Log In Sign up
The largest database of trusted experimental protocols
> Chemicals & Drugs > Organic Chemical > Fluticasone

Fluticasone

Fluticasone is a synthetic corticosteroid used to treat asthma, allergic rhinitis, and other respiratory conditions.
It works by reducing inflammation and swelling in the airways, making it easier to breathe.
Fluticasone is availabe in various formulations, including inhalers, nasal sprays, and creams.
It is generally well-tolerated, but can causse side effects like oral thrush, hoarseness, and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.
Careful dosing and monitoring by a healthcare provider is important for the safe and effective use of fluticasone.
Reasearchers can optimize their fluticasone studies using PubCompare.ai's AI-driven literature analysis to enhance reproducibility and accruacy.

Most cited protocols related to «Fluticasone»

1
Retrospective Cohort Analysis of EoE Therapies
Cited 21 times
We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients at University of North Carolina (UNC) Hospitals from 2006–2013. Patients of any age with EoE were identified from the UNC EoE Clinicopathologic Database.[12 (link), 13 (link)] For inclusion, patients had to have EoE by consensus guidelines, including failure to respond to a PPI trial;[1 (link)–3 (link)] undergo treatment with swallowed topical corticosteroids (tCS) or dietary therapy; and have a follow up endoscopy with biopsy. Treatment with tCS consisted of either budesonide (0.5–1 mg twice daily, depending on patient age)[14 (link), 15 (link)] or fluticasone (440–880 mcg twice daily, depending on patient age).[16 (link)–18 (link)] Dietary therapy consisted of six food elimination diets or targeted elimination diets.[19 (link)–21 (link)] Patients were treated with either tCS or dietary elimination for approximately 8 weeks prior to reassessment with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). For patients undergoing serial therapeutic trials of pharmacologic treatment modalities (for example fluticasone followed by budesonide), the results from the trial resulting in the lowest post-treatment eosinophil count were used for analysis. For patients undergoing sequential trials of dietary and steroid therapy (for example, dietary therapy after steroid therapy had failed), each therapeutic outcome was included. When a patient had outcomes for both dietary and steroid therapy, the eosinophil count from the diagnostic pre-treatment EGD was used to determine the percentage change in eosinophils.
Data were abstracted from the UNC electronic medical record. Using standardized data collection tools, we recorded patient demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, baseline and follow-up endoscopy findings, baseline and follow-up eosinophil counts on esophageal biopsy, and therapeutic regimen. Pre- and post-treatment eosinophil counts were recorded as the maximum number of eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf; hpf size = 0.24mm2) from pathologist review. Treatment outcomes were defined as follows: symptom response (dichotomous patient-reported subjective improvement [yes/no]); endoscopic response (dichotomous endoscopist-reported assessment of improvement [yes/no]), and both symptom and endoscopic response.
Wolf W.A., Cotton C.C., Green D.J., Hughes J.T., Woosley J.T., Shaheen N.J, & Dellon E.S. (2015). Evaluation of Histologic Cutpoints for Treatment Response in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology research, 4(10), 1780-1787.
Publication 2015
Administration, Topical Adrenal Cortex Hormones Biopsy Budesonide Diagnosis Diet Elimination Diets Endoscopy Eosinophil Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Fluticasone Food Pathologists Patients Steroids Treatment Protocols
2
Severe Asthma Research Protocol
Cited 18 times

