TY - JOUR T1 - Blood eosinophils as a predictor of treatment response in adults with difficult-to-treat chronic cough JF - ERJ Open Research JO - erjor DO - 10.1183/23120541.00432-2021 SP - 00432-2021 AU - Aleksandra Rybka-Fraczek AU - Marta Dabrowska AU - Elzbieta M. Grabczak AU - Katarzyna Bialek-Gosk AU - Karolina Klimowicz AU - Olga Truba AU - Patrycja Nejman-Gryz AU - Magdalena Paplinska-Goryca AU - Rafal Krenke Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://openres.ersjournals.com/content/early/2021/09/16/23120541.00432-2021.abstract N2 - There is lack of evidence on the role of blood eosinophil count (BEC) as a predictor of treatment response in patients with chronic cough (CC). The study aimed to evaluate BEC as a predictor of treatment response in all non-smoking adults with CC and normal chest X-ray referred to cough clinic and in subgroup of patients with CC due to asthma or NAEB (non-asthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis).This prospective cohort study included 142 consecutive, non-smoking patients referred to our cough centre due to CC. The management of CC was performed according to the current recommendations. At least a 30 mm decrease of 100-mm visual analogue scale in cough severity and a 1.3 points improvement in Leicester Cough Questionnaire were classified as a good therapeutic response.There was a predominance of females (72.5%), median age 57.5 years with long-lasting, severe cough (median cough duration 60 months, severity 55/100 mm). Asthma, NAEB were diagnosed in 47.2% and 4.9% of patients, respectively. After 12–16 weeks of therapy, a good response to CC treatment was found in 31.0% of all patients. A weak positive correlation was demonstrated between reduction in cough severity and BEC (r=0.28, p<0.001). AUC for all patients with CC was 0.62 with the optimal BEC cut-off for prediction of treatment response set at 237 cells·µL−1 and for patients with CC due to asthma/NAEB was 0.68 (95% CI 0.55–0.81) with the cut-off at 150 cells·µL−1.BEC is a poor predictor of treatment response in adults with CC treated in the cough centre.FootnotesThis manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.Conflict of interest: Dr. Aleksandra Rybka-Fraczek reports personal fees from Polpharma, outside the submitted work.Conflict of interest: Dr. Marta Dabrowska reports personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work; .Conflict of interest: Dr. Elzbieta M. Grabczak reports personal fees from Polpharma, personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work; .Conflict of interest: Dr. Katarzyna Bialek-Gosk has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Karolina Klimowicz has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Olga Truba has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Patrycja Nejman-Gryz has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Magdalena Paplinska-Goryca has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Rafal Krenke reports grants from National Science Centre, Poland (grant No 2012/05/B/NZ5/01343), during the conduct of the study; other from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and other from Chiesi, grants and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Polpharma, outside the submitted work; . ER -