register. We divided patients according to smoking history and cumulative tobacco exposure and analyzed data at baseline and after 12 months of biologic treatment. RESULTS: A total of 724 bio-naive patients were identified in the Danish Severe Asthma Register, 398 of whom had never been smokers (55%), 316 were previous smokers (44%), and 10 were current smokers (1%). Within the group of current and former smokers, 37% had 1 to 9 pack-years of tobacco exposure, 26% had 10 to 19 pack-years, and 37% had 20 or more pack-years of tobacco exposure. Patients with tobacco exposure had similar reductions in the number of exacerbations, reductions in maintenance oral corticosteroid use, and improvements in asthma symptoms compared with patients with 0 pack-years. CONCLUSION: Former smoking history and lifetime tobacco exposure do not have an impact on the efficacy of biologics in patients with severe asthma.

Super-responder and clinical remission in patients with asthma on treatment with single biologic therapy or cycling therapy using dupilumab in a real-world setting.

BACKGROUND: Regarding the therapeutic target in asthma, super-responder status (SR) is a status without systemic corticosteroids. Recently, clinical remission (CR), being a status of prolonged absence of asthma symptoms without systemic corticosteroids and/or normal pulmonary function, has gained attention as a new therapeutic target in asthma. Here, we examined the percentage and features of asthma patients on treatment with dupilumab showing SR and CR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 49 asthma patients used subcutaneous dupilumab for > 1 year between April 2019 and November 2022. The status of SR and CR for 1 year was evaluated. Patients without any maintenance oral corticosteroids and exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids were classified as SR. CR was defined using three definitions based on changes in asthma symptoms and pulmonary function in addition to achieving SR for 1 year: CR without pulmonary function criteria (CR w/o F), fulfilment of asthma symptom improvement (asthma control questionnaire score < 0.75 or asthma control test score ≥ 23); and CR-70 or CR-80, pulmonary function improvement (%forced expiratory volume in 1 second ≥ 70% or ≥ 80%) in addition to achieving CR w/o F, respectively. RESULTS: 38 (77.6%), 22 (44.9%), 13 (26.5%), 12 (24.5%) of patients had SR, CR w/o F, CR-70, and CR-80, respectively. Severe eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis was significantly more found in patients with SR and CR based on all three definitions than in those without. CONCLUSION: This study identified the percentage and features of patients on treatment with dupilumab showing SR and CR in a real-world setting. The outcome beyond CR on biologic treatment should be clarified.

Online-merge-offline (OMO)-based music therapy for asthmatic children during the COVID-19 pandemic in China.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate online-merge-offline (OMO)-based music therapy (MT) as a complementary option for asthma management in pediatric patients. A total of 86 children diagnosed with mild asthma were enrolled and treated with the same drug therapy. They were assigned into three groups: Music I group (standard medical care plus a single individualized MT session along with singing training and breathing exercise), Music II group (similar as Music I as well as further wind instrument playing), and Control group (standard medical care). Primary endpoints included pulmonary function tests FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC, MMEF 75/25, and PEF, c-ACT, PAQLQ, and PACQLQ. After 6 months of continuous intervention of MT, significant differences in FEV1, FVC, MMEF75/25, PEF, c-ACT score, PAQLQ, PACQLQ (p < 0.001), and FEV1/FVC (p < 0.05) were observed among Music I, Music II, and Control groups. Besides, FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC, MMEF75/25, and PEF showed positive trends in Music I and Music II groups compared to those in Control group (p < 0.05). The c-ACT score of children was significantly increased in Music I (p < 0.001) and II (p < 0.001) groups in contrast with Control group. Children in Music I and II groups had better quality of life than those in Control group (PAQLQ, p < 0.001), and the parents in Music I and II groups also showed better quality of life than those in Control group (PACQLQ, p < 0.001).     Conclusion: As a child-friendly, low-risk, and convenient intervention, the OMO-based MT has a positive impact on pediatric asthma management during the COVID-19 pandemic. What is Known: • A few findings proved the positive effect of MT on pediatric asthma. What is New: • Our study further proving the validation and effectiveness of MT with OMO-based model on pediatric asthma, wind instrument playing has a greater impact on pediatric asthma control via small airways and might be recommended to mix to singing and breathing to improve effectiveness of MT for asthmatic children.