Protocol full text hidden due to copyright restrictions

Open the protocol to access the free full text link

Publication 2017
Adrenal Cortex Hormones Albuterol Allergens Asthma BLOOD Child Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees Fluticasone Methacholine Minority Groups Oxide, Nitric Pharmaceutical Preparations Physical Examination Signs, Vital Smokers, Tobacco Spirometry Sputum Therapeutics Woman
3
Prospective Cohort Study of Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Cited 9 times
We conducted a prospective cohort study at University of North Carolina from July, 2011 through December, 2013. Consecutive adult patients (age 18-80 years) undergoing routine outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were approached if they had upper GI symptoms suggestive of esophageal dysfunction (e.g. dysphagia, food impaction, heartburn, reflux, chest pain). Subjects provided informed consent, including consent for future use of stored specimens, and were enrolled prior to the endoscopy. Subjects were excluded if they had a known (prevalent) diagnosis of EoE or a different eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder (EGID), GI bleeding, active anticoagulation, known esophageal cancer, prior esophageal surgery, known esophageal varices, medical instability or multiple comorbidities precluding enrollment in the clinical opinion of the endoscopist, or inability to read or understand the consent form. This study was approved by the UNC Institutional Review Board and registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01988285).
Cases were diagnosed with EoE if they met consensus guidelines (1 (link)-3 (link)). Specifically, they were required to have at least one typical symptom of esophageal dysfunction; at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) on esophageal biopsy persisting after an 8 week PPI trial (20-40 mg twice daily of any of the available agents, prescribed at the discretion of the clinician); and other causes of esophageal eosinophilia excluded. Of note, baseline data for the EoE cases were obtained after the PPI trial, at the time of the confirmatory EGD, but prior to receiving the histologic results confirming the diagnosis or provision of EoE-specific treatment, so as to minimize potential recall bias. Controls were subjects who, after endoscopy and biopsy, did not meet clinical or histologic criteria for EoE. Subjects with PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE) were not included in this study.
Clinical data were collected using a standardized case report form. Items recorded included demographics, symptoms, concomitant atopic diseases, indications for endoscopy, and endoscopic findings. Food allergy data was collected by patient self-report on a prospectively administered questionnaire, and could therefore include both food allergies and sensitizations. Systematic allergy testing was not a component of this study. During endoscopy, research-protocol esophageal biopsies were obtained (two from the proximal, one from the mid, and two from the distal esophagus) to maximize EoE diagnostic sensitivity (30 (link), 31 ). Gastric and duodenal biopsies were also collected for research purposes to exclude concomitant eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Additional clinical biopsies were taken as indicated at the discretion of the endoscopist. Esophageal eosinophil counts were quantified by the study pathologists using our previously validated methods (32 (link)). In brief, slides were masked to case/control status, digitized, and reviewed with Aperio ImageScope (Aperio Technologies, Vista, CA). Five microscopy fields from each of the five biopsies were examined to determine the maximum eosinophil density (eosinophils/mm2 [eos/mm2]). So results could be compared to prior studies, eosinophil density was converted to an eosinophil count (eos/hpf) using a hpf size of 0.24 mm2, the most commonly reported field size in the literature (33 (link)).
EoE cases were treated for 8 weeks as clinically indicated with topical corticosteroids (either oval viscous budesonide 1 mg twice daily or fluticasone from a multi-dose inhaler, 880 mcg twice daily) (34 (link)-36 (link)). At the end of the treatment period, repeat upper endoscopy with biopsy was performed, with collection of a second set of blood and tissue samples as noted above. A second blood sample was also collected for a subset of control subjects at least 2 months after baseline samples were collected to assess for stability in biomarkers over time.
Dellon E.S., Rusin S., Gebhart J.H., Covey S., Higgins L.L., Beitia R., Speck O., Woodward K., Woosley J.T, & Shaheen N.J. (2015). Utility of a non-invasive serum biomarker panel for diagnosis and monitoring of eosinophilic esophagitis: A prospective study. The American journal of gastroenterology, 110(6), 821-827.
Publication 2015
Adrenal Cortex Hormones Adult Biological Markers Biopsy BLOOD Budesonide Chest Pain concomitant disease Deglutition Disorders Diagnosis Duodenum Endoscopy Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Eosinophilia Eosinophilic gastroenteritis Esophageal Diseases Esophageal Neoplasms Esophageal Varices Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Esophagus Ethics Committees, Research Fluticasone Food Food Allergy Heartburn Hypersensitivity Impacted Tooth Inhaler Mental Recall Microscopy Operative Surgical Procedures Outpatients Pathologists Patients Stomach Tissues Viscosity
4
Prospective Cohort Study of Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Cited 8 times
We conducted an analysis of a prospective cohort study at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from 2009–2014 enrolling consecutive adults undergoing outpatient EGD. The University of North Carolina institutional review board approved this study. Full details of the study design and conduct have been previously reported.19 (link),23 (link)–25 (link) Incident cases of EoE were diagnosed per consensus guidelines.2 (link),3 Specifically, they were required to have symptoms of dysphagia and at least 15 eosinophils per high-powered field (hpf area = 0.24mm2) on oesophageal biopsy after a high-dose, eight week proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) trial to exclude PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia; other local and systemic causes of eosinophilia also had to be excluded.
