P. Dicpinigaitis,Yvonne E. Gayle
Abstract:AIMS
Current guidelines recommend the use of first-generation antihistamines for the treatment of cough due to rhinitis/postnasal drip syndrome. The antitussive activity of the second-generation antihistamine, fexofenadine, has not been investigated. Therefore, we evaluated the effect of fexofenadine on capsaicin-induced cough in healthy volunteers and in subjects with acute viral upper respiratory tract infection (URI).
METHODS
Twelve healthy volunteers and 12 subjects with URI underwent pulmonary function testing and capsaicin cough challenge on two separate days, 2 h after ingesting 180 mg fexofenadine or matched placebo. Subjects inhaled single, vital-capacity breaths of capsaicin aerosol, administered in incremental doubling concentrations, until the concentration inducing five or more coughs (C5) was determined.
RESULTS
In both subject groups, C5 was not significantly different after fexofenadine compared to placebo. In subjects with URI, pulmonary function studies were also similar. In healthy volunteers, however, FEV1 and FEF(25-75), pulmonary function parameters reflecting the degree of airway dilatation, were significantly increased after fexofenadine. Mean (95% CI) values for FEV1(L) after fexofenadine and placebo were 3.16 (2.77, 3.55) and 3.08 (2.69, 3.47), respectively (P = 0.017). Mean values for FEF(25-75)(L/s) were 3.49 (3.10, 3.88) and 3.26 (2.79, 3.72), respectively (P = 0.029).
CONCLUSIONS
Fexofenadine demonstrated no antitussive activity against capsaicin-induced cough in healthy volunteers and subjects with URI. The ineffectiveness of fexofenadine in suppressing cough probably reflects the lack of anticholinergic activity and central nervous system penetrance that is characteristic of first-generation antihistamines. The mild bronchodilation induced by fexofenadine in healthy volunteers is of unclear clinical significance and requires further investigation.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: **How to provide a computational interpretation based on first - order logic formulas so that these formulas themselves can be executed as programs**. Specifically, the author proposes a method of directly interpreting logic formulas as programs, rather than interpreting the proofs of formulas as programs as in the traditional "formulas - as - types" approach.
### Problem Background
Traditionally, logic programming (such as Prolog) and constraint logic programming have limitations when dealing with certain complex problems, especially in dealing with recursion, negation, and termination. In addition, formulas in logic programming are usually interpreted as Horn clauses, which limits their expressive power. To overcome these limitations, the author proposes a new "formulas - as - programs" approach.
### Main Contributions
1. **Non - recursive declarative programming framework**:
- A generalized framework based on first - order logic is proposed, which does not rely on recursion but realizes iteration through bounded quantification.
- This method combines the advantages of imperative programming and logic programming and is suitable for verifying the correctness of non - recursive programs.
2. **Design of computational mechanism**:
- A constructive satisfiability testing mechanism is designed, which can evaluate the truth value of first - order formulas under a given interpretation.
- This mechanism can systematically search for variable assignments that make the formula hold and report failure when it cannot be found.
3. **Extensions and applications**:
- Several extensions to the first - order logic language are proposed, including types (sorts), arrays, and bounded quantifiers, to enhance its expressive power.
- This method is applied to the programming language Alma - 0, demonstrating its feasibility in actual programming.
### Formula Example
Consider the formula:
\[
(x = 2 \lor x = 3) \land (y = x + 1 \lor 2 = y) \land (2 \times x = 3 \times y)
\]
The interpretation is as follows:
- First, try \(x = 2\) and \(y = x + 1\), that is, \(y = 3\), but \(2\times2\neq3\times3\), so it fails.
- Then try \(x = 2\) and \(y = 2\), also \(2\times2\neq3\times2\), and it fails again.
- Finally, try \(x = 3\) and \(y = 2\), at this time \(2\times3 = 3\times2\) holds, so it is successful.
### Conclusion
This paper provides a realist computational framework based on first - order logic, which can be combined with imperative programming and has advantages in dealing with the correctness verification of non - recursive programs.