Treatable traits in asthma during pregnancy: a call for a shift towards a precision-based management approach.

Asthma is the most common chronic medical condition in pregnancy. Asthma exacerbations in pregnancy are unpredictable, and are associated with adverse maternal and fetal perinatal outcomes such as preterm birth and low birthweight. Goals of asthma management in pregnancy are to establish effective asthma control and prevent exacerbations. Optimising the management of asthma in pregnancy is an important goal of practice and future research.Treatable traits is a precision medicine paradigm proposed for the management of airways diseases, which holistically addresses the complexity and heterogeneity of airways disease. It is an individualised treatment approach that aims to improve outcomes. This makes treatable traits well suited for pregnant women with asthma, who have a high prevalence of obesity, mental health conditions, poor symptom perception and suboptimal asthma management skills including low treatment adherence. These traits are measurable and treatable. In this review, we explore current knowledge on the burden of asthma, maternal and perinatal consequences of asthma during pregnancy, the treatable traits paradigm, the prevalence of treatable traits in pregnant women with asthma, and consider how the treatable traits paradigm can be integrated into the management of asthma in pregnancy.

Circulating mast cell progenitors increase during natural birch pollen exposure in allergic asthma patients.

BACKGROUND: Mast cells (MCs) develop from a rare population of peripheral blood circulating MC progenitors (MCps). Here, we investigated whether the frequency of circulating MCps is altered in asthma patients sensitized to birch pollen during pollen season, compared to out of season. METHODS: Asthma patients were examined during birch pollen season in late April to early June (May), and out of season in November-January. Spirometry measurements, asthma and allergy-related symptoms, asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), and asthma control test (ACT) scores were assessed at both time points. The MCp frequency was determined by flow cytometry in ficoll-separated blood samples from patients with positive birch pollen-specific IgE, and analyzed in relation to basic and disease parameters. RESULTS: The frequency of MCps per liter of blood was higher in May than in November (p = .004), particularly in women (p = .009). Patients that reported moderate to severe asthma symptoms (<.0001), nose or eye symptoms (p = .02; p = .01), or reduced asthma control (higher ACQ, p = .01) had higher MCp frequency in May than those that did not report this. These associations remained significant after adjusting for sex and BMI. The change in asthma control to a lower ACT score in May correlated with an increase in MCp frequency in May (p = .006, rho = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that the frequency of MCps increases in symptomatic patients with allergic asthma. Our results unravel a link between asthma symptoms and circulating MCps, and bring new insight into the impact of natural allergen exposure on the expansion of MCs.

Personalised management and supporting individuals to live with their asthma in a primary care setting.

INTRODUCTION: Complementing recognition of biomedical phenotypes, a primary care approach to asthma care recognizes diversity of disease, health beliefs, and lifestyle at a population and individual level. AREAS COVERED: We review six aspects of personalized care particularly pertinent to primary care management of asthma: personalizing support for individuals living with asthma; targeting asthma care within populations; managing phenotypes of wheezy pre-school children; personalizing management to the individual; meeting individual preferences for provision of asthma care; optimizing digital approaches to enhance personalized care. EXPERT OPINION: In a primary care setting, personalized management and supporting individuals to live with asthma extend beyond the contemporary concepts of biological phenotypes and pharmacological 'treatable traits' to encompass evidence-based tailored support for self-management, and delivery of patient-centered care including motivational interviewing. It extends to how we organize clinical practiceand the choices provided in mode of consultation. Diagnostic uncertainty due to recognition of phenotypes of pre-school wheeze remains a challenge for primary care. Digital health can support personalized management, but there are concerns about increasing inequities. This broad approach reflects the traditionally holistic ethos of primary care ('knowing their patients and understanding their communities'), but the core concepts resonate with all healthcare.