After diagnosis, EoE patients were treated at the discretion of their gastroenterologist with swallowed topical steroids (either fluticasone 880 mcg twice daily or oral viscous budesonide 1 mg twice daily) or dietary elimination (six food elimination diet) for 8 weeks and had repeat endoscopy with biopsy. During both the baseline and post-treatment endoscopies, a total of 5 research protocol biopsies were obtained from the distal, mid, and proximal oesophagus (3, 8, and 13 cm, respectively, above the gastro-oesophageal junction) for determination of eosinophil counts. Eosinophil counts were quantified using a previously validated protocol.26 At baseline and follow-up, clinical and endoscopic data were collected using standardized case report forms. Symptoms were measured using three instruments: VAS, LS, and MDQ. For the VAS, patients were asked to place a mark on a 10 cm line to answer the question, “How bad, on average, has your swallowing difficulty been over the past 30 days”. The VAS was anchored at 0 with “no trouble swallowing” and at 10 with “unable to even swallow saliva”. The mark was then measured in mm to provide the VAS score. For the LS, patients were asked, “In the past 30 days, how would you rate the severity of your trouble swallowing” on a 10 point scale. The LS was anchored at 0 with “not at all severe” and at 10 with “very severe.” The MDQ is a 28 item instrument with 17 questions focused on dysphagia which has been validated to measure dysphagia severity in patients with peptic strictures; we used the 30 day recall version.21 ,22 (link) We selected the MDQ because we needed a measure of dysphagia and at the time this study was designed and started (2008-2009) there were no validated EoE symptom metrics for adults with EoE; the MDQ was felt to add content validity to the study. The score is calculated with a subset of 5 questions specifically assessing dysphagia severity and eating behavior modification to a number of foods and consistencies. The score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing more severe dysphagia.
For analysis, the primary outcome was the percentage change of the three symptom scores between baseline and post-treatment measurements. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to test the association between symptom scores. The Wilcoxon sign-rank test was used to compare baseline and follow-up eosinophil counts and symptom scores. Wilcoxon rank sums were used to assess the relationship in symptom scores between treatment responders (<15 eos/hpf) and non-responders (≥15 eos/hpf). We also performed a sub-analysis restricting the population to those who did not undergo esophageal dilation at baseline, as this could contribute to discordance between histologic and symptom response.27 –29 (link) Specifically, if patients were dilated and their stricture was improved, they may have had a symptom response regardless of whether they have a histologic response. Normally distributed continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation; non-normal continuous variables are presented as median with associated intra-quartile range (IQR). Analysis was performed with Stata 14.1.
Reed C.C., Wolf W.A., Cotton C.C, & Dellon E.S. (2017). A Visual Analogue Scale and a Likert Scale are Simple and Responsive Tools for Assessing Dysphagia in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 45(11), 1443-1448.
Publication 2017
Adult Biopsy Budesonide Deglutition Disorders Diagnosis Diet Digestion Elimination Diets Endoscopy Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Eosinophilia Esophagogastric Junction Esophagus Ethics Committees, Research Feeding Behaviors Feelings Fluticasone Food Gastroenterologist Mental Recall Outpatients Pathological Dilatation Patients Proton Pump Inhibitors Saliva Stenosis Steroids Viscosity
5
Comparing Self-Reported and Pharmacy-Recorded Drug Use
Cited 7 times
The linked information relevant to this study consisted of anonymized identifier codes, ATC codes, dispensing dates, date of entry in the IADB database, sex and age at the time of the first visit at entry to the cohort. The very first interview with the Lifelines Cohort Study participant was considered the baseline measurement and only the data of the baseline measurements (entry period) were used in the comparison of the two databases.
All drugs grouped at a second level of ATC coding were examined in the study. Besides the second level ATC codes, some specific drugs at the chemical level were included in the study. A top list of the several most commonly used drugs in the Netherlands including omeprazole, psylla seeds, macrogol, calcium, hydrochlorothiazide, metoprolol, enalapril, simvastatin, ketoconazole, triamcinolone, clobetasol, levothyroxine, oxazepam, temazepam, paroxetine, fluticasone, mometasone, salbutamol, salmeterol/fluticasone, desloratadine, artificial tears, carbasalate ca., diclofenac and ibuprofen was also examined.
The program SQL Server was used to compare the records of drugs for each participant. The acquired data was then categorized in true positives, true negatives, false positives (FPs) and false negatives (FNs). These values were given in cross-tables, which were used to calculate the concordance. Each of the four cells in these cross-tables were required to have at least 5 participants. If the number of participants was lower than 5 in one or more cells, the drug group or specific drug was disregarded.
In order to address the possible underlying cause of a low agreement, the FNs and FPs were examined. Over-reporting represents the number of FPs. This means that a number of participants reported the use of a certain drug group, while at the same time the prescription was not registered in the pharmacy records. On the other hand, under-reporting represents the number of FNs. This means that the participants did not report the use of a certain drug group, while at the same time the prescription was registered in the pharmacy records. If a drug group or specific drug showed a poor agreement and at the same time a high over-reporting, it could indicate that the database with the self-reported data is better capable in recording the use of this specific drug (or drug group).
Sediq R., van der Schans J., Dotinga A., Alingh R.A., Wilffert B., Bos J.H., Schuiling-Veninga C.C, & Hak E. (2018). Concordance assessment of self-reported medication use in the Netherlands three-generation Lifelines Cohort study with the pharmacy database iaDB.nl: The PharmLines initiative. Clinical Epidemiology, 10, 981-989.
Publication 2018
Albuterol Calcium, Dietary Cells Clobetasol desloratadine Diclofenac Enalapril Fluticasone Fluticasone Salmeterol Hydrochlorothiazide Ibuprofen Ketoconazole Lubricant Eye Drops Metoprolol Mometasone Omeprazole Oxazepam Paroxetine Pharmaceutical Preparations Plant Embryos Polyethylene Glycols Simvastatin Temazepam Thyroxine Triamcinolone

