Azithromycin for sarcoidosis cough: an open label exploratory clinical trial

Background Chronic cough is a distressing symptom for many people with pulmonary sarcoidosis. Continuous treatment with a macrolide antibiotic may improve cough. We aimed to assess the potential efficacy of azithromycin in patients with sarcoidosis and self-reported cough.Methods We did a non-controlled, open label clinical trial of azithromycin 250 mg once daily for 3 months in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis who reported a chronic cough. The primary outcome was number of coughs in 24 h. Secondary outcomes were cough visual analog scales and quality of life measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and King's Sarcoidosis Questionnaire. Safety outcomes included QTc interval on ECG. Measurements were made at baseline and after one and 3 months of treatment.Results All 21 patients were white, median age 57 years, 9 males/12 females, median 3 years since diagnosis. Five were taking oral corticosteroids and none were taking other immunosuppressants. Twenty patients completed the trial. The median (range) number of coughs in 24 h was 228 (43–1950) at baseline, 122 (20–704) at 1 month, and 81 (16–414) at 3 months (p=0.002, Friedman's test). The median reduction in cough count at 3 months was 49.6%. There were improvements in all patient-reported outcomes. Azithromycin was well tolerated.Conclusion In a non-controlled open-label trial in people with sarcoidosis who reported a chronic cough, 3 months of treatment with azithromycin led to improvements in a range of cough metrics. Azithromycin should be tested as a treatment for sarcoidosis cough in a randomised placebo-controlled trial

Quantifying chronic cough: Objective versus subjective measurements

Background and objective: The assessment of chronic cough has been improved by the development of objective ambulatory cough monitoring systems and subjective quality of life questionnaires. Experimental induction of cough is a useful tool in the assessment of the cough reflex. We wanted to assess the reproducibility of and association between these measurements. Methods: This was a prospective observational study in patients with chronic cough of greater than 6 months' duration. All patients had an initial 24-h cough recording. They also completed a Leicester Cough Questionnaire, a Symptom Assessment Score, a Visual Analogue Score for cough and had a capsaicin cough challenge performed. They were reviewed at 8 weeks when all assessments were repeated. Results: Twenty-five patients (15 women) with a mean age of 54 years were included in the study. The median cough count at the second visit (302) was significantly lower compared to the first visit (381, P < 0.01). However, the cough counts at both the visits correlated well (r = 0.9, P < 0.01). All the other forms of assessment were found to be highly reproducible at 8 weeks (r = 0.6-0.9, P < 0.01). Cough counts correlated well with the other forms of assessment (r = 0.4-0.6, P < 0.01). There was good correlation between each of the subjective forms of assessment (r = 0.6, P < 0.01). Conclusions: The various forms of assessment of cough are reproducible. Cough counting correlates well with subjective assessment of cough and cough reflex sensitivity. It appears to lie between these latter two assessments of cough and may represent the best global objective synthesis of cough. In this study we look at the reproducibility and the association between objective cough counting, subjective cough questionnaires and experimental induction of cough. We demonstrate that the various forms of assessment of cough are reproducible. Cough counting correlates well with subjective assessment of cough and cough reflex sensitivity. © 2011 Asian Pacific Society of Respirology