Clinical standards for the diagnosis and management of asthma in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The aim of these clinical standards is to aid the diagnosis and management of asthma in low-resource settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).METHODS: A panel of 52 experts in the field of asthma in LMICs participated in a two-stage Delphi process to establish and reach a consensus on the clinical standards.RESULTS: Eighteen clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, Every individual with symptoms and signs compatible with asthma should undergo a clinical assessment; Standard 2, In individuals (>6 years) with a clinical assessment supportive of a diagnosis of asthma, a hand-held spirometry measurement should be used to confirm variable expiratory airflow limitation by demonstrating an acute response to a bronchodilator; Standard 3, Pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry should be performed in individuals (>6 years) to support diagnosis before treatment is commenced if there is diagnostic uncertainty; Standard 4, Individuals with an acute exacerbation of asthma and clinical signs of hypoxaemia or increased work of breathing should be given supplementary oxygen to maintain saturation at 94-98%; Standard 5, Inhaled short-acting beta-2 agonists (SABAs) should be used as an emergency reliever in individuals with asthma via an appropriate spacer device for metered-dose inhalers; Standard 6, Short-course oral corticosteroids should be administered in appropriate doses to individuals having moderate to severe acute asthma exacerbations (minimum 3-5 days); Standard 7, Individuals having a severe asthma exacerbation should receive emergency care, including oxygen therapy, systemic corticosteroids, inhaled bronchodilators (e.g., salbutamol with or without ipratropium bromide) and a single dose of intravenous magnesium sulphate should be considered; Standard 8, All individuals with asthma should receive education about asthma and a personalised action plan; Standard 9, Inhaled medications (excluding dry-powder devices) should be administered via an appropriate spacer device in both adults and children. Children aged 0-3 years will require the spacer to be coupled to a face mask; Standard 10, Children aged <5 years with asthma should receive a SABA as-needed at step 1 and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to cover periods of wheezing due to respiratory viral infections, and SABA as-needed and daily ICS from step 2 upwards; Standard 11, Children aged 6-11 years with asthma should receive an ICS taken whenever an inhaled SABA is used; Standard 12, All adolescents aged 12-18 years and adults with asthma should receive a combination inhaler (ICS and rapid onset of action long-acting beta-agonist [LABA] such as budesonide-formoterol), where available, to be used either as-needed (for mild asthma) or as both maintenance and reliever therapy, for moderate to severe asthma; Standard 13, Inhaled SABA alone for the management of patients aged >12 years is not recommended as it is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. It should only be used where there is no access to ICS.The following standards (14-18) are for settings where there is no access to inhaled medicines. Standard 14, Patients without access to corticosteroids should be provided with a single short course of emergency oral prednisolone; Standard 15, Oral SABA for symptomatic relief should be used only if no inhaled SABA is available. Adjust to the individual's lowest beneficial dose to minimise adverse effects; Standard 16, Oral leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) can be used as a preventive medication and is preferable to the use of long-term oral systemic corticosteroids; Standard 17, In exceptional circumstances, when there is a high risk of mortality from exacerbations, low-dose oral prednisolone daily or on alternate days may be considered on a case-by-case basis; Standard 18. Oral theophylline should be restricted for use in situations where it is the only bronchodilator treatment option available.CONCLUSION: These first consensus-based clinical standards for asthma management in LMICs are intended to help clinicians provide the most effective care for people in resource-limited settings.

Exercise Rehabilitation and Chronic Respiratory Diseases: Effects, Mechanisms, and Therapeutic Benefits.

Chronic respiratory diseases (CRD), is a group of disorders, primarily chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, which are characterized by high prevalence and disability, recurrent acute exacerbations, and multiple comorbidities, resulting in exercise limitations and reduced health-related quality of life. Exercise training, an important tool in pulmonary rehabilitation, reduces adverse symptoms in patients by relieving respiratory limitations, increasing gas exchange, increasing central and peripheral hemodynamic forces, and enhancing skeletal muscle function. Aerobic, resistance, and high-intensity intermittent exercises, and other emerging forms such as aquatic exercise and Tai Chi effectively improve exercise capacity, physical fitness, and pulmonary function in patients with CRD. The underlying mechanisms include enhancement of the body's immune response, better control of the inflammatory response, and acceleration of the interaction between the vagus and sympathetic nerves to improve gas exchange. Here, we reviewed the new evidence of benefits and mechanisms of exercise intervention in the pulmonary rehabilitation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchial asthma, bronchiectasis, interstitial lung disease, and lung cancer.