Most recents protocols related to «Fluticasone»

1
Comprehensive Airway Pharmacotherapy Assessment
All available EMRs were searched to document the details of any type or combination of airway directed inhaled pharmacotherapy prescribed, more specifically—SABA (salbutamol); SAMA (ipratropium); LABA (formaterol, indacaterol, olodaterol, salmeterol, vilanterol); LAMA (aclidinium, glycopyronium, tiotropium, umeclidinium) and ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, fluticasone). If the patients were identified to have been prescribed multiple/change in similar class of inhaled pharmacotherapy during the study period, the most recent/last prescribed type of therapy was included in the analysis. Patients inhaled pharmacotherapy use was defined as:
Heraganahally S., Howarth T.P., Issac S., Lloyd A., Ravichandran S.J., Abeyaratne A, & Patel B. (2023). Exploring the appropriateness of prescribing practice of inhaled pharmacotherapy among Aboriginal Australians in the Top End Northern Territory of Australia: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 10(1), e001508.
Publication 2023
Albuterol Beclomethasone Budesonide Fluticasone indacaterol Ipratropium olodaterol Patients Pharmacotherapy Salmeterol Therapeutics Tiotropium umeclidinium vilanterol
2
Asthma Exacerbations in Urban Children
We performed a retrospective analysis of data from a prospective observational cohort study (MUPPITS1)17 (link) and validated our findings with data from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in an independent cohort (ICATA).18 (link)The MUPPITS1 study was a longitudinal observational study of 208 children with exacerbation-prone asthma in low-income urban centres, who were followed up between 2015 and 2017 for respiratory illnesses. This study has previously been described elsewhere.17 (link) Briefly, participants were recruited between Oct 7, 2015, and Oct 18, 2016, across hospital clinics in major urban areas in nine US cities. An individual was eligible for enrolment if they were aged 6–17 years; were diagnosed with asthma by a clinician more than 1 year before recruitment; had at least two asthma exacerbations (ie, required systemic corti costeroids or hospital admission, or both) in the year before recruitment; were treated with at least one puff of fluticasone 250 μg twice daily, or its equivalent for children aged 6–11 years, or treated with at least one puff of fluticasone 250 μg plus salmeterol 50 μg twice daily, or its equivalent for children aged 12 years and older; had more than or equal to 150 peripheral blood eosinophils per mm3; did not smoke; and lived in a census tract with a density of more than or equal to 1000 families per square mile and with at least 10% of families with income below the poverty level (based on American Community Survey data19 ). Participants were identified for recruitment through the Registry for Asthma Characterization and Recruitment 2 and site-approved recruitment sources (NCT02513264). Participants were followed up prospectively for up to two respiratory illnesses or approximately 6 months, whichever occurred first. Participants who reported a respiratory illness were asked to return to the clinic twice in the 6-day period after the start of symptoms for collection of nasal samples and pulmonary function testing. Each illness was defined as a viral (V+) or non-viral (V–) event on the basis of virological assessment of the first nasal blow sample by use of the Luminex Respiratory Viral Panel (Luminex, Austin, TX, USA), with (Ex+) or without an asthma exacerbation (Ex–) on the basis of whether the participant was treated with systemic corticosteroids within 10 days following the onset of the respiratory event or not (appendix p 11). The last study visit occurred on Jan 6, 2017.
The ICATA study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of omalizumab conducted from 2006 to 2009 in 419 inner-city children, adolescents, and young adults (ie, aged 6–20 years) with persistent allergic asthma, as previously described.18 (link) Briefly, participants were enrolled between Oct 23, 2006, and March 25, 2008, across hospital clinics in major urban areas in eight US cities. An individual was eligible for enrolment if they were aged 6–20 years; were diagnosed with asthma by a clinician more than a year before recruitment or diagnosed with asthma and had symptoms for longer than 1 year; had bodyweight and total serum IgE suitable for omalizumab dosing and a positive skin-prick test to at least one perennial allergen; did not smoke; and lived in a census tract with a density of more than or equal to 1000 families per square mile with and at least 10% of families with income below the poverty level. In an exploratory substudy of 189 of 419 participants in four of eight US cities (ie, New York, NY, Chicago, IL, Dallas, TX, and Cleveland, OH), 100 nasal samples were collected within 7 days of the onset of an asthma exacerbation (ie, required systemic corticosteroids; Ex+) and 165 nasal samples were collected at study week 48 in the absence of an exacerbation. The last study visit occurred on Dec 30, 2009. The nasal samples were used for virological assessment by use of the Eragen Multi-Code Respiratory Virus Panel (Eragen Biosciences, Madison, WI, USA) and defined as V+ or V–(appendix pp 12–13).
In this analysis, we included participants from the MUPPITS1 cohort who reported a respiratory event at some point during the follow-up and participants from the ICATA cohort who had nasal samples collected due to a respiratory event or at a scheduled visit. Sex was self-reported by participants, with the options of male or female.
