4.1 Article

Difference in systemic inflammation and predictors of acute exacerbation between smoking-associated COPD and tuberculosis-associated COPD

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S177371

关键词

COPD; tobacco smoke; tuberculosis; biomarker; inflammation; exacerbation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Tuberculosis-associated COPD (T-COPD) has clinical characteristics similar to those of smoking-associated COPD (S-COPD), such as dyspnea, sputum production, and acute exacerbation (AE). However, the degree of systemic inflammation and prognosis might be different because of difference in the pathophysiology. The aim of this study was to compare the lung function, systemic inflammatory markers, and their impacts on AE in patients with S-COPD and T-COPD. Patients and methods: We performed a multicenter cross-sectional cohort study. We evaluated clinical characteristics, pulmonary function tests, levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and IL-6, and the association of these markers with Au in patients with S-COPD and T-COPD. Results: Patients with T-COPD included more women and had lesser smoking history and higher St George Respiratory Questionnaire score than did patients with S-COPD. Although the FEV1 of both groups was similar, FVC, vital capacity, total lung capacity, and functional residual capacity were lower in patients with T-COPD than in those with S-COPD. CRP, ESR, and IL-6 levels were significantly higher in patients with T-COPD compared to patients with S-COPD. According to a multivariate logistic regression analysis, FEV1 was a significant factor predicting AE in S-COPD, and IL-6 was a significant factor predicting AE in T-COPD. IL-6 level greater than 2.04 pg/mL was a cutoff for predicting exacerbation of T-COPD (sensitivity 84.8%, specificity 59.3%, P<0.001). Conclusion: Patients with T-COPD have higher levels of inflammatory markers, and IL-6 has a predictive value for AE in T-COPD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据