Benchmarking omics-based prediction of asthma development in children.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with high morbidity. Advancement in high-throughput multi-omics approaches has enabled the collection of molecular assessments at different layers, providing a complementary perspective of complex diseases. Numerous computational methods have been developed for the omics-based patient classification or disease outcome prediction. Yet, a systematic benchmarking of those methods using various combinations of omics data for the prediction of asthma development is still lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the computational methods in disease status prediction using multi-omics data. METHOD: We systematically benchmarked 18 computational methods using all the 63 combinations of six omics data (GWAS, miRNA, mRNA, microbiome, metabolome, DNA methylation) collected in The Vitamin D Antenatal Asthma Reduction Trial (VDAART) cohort. We evaluated each method using standard performance metrics for each of the 63 omics combinations. RESULTS: Our results indicate that overall Logistic Regression, Multi-Layer Perceptron, and MOGONET display superior performance, and the combination of transcriptional, genomic and microbiome data achieves the best prediction. Moreover, we find that including the clinical data can further improve the prediction performance for some but not all the omics combinations. CONCLUSIONS: Specific omics combinations can reach the optimal prediction of asthma development in children. And certain computational methods showed superior performance than other methods.

Factors to Consider in Prescribing Asthma Biologic Therapies to Children.

The increasing availability of biologics, both by expanding age indications and by development of new therapies, provides additional options to treat children and adolescents with severe asthma. However, the evidence for these biologics in these populations is limited compared with that for adult studies. As such, before initiation of therapy, possible alternative therapies that can also provide asthma control, confirmation of the diagnosis of asthma, management of comorbidities, and assessment of adherence should be explored. The choice of a biologic should be a shared decision-making process between providers and families, balancing biologic efficacy, goals of care, administration, and ability to treat multiple conditions. Response to treatment should be periodically evaluated not only to ensure an ineffective treatment is not continued but also to consider when to potentially discontinue therapy should it be beneficial. The utilization of biologics in children and adolescents with severe asthma also leads to unanswered questions on their role in disease remission and long-term outcomes.

Furan fatty acid metabolite in newborns predicts risk of asthma.

BACKGROUND: Intake of fish-oil and fatty fish during pregnancy has been shown to reduce the risk of childhood asthma but biomarkers of such intake are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To establish biomarkers of prenatal fish-oil exposure from newborn dry blood spot metabolomics profiles and assess their relevance for childhood asthma risk stratification. METHODS: The Danish COPSAC2010 mother-child cohort was utilized to investigate the effect of a double-blinded randomized controlled trial of fish-oil supplementation during pregnancy on dry blood spot liquid-chromatography mass spectrometry-based metabolomics profiles of 677 newborns. We thereafter investigated the association between fish-oil associated biomarkers in the newborn and development of asthma-related outcomes. Replication was sought in the independent observational COPSAC2000 cohort with 387 newborn metabolomics profiles. RESULTS: The newborn metabolomics profiles differed between children in the fish-oil vs. placebo group in COPSAC2010 (area under the receiver operator curve = 0.94 ± 0.03, p < .001). The fish-oil metabolomics profile and the top biomarker, 3-carboxy-4-methyl-5-propyl-2-furan propanoic acid (CMPF) were both associated with a decreased risk of asthma by age 6 years (HR = 0.89, p = .002 and HR = 0.67, p = .005, respectively). In COPSAC2000 , newborn CMPF level was also inversely associated with asthma risk by age 6 years (HR = 0.69, p = .01). Troublesome lung symptoms and common infections in the first 3 years were also inversely associated with newborn CMPF levels in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Newborn children's blood levels of the furan fatty acid metabolite CMPF reflect fish-oil and fatty fish intake during pregnancy and are associated with a lower risk of asthma across two cohorts, which could aid newborn screening for childhood asthma.