The MUPPITS1 and ICATA protocols were approved by the Inner-City Asthma Consortium steering committee, protocol review committee, and data safety monitoring board. The MUPPITS1 protocol20 was reviewed by a single institutional review board, and the ICATA protocol21 was reviewed by the institutional review boards of all participating institutions. Written informed consent for the MUPPITS1 and ICATA studies was obtained from the parents or legal guardians of all participants and applies to this analysis.
Altman M.C., Kattan M., O’Connor G.T., Murphy R.C., Whalen E., LeBeau P., Calatroni A., Gill M.A., Gruchalla R.S., Liu A.H., Lovinsky-Desir S., Pongracic J.A., Kercsmar C.M., Khurana G.K., Zoratti E.M., Teach S.J., Bacharier L.B., Wheatley L.M., Sigelman S.M., Gergen P.J., Togias A., Busse W.W., Gern J.E, & Jackson D.J. (2023). Associations between outdoor air pollutants and non-viral asthma exacerbations and airway inflammatory responses in children and adolescents living in urban areas in the USA: a retrospective secondary analysis. The Lancet. Planetary health, 7(1), e33-e44.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
Adolescent Adrenal Cortex Hormones Allergens Asthma austin Body Weight Child Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees Cocaine Eosinophil Ethics Committees, Research Fluticasone Fluticasone Salmeterol Legal Guardians Males Nose Omalizumab Parent Placebos POU3F2 protein, human Respiratory Rate Serum Smoke Specimen Collection Test, Skin Virus Woman Young Adult
3
SARS-CoV-2 Interfering Substances Evaluation
A total of 25 interfering substances were purchased through the national reference material resource platform, including purified mucin, α-interferon, oseltamivir, peramivir, lopinavir, fluticasone, etc. Inactivated viral cultures of the SARS-CoV-2 original strain were diluted as positive samples with lysates containing a negative nasal swab matrix (interfering substances such as drugs and antibiotics may interfere with the test results). In this study, 25 interfering substances were prepared in different concentrations provided in the Table 1, and then added to the above positive samples.
Finally, the mixed samples were tested on the dipstick strip, and each sample was tested at least three times in duplicate.
Li J., Shi J., Zhou Z., Yang B., Cao J., Cao Z., Zeng Q., Hu Z, & Yang X. (2023). Development of an Antigen Detection Kit Capable of Discriminating the Omicron Mutants of SARS-CoV-2. Vaccines, 11(2), 303.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
Antibiotics, Antitubercular Fluticasone Interferon-alpha Lopinavir Mucins Nose Oseltamivir peramivir Pharmaceutical Preparations SARS-CoV-2 Strains
4
Optimizing Medication Regimens for Sleep Disturbance
We did not prescribe the medicines ourselves but we gave advice, so the final responsibility remained with the prescribing physician. Many patients had been prescribed mirtazapine, nortriptyline or quetiapine to help them sleep. All three increase—like SSRIs—the QTc interval, the first two of which also carry a risk of a serotonergic syndrome. We recommended first phase out those three. The SSRI often helps people sleep better. If not, we recommend promethazine syrup (first generation phenothiazine), a sedative Histamine1 (H1) antagonist instead. To avoid a possible slightly improvement of the effect of the SSRI40 (link), we kept the doses as low as possible (5 mg to 15 mg at night). Many people used desloratadine (H1 antagonist) because of allergies and theoretically that may also improve the effect of an SSRI. Omeprazole (CYP2C19 inhibitor) increases the serotonin level. But we stopped increasing the SSRI if there were too many side effects and backed off if necessary. People who used omeprazole (n = 5), received: venlafaxine 37.5 mg; paroxetine 10 mg; citalopram 2 × 20 mg; escitalopram 5 mg. Aspirin and diclofenac (increasing risk of bleeding) were also advised to greatly reduce or phase out. Use of solifenacin and salmeterol (fluticasone) (both increase QTc interval) could not be tapered and were combined with fluvoxamine 100 mg and 75 mg, respectively.
Rus C.P., de Vries B.E., de Vries I.E., Nutma I, & Kooij J.J. (2023). Treatment of 95 post-Covid patients with SSRIs. Scientific Reports, 13, 18599.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
Aspirin Citalopram Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19 Inhibitors desloratadine Diclofenac Escitalopram Fluticasone Fluvoxamine Hypersensitivity Mirtazapine Nortriptyline Omeprazole Paroxetine Patients Pharmaceutical Preparations phenothiazine Physicians Promethazine Quetiapine Salmeterol Sedatives Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors Serotonin Serotonin Syndrome Sleep Solifenacin Venlafaxine
5
Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Chronic Cough
Studies were assessed for inclusion based on the PICOTS criteria outlined in Table 1. The target population was adult patients diagnosed with RCC or UCC, according to American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines [16 (link)]. Due to the heterogeneity in defining CC across studies, the population search strings were expanded to include all patients with CC as defined by the study investigators. Cost-effectiveness and HCRU studies were assessed against the same eligibility criteria, with the exception of the intervention and comparators. Cost-effectiveness studies were considered for inclusion if any medication known to be used for the treatment of CC, including off-label medications, compared to placebo, best supportive care, or any other intervention of interest, were reported. HCRU studies were not restricted by intervention or comparator to account for studies reporting costs and/or resource use independent of treatment effects. Outcomes of interest included costs combined with measures of effectiveness, and HCRU outcomes such as total healthcare costs, direct costs, indirect costs, out-of-pocket costs, and resource utilization. Relevant studies were limited to English language publications only, and no time or geographical restrictions were imposed.

