Successful Treatment of Allergic Bronchopulmonary Aspergillosis Using a Combination of Inhaled Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol and Oral Voriconazole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systemic corticosteroids are considered to be the standard treatment for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). However, there is controversy regarding use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy for ABPA. Here we report a case of ABPA that was successfully treated with inhaled fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) and oral voriconazole (VRCZ). The patient was a 62-year-old Japanese man with bronchiectasis and diabetes mellitus who presented with fever, cough, and purulent sputum. Computed tomography scans of the chest showed consolidation in the left upper and lower lobes. Laboratory investigations revealed an abnormal increase in the number of eosinophils (3,340/mm 3 ) and elevated levels of C-reactive protein (3.04 mg/dL) and serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) (763 U/mL). Eight days after admission, he experienced a sudden attack of asthma. Aspergillus -precipitating antibodies were positive and Aspergillus fumigatus was detected in sputum culture. These results were consistent with a diagnosis of ABPA, and he was started on inhaled FF/VI and oral VRCZ. Systemic corticosteroids were not used because of the patient’s history of diabetes mellitus and left atrial thrombus. His symptoms and consolidation improved significantly after treatment. He has not experienced an exacerbation for more than 3 years. In mild cases of ABPA in which total IgE is relatively low, inhaled FF/VI in combination with oral VRCZ can be considered as an alternative treatment to systemic corticosteroids in patients with ABPA. J Med Cases. 2020;11(11):348-351 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc3567
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".