Sanfu herbal patch applied at acupoints in patients with bronchial asthma: statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sanfu herbal patch (SHP) is widely used in the prevention and treatment of bronchial asthma in China, but its efficacy and mechanism of action are not completely clear. This trial aims to determine the efficacy of SHP and the underlying mechanism. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a multi-centre parallel randomised controlled trial consisting of 72 participants with bronchial asthma recruited and randomly allocated at a ratio of 1:1 into two groups. The patients in one group will receive three courses of SHP treatment, and the patients in the other group will receive placebo treatment, with 24 weeks of follow-up evaluation for both groups. The primary outcome, i.e. forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), which refers to the change in FEV1 from the beginning of the baseline to the end of 3 treatment sessions (TSs), will be assessed and compared via Student's t test or the Mann-Whitney U test. Other outcomes will include questionnaire surveys and laboratory indicators. Detailed and complete statistical analyses in a double-blinded fashion will be provided for evaluating this trial. DISCUSSION: The data we obtain will be examined based on the above statistical analysis, which will help to reduce the risk of external reporting bias and data-driven results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn ), ChiCTR1900024616. Registered on 19 July 2019.

Effects of treatment with montelukast alone, budesonide/formoterol alone and a combination of both in cough variant asthma.

BACKGROUND: Whether cysteinyl-leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) have a similar antitussive effect to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA), and that LTRA plus ICS/LABA is superior to LTRAs alone or ICS/LABA alone in treating cough variant asthma (CVA) remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy of montelukast alone, budesonide/formoterol alone and the combination of both in the treatment of CVA. METHODS: Ninety-nine CVA patients were assigned randomly in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive montelukast (M group: 10 mg, once daily), budesonide/formoterol (BF group: 160/4.5 µg, one puff, twice daily), or montelukast plus budesonide/formoterol (MBF group) for 8 weeks. The primary outcomes were changes in the cough visual analogue scale (VAS) score, daytime cough symptom score (CSS) and night-time CSS, and the secondary outcomes comprised changes in cough reflex sensitivity (CRS), the percentage of sputum eosinophils (sputum Eos%) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). CRS was presented with the lowest concentration of capsaicin that induced at least 5 coughs (C5). The repeated measure was used in data analysis. RESULTS: The median cough VAS score (median from 6.0 to 2.0 in the M group, 5.0 to 1.0 in the BF group and 6.0 to 1.0 in the MBF group, all p < 0.001), daytime CSS (all p < 0.01) and night-time CSS (all p < 0.001) decreased significantly in all three groups after treatment for 8 weeks. Meanwhile, the LogC5 and sputum Eos% improved significantly in all three groups after 8 weeks treatment (all p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the changes of the VAS score, daytime and night-time CSSs, LogC5 and sputum Eos% among the three groups from baseline to week 8 (all p > 0.05). The BF and MBF groups also showed significant decreases in FeNO after 8 weeks treatment (p = 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively), while no significant change was found in the M group (p = 0.457). Treatment with MBF for 8 weeks significantly improved the FEV1/FVC as well as the MMEF% pred and decreased the blood Eos% (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Montelukast alone, budesonide/formoterol alone and a combination of both were effective in improving cough symptom, decreasing cough reflex sensitivity and alleviating eosinophilic airway inflammation in patients with CVA, and the antitussive effect and anti-eosinophilic airway inflammation were similar. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01404013.

Pollen sensitization among Egyptian patients with respiratory allergic diseases.