Eligibility criteria for SLR study inclusion

CriteriaInclusionExclusion
Population

> 18 + years old

> Have clinical evidence of CC (as defined by the study investigators)

> Subgroups of interest: CC duration ≥ 1 year and < 1 year

> Patients with history of malignancy, respiratory tract infection, chronic bronchitis, or substance abuse

> Currently taking an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

> Immunocompromised patients

> Patients with cough resulting from invasive respiratory tract instrumentation (e.g., ventilator dependent, tracheostomy, endotracheal intubation)

Interventions

Cost-effectiveness:

> Gefapixant

> Antitussive medications (e.g., opiates (codeine, hydrocodone), noscapine (narcotine), dextromethorphan, respiratory anesthetics (benzonatate))

> Protussive medications (e.g., expectorants (guaifenesin), mucolytic or mucus modifying agents (acetylcysteine, dornase alfa inhaled))

> Non-antitussive/non-protussive medications (e.g., antihistamines, antibiotics (azithromycin), anticholinergics, bronchodilators)

> Neuromodulators/antidepressants (e.g., amitriptyline, gabapentin, baclofen, pregabalin, nortriptyline)

> Inhaled corticosteroids (e.g., beclomethasone, budesonide, fluticasone, mometasone)

> Note: These treatments were eligible if given with or without a combined non-pharmacological treatment (e.g., chest physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, speech therapy, behavioral cough suppression therapy, acupuncture, tai chi, yoga, meditation, aroma therapy, humidifiers, herbal tea). Additionally, studies were eligible for inclusion if patients with RCC received concomitant treatment for the underlying cause (e.g., inhaled beta2-agonists for asthma, proton pump inhibitors for gastroesophageal reflux disease)

HCRU:

> Not restricted

Comparisons

Cost-effectiveness:

> Placebo or best supportive care

> Any intervention of interest

HCRU:

> No restricted

Outcomes

Cost-effectiveness:

