Inhaled tobramycin and bronchial hyperactivity in cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of inhaled tobramycin for prophylaxis and treatment of respiratory symptoms in cystic fibrosis (CF) is now widespread. There have been concerns that inhaling the intravenous (I.V.) formulation of tobramycin causes bronchoconstriction. Previous studies using this formulation have either not specified the nebulizing equipment, or studied older, more severely affected patients. This study investigated the incidence of bronchoconstriction with tobramycin inhalation in children with mild to moderate CF. We studied 26 patients between the ages of 7 and 17 years, with mild to moderate CF (20 female). Prior to being placed on prolonged inhaled tobramycin therapy, they underwent a "tobramycin challenge." FEV(1) was measured pre and post challenge. For the test, standard I.V. solution (80 mg/2 mL) diluted with 2 mL of normal saline was nebulized, using the Hudson (Temecula, CA) RCI Updraft II nebulizer. The nebulization lasted 2 min. There was a 3-min "quiet period," following which FEV(1) was measured. A decrease in FEV(1) by at least 10% post-tobramycin inhalation was considered to be a positive test. Results were analyzed using the Pearson Chi-square test. Five of 26 (19%) had a positive reaction to tobramycin. Sixteen of 26 (61.5%) were using salbutamol on a daily basis at the time of testing but not for 48 hr before the challenge, and 16 of 26 (61.5%) had a pre-tobramycin FEV(1) of < or =80%. Neither an FEV(1) of <80% (P = 0.93) nor regular use of salbutamol (P = 0. 34) were associated with a positive tobramycin challenge. This study suggests that, while bronchoconstriction does occur, many patients do not exhibit bronchoconstriction in response to the standard I.V. preparation and, as prior work suggests, this may be reduced further by pretreatment with salbutamol.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".