Pollen is responsible for seasonal allergies, such as allergic rhino-conjunctivitis (AR), and has become a growing public health concern. Climate change affects the range of allergenic species as well as the timing and length of the pollen season. In Egypt, data on pollinosis are scarce. This study aimed to identify the most prevalent pollen causing allergies among Egyptian patients with respiratory allergies. A total of 200 patients with respiratory allergic diseases, allergic rhinitis and/or bronchial asthma (BA), were included. Medical history taking and physical examinations were conducted on each patient. Complete blood count (CBC), total immunoglobulin E (IgE) determination, spirometry, specific IgE, and skin prick tests (SPTs) for common aeroallergens and food were performed. Of the 200 patients, 106 (53%) were females. The age of study subjects ranged 16-66 years (mean ± SD, 34.42 ± 13.0), and 65% were living in urban areas. Grass pollen, mainly from Timothy grass and maize, were the most prevalent allergens (28.5%). Timothy grass was the most common type of pollen in patients with AR (28.3 %). Elder pollen was more prevalent among asthmatic patients (P = 0.004). Bermuda grass was statistically more prevalent in rural than in urban areas (P = 0.008). Maize was linked to uncontrolled BA, whereas Timothy grass was the most prevalent among patients with moderate/severe AR. Forty-three patients had oral allergy syndrome; oranges and tomatoes were the most cross-reactive food allergies (12% and 11.5%, respectively). Exacerbation of allergic symptoms was noted during January, December, March, and June. In conclusion, pollen plays a substantial role in affecting patients with respiratory allergies in Egypt. Grass pollen is the most prevalent type of pollen, especially in urban areas.

Clinical implications of asthma endotypes and phenotypes.

Background: Asthma is a complex disorder with variable clinical expression. Recognizable clinical and laboratory features define phenotypes, and specific biologic pathways define endotypes. Identifying the specific pathway responsible for persistent asthma would enable the clinician to select the optimal inhibitors, which currently are biologic therapies. Objective: To provide an up-to-date review of the current clinical status of endotype and phenotype characterizations of asthma and discuss these categories in relation to the available, or likely available, biologic therapies for asthma. Methods: The medical literature was reviewed based on the search terms: asthma biologics, severe asthma, uncontrolled asthma, corticosteroid-dependent asthma, phenotype, endotype, and type 2. We also used our knowledge of the literature and current research. Results: All of the current biologics, including the recently approved tezepelumab, were most effective with increased type 2 biomarkers, which identify exacerbation-prone asthma. Current biomarkers do not permit consistent identification of specific endotypes to facilitate informed selection of the optimal therapy for an individual patient. Thus, empiricism and the art of care continue to play major roles in treatment selection. Conclusion: Current biologic therapies for asthma and those likely to be U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved within the near future work best in subjects with strong type 2 signatures. Available biomarkers and observable characteristics do not enable clinicians to recognize specific endotypes, but rather subphenotypes or overlapping endotypes. The goal of identifying the optimal patient for a specific therapy remains elusive, but worthy of pursuit. In the interim, the availability of an increasing number of treatment options allows the clinician to help most of his or her patients.

Targeted AntiBiotics for Chronic pulmonary diseases (TARGET ABC): can targeted antibiotic therapy improve the prognosis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa-infected patients with chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, and asthma? A multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection is seen in chronic pulmonary disease and is associated with exacerbations and poor long-term prognosis. However, evidence-based guidelines for the management and treatment of P. aeruginosa infection in chronic, non-cystic fibrosis (CF) pulmonary disease are lacking. The aim of this study is to investigate whether targeted antibiotic treatment against P. aeruginosa can reduce exacerbations and mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), non-CF bronchiectasis, and asthma. METHODS: This study is an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label trial. A total of 150 patients with COPD, non-CF bronchiectasis or asthma, and P. aeruginosa-positive lower respiratory tract samples will be randomly assigned with a 1:1 ratio to either no antibiotic treatment or anti-pseudomonal antibiotic treatment with intravenous beta-lactam and oral ciprofloxacin for 14 days. The primary outcome, analyzed with two co-primary endpoints, is (i) time to prednisolone and/or antibiotic requiring exacerbation or death, in the primary or secondary health sector, within days 20-365 from study allocation and (ii) days alive and without exacerbation within days 20-365 from the study allocation. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine whether targeted antibiotics can benefit future patients with chronic, non-CF pulmonary disease and P. aeruginosa infection in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality, thus optimizing therapeutic approaches in this large group of chronic patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03262142 . Registered on August 25, 2017.