> Costs combined with clinical endpoints (e.g., clinical outcomes, utilities, QALYs, resource use, burden of illness) expressed in incremental costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, QALYs, or any other measure of effectiveness reported together with costs

HCRU:

> Total healthcare costs (both direct and indirect costs)

> Direct costs (e.g., costs for drugs, inpatient, outpatient, emergency room, procedures, physician visits, diagnostic/screening services, rehabilitation in a facility or at home, community-based services, medical devices, aids and appliances, alternative care)

> Indirect costs (e.g., societal costs, patient productivity loss, caregiver absenteeism i.e., cost of caregiver taking time off paid work to provide care)

> Out-of-pocket costs (e.g., copayments for drugs, specialty assistive devices, special transportation)

> Resource utilization

Time> Not restricted
Study design

Cost-effectiveness:

> Full economic evaluations

- Cost-effectiveness analyses

- Cost utility analyses

- Cost-benefit analyses

- Cost consequence studies

- Cost minimisation analyses

> HTAs

> Pooled analyses presenting cost or resource use estimates

> Literature reviews summarizing results of primary research studies and/or economic evaluations

HCRU:

> Full economic evaluations

- Cost-effectiveness analyses

- Cost utility analyses

- Cost-benefit analyses

- Cost consequence studies

- Cost minimization analyses

> Partial economic evaluations

- Budget impact models

- Non-comparative economic studies (e.g., cost of illness studies)

> Observational studies

- Prospective and retrospective cohort studies

- Case-control studies

- Cross-sectional studies

- Controlled and uncontrolled longitudinal studies

- Controlled before-and-after studies

- Interrupted time series studies

- Historically controlled studies

- Time and motion studies

> Randomized controlled trials

> Non-randomized clinical trials

> Controlled before-and-after trials

> HTAs

> Pooled analyses presenting cost or resource use estimates

> Literature reviews summarizing results of primary research studies and/or economic evaluationsa

Other> English language only
Region> Global

aLiterature reviews involving a systematic approach to study identification and selection were of interest for the purposes of cross-referencing (e.g., SLRs, structured literature reviews, scoping reviews, landscape reviews). Narrative reviews that did not involve systematic study identification and selection or that primarily summarized an author’s viewpoints were not of interest

CC: chronic cough; HCRU: healthcare resource utilization; HTA: health technology assessment; QALY: quality-adjusted life year; RCC: refractory chronic cough; SLR: systematic literature review

Screening of all titles and abstracts identified in the search was conducted by two independent reviewers. Citations considered eligible for inclusion by both reviewers were advanced to full-text screening, which involved independent assessment of the full-text articles for inclusion by the same two reviewers. A third reviewer provided arbitration in the case of discrepancy. Each study was counted once through mapping of citations to corresponding studies.
Bali V., Adriano A., Byrne A., Akers K.G., Frederickson A, & Schelfhout J. (2023). Understanding the economic burden of chronic cough: a systematic literature review. BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 23, 416.
Full text: Click here
Publication 2023
Acetylcysteine Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Adrenal Cortex Hormones Adult agonists Amitriptyline Anesthetics Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors Antibiotics Anticholinergic Agents Antidepressive Agents Antitussive Agents Aromatherapy Asthma Azithromycin Baclofen Beclomethasone Behavior Therapy benzonatate Bronchitis, Chronic Bronchodilator Agents Budesonide Chest Codeine Cognitive Therapy Cough Dextromethorphan dornase alfa Drug Labeling Eligibility Determination Expectorants Fluticasone Gabapentin Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Gefapixant Genetic Heterogeneity GLRX3 protein, human Guaifenesin Histamine Antagonists Hydrocodone Inpatient Intubation, Intratracheal Malignant Neoplasms Medical Devices Meditation Mometasone Mucolytic Agents Mucus Neuromodulators Nortriptyline Noscapine Opiate Alkaloids Outpatients Patients Pharmaceutical Preparations Pharmacotherapy Physicians Placebos Pregabalin Proton Pump Inhibitors Respiratory Rate Respiratory System Respiratory Tract Infections Self-Help Devices Speech Therapy Substance Abuse Target Population Teas, Herbal Technology Assessment, Biomedical Therapy, Acupuncture Therapy, Physical Tracheostomy Visit, Home Yoga

Top products related to «Fluticasone»

1
Fluticasone by Merck Group
Sourced in Germany, United States
Fluticasone is a synthetic glucocorticoid compound used in the manufacture of various pharmaceutical products. It is a white to off-white crystalline powder with a molecular formula of C22H28F2O5 and a molecular weight of 418.47 g/mol. Fluticasone is commonly used as an active ingredient in the development of inhaled and topical corticosteroid medications.
2
Flixotide by GlaxoSmithKline
Sourced in United Kingdom
Flixotide is a laboratory equipment product manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. It is designed for use in research and scientific applications. The core function of Flixotide is to facilitate the measurement and analysis of various compounds and materials.
3
Lansoprazole by Merck Group
Sourced in United States, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, India
Lansoprazole is a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) medication used to reduce stomach acid production. It works by blocking the enzyme responsible for acid secretion in the stomach, thus decreasing the amount of acid available to cause damage. Lansoprazole is used to treat conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcers, and other acid-related disorders.
4
Betamethasone by Merck Group
Sourced in United States, Germany, Italy
Betamethasone is a synthetic corticosteroid medication used as a laboratory reagent. It is a potent anti-inflammatory agent that can be used in various in vitro and in vivo research applications.
5
Fluticasone by Selleck Chemicals
Sourced in United States
Fluticasone is a laboratory product used for scientific research and analysis. It is a synthetic corticosteroid compound. The core function of Fluticasone is to serve as a research tool for investigating various areas of study, such as pharmacology, drug development, and biochemistry. No further details on intended use are provided.
6
Anti human cd34 pe by BD
Sourced in United States
Anti-human CD34-PE is a monoclonal antibody conjugated with the fluorescent dye phycoerythrin (PE) that binds to the CD34 antigen expressed on human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. It is used for the identification and characterization of CD34-positive cells in flow cytometry applications.
7
Myricetin by Merck Group
Sourced in United States, Germany, China, Italy, United Kingdom, Poland, Spain, Macao, France, Malaysia, Sao Tome and Principe, Canada
Myricetin is a flavonoid compound that can be used in laboratory settings. It is a naturally occurring substance found in various plants. Myricetin serves as a reference standard for chemical analysis and research purposes.
8
Pentoxifylline by Merck Group
Sourced in United States, Germany, Sao Tome and Principe
Pentoxifylline is a pharmaceutical active ingredient used in the production of various lab equipment. It is a vasodilator, which means it helps improve blood flow and circulation. Pentoxifylline is commonly used in laboratory settings to study the effects of improved blood flow on various biological processes.
9
Space device by GlaxoSmithKline
Sourced in United Kingdom
The Space Device is a compact, specialized laboratory instrument designed for use in microgravity environments, such as aboard space stations or spacecraft. It is engineered to perform precise scientific measurements and analyses in the unique conditions of space. The core function of the Space Device is to facilitate research and experimentation in the space environment.
10
Sirolimus by Merck Group
Sourced in United States
Sirolimus is a laboratory reagent produced by Merck Group. It functions as an immunosuppressant and is commonly used in research applications.

More about "Fluticasone"

Fluticasone is a synthetic corticosteroid medication widely used to manage respiratory conditions like asthma, allergic rhinitis, and COPD.
It works by reducing inflammation and swelling in the airways, making breathing easier.
Fluticasone is available in various forms, including inhalers, nasal sprays, and topical creams.
The drug is generally well-tolerated, but can cause side effects like oral thrush, hoarseness, and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.
Careful dosing and monitoring by a healthcare provider is important for the safe and effective use of fluticasone.
Researchers studying fluticasone can optimize their research using PubCompare.ai's AI-driven literature analysis platform.
This tool helps locate the best protocols from literature, preprints, and patents, using AI-driven comparisons to enhance reproducibility and accuracy.
Researchers can gain valuable insights to take their fluticasone studies to the next level.
Fluticasone is closely related to other corticosteroids like betamethasone, and may be used interchangeably in some cases.
It is also sometimes combined with other medications like the proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole.
Researchers may also explore the use of fluticasone alongside other anti-inflammatory agents like myricetin or pentoxifylline.
For cell-based studies, fluticasone may be used in conjunction with anti-human CD34-PE antibodies to investigate its effects on specific cell types.
When designing fluticasone studies, researchers should consider factors like formulation, delivery method, and potential interactions with other drugs or therapies.
The use of specialized devices, such as space devices, may also be relevant for certain fluticasone applications, like pulmonary drug delivery.
Additionally, researchers may explore the use of fluticasone alongside immunosuppressants like sirolimus to investigate its effects in complex disease models.
By leveraging the insights and tools provided by PubCompare.ai, researchers can optimize their fluticasone studies, enhance reproducibility, and gain a deeper understanding of this versatile corticosteroid medication.