Suppr超能文献

门诊环境中用于儿童和成人急性咳嗽的非处方药物。

Over-the-counter medications for acute cough in children and adults in ambulatory settings.

作者信息

Schroeder K, Fahey T

机构信息

Division of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, Cotham House, Cotham Hill, , Bristol, UK, BS6 6JL.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18(4):CD001831. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001831.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Acute cough due to upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) is a common symptom. Many health practitioners recommend non-prescription over-the-counter (OTC) medicines as a first-line treatment for cough, but there is little evidence as to whether these drugs are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral over-the-counter cough preparations for acute cough.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004); MEDLINE (January 1966 to June Week 3, 2004); EMBASE (January 1990 to March 2004); and the UK Department of Health National Research Register (December 2003, http://www.update-software.com/National/nrr-frame.html). We also searched personal collections of references and reference lists of articles. We wrote to study investigators and pharmaceutical companies for information on further published or unpublished studies. There were no constraints based on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral OTC cough preparations with placebo in children and adults suffering from acute cough in ambulatory settings. We considered all cough outcomes (such as frequency and severity, continuous and categorical data, using different ways of measurement). The second outcomes of interest were adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators screened potentially relevant citations independently. Any differences at any stage of the review were resolved by discussion. We also extracted data and assessed the quality of studies independently. We contacted investigators for additional information and performed quantitative analysis when appropriate data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty four trials (17 in adults, seven in children) involving 3,392 people (2,876 adults and 516 children) were included. RESULTS OF STUDIES IN ADULTS: 1. Antitussives: Six trials compared antitussives with placebo. Codeine was no more effective than placebo in reducing cough symptoms. Two studies favoured dextromethorphan over placebo, whereas a third did not show an effect. Moguisteine was no more effective than placebo apart from a reduction of cough in a subgroup of participants with more severe night cough. 2. Expectorants: Two trials compared guaifenesin with placebo. In the larger study, 75 per cent of participants taking guaifenesin stated that the medicine was helpful compared to 31 per cent in the control group. In the second study, both groups showed improvement with respect to cough frequency and severity, with no statistically significant differences between groups. 3. Mucolytics: One trial compared a mucolytic with placebo. Active treatment reduced cough frequency and symptom scores on day four and eight. 4. Antihistamine-decongestant combinations: Two studies compared antihistamine-decongestant combinations with placebo. Antihistamine-decongestants were significantly more effective than placebo in one of the studies, whereas the other did not show any difference between the study groups. 5. Other drug combinations: Three studies compared combinations of drugs other than antihistamine-decongestant with placebo. Two studies were effective in reducing cough symptoms, and one study showed relief at night but not during the day. 6. Antihistamines: Three trials compared antihistamines with placebo. Antihistamines were no more effective than placebo in relieving cough symptoms. RESULTS OF STUDIES IN CHILDREN: 1. Antitussives: Antitussives were no more effective than placebo (one study) 2. Expectorants: No studies using expectorants met our inclusion criteria. 3. Mucolytics: The results of one trial favoured active treatment over placebo from day four until day 10. 4. Antihistamine-decongestant combinations: Two studies showed no difference between antihistamine-decongestant combinations and placebo. 5. Other drug combinations: One trial tested two paediatric cough syrups. Compared to placebo, both preparations showed a 'satisfactory response' in 46 per cent and 56 per cent of children compared to 21 per cent of children in the placebo group. One study compared an antitussive/bronchodilator combination in children, which showed no difference between the treatment groups. 6. Antihistamines: In one trial that tested antihistamines active treatment was no more effective than placebo.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough. The results of this review have to be interpreted with caution due to differences in study designs, populations, interventions and outcomes between studies. The numbers of studies in each group were small, and studies often showed conflicting results. Effect sizes in many studies were unclear and it is questionable as to whether all of the positive results are clinically relevant. More evidence about the effectiveness of OTC cough preparations would be helpful, as identification of effective self-care treatments may help reduce the burden of days lost at work due to acute cough as well as the number of consultations in primary care. Identification of ineffective preparations could avoid costs for consumers and health care providers.

摘要

背景

上呼吸道感染(URTI)引起的急性咳嗽是一种常见症状。许多医疗从业者推荐非处方的非处方药(OTC)作为咳嗽的一线治疗药物,但几乎没有证据表明这些药物是否有效。

目的

评估口服非处方咳嗽制剂对急性咳嗽的疗效。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(2004年第2期《Cochrane图书馆》);MEDLINE(1966年1月至2004年6月第3周);EMBASE(1990年1月至2004年3月);以及英国卫生部国家研究注册库(2003年12月,http://www.update-software.com/National/nrr-frame.html)。我们还检索了个人参考文献收藏以及文章的参考文献列表。我们写信给研究调查人员和制药公司,以获取有关进一步已发表或未发表研究的信息。没有基于语言或出版状态的限制。

选择标准

在门诊环境中,比较口服非处方咳嗽制剂与安慰剂对患有急性咳嗽的儿童和成人的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们考虑了所有咳嗽结局(如频率和严重程度、连续和分类数据,采用不同的测量方法)。第二个感兴趣的结局是不良反应。

数据收集与分析

两名研究人员独立筛选潜在相关的文献引用。综述任何阶段的任何差异都通过讨论解决。我们还独立提取数据并评估研究质量。我们联系研究人员获取额外信息,并在有合适数据时进行定量分析。

主要结果

纳入了24项试验(17项针对成人,7项针对儿童),涉及3392人(2876名成人和516名儿童)。成人研究结果:1. 镇咳药:6项试验比较了镇咳药与安慰剂。可待因在减轻咳嗽症状方面并不比安慰剂更有效。两项研究表明右美沙芬优于安慰剂,而第三项研究未显示出效果。除了在一组夜间咳嗽更严重的参与者中咳嗽有所减轻外,莫吉司坦并不比安慰剂更有效。2. 祛痰药:2项试验比较了愈创甘油醚与安慰剂。在较大的研究中,服用愈创甘油醚的参与者中有75%表示药物有帮助,而对照组为31%。在第二项研究中,两组在咳嗽频率和严重程度方面均有改善,组间无统计学显著差异。3. 黏液溶解剂:1项试验比较了一种黏液溶解剂与安慰剂。积极治疗在第4天和第8天降低了咳嗽频率和症状评分。4. 抗组胺药 - 减充血剂组合:2项研究比较了抗组胺药 - 减充血剂组合与安慰剂。在其中一项研究中,抗组胺药 - 减充血剂比安慰剂显著更有效,而另一项研究在研究组之间未显示出任何差异。5. 其他药物组合:3项研究比较了除抗组胺药 - 减充血剂之外的药物组合与安慰剂。两项研究在减轻咳嗽症状方面有效,一项研究显示夜间有缓解但白天没有。6. 抗组胺药:3项试验比较了抗组胺药与安慰剂。抗组胺药在缓解咳嗽症状方面并不比安慰剂更有效。儿童研究结果:1. 镇咳药:镇咳药并不比安慰剂更有效(1项研究)。2. 祛痰药:没有使用祛痰药的研究符合我们的纳入标准。3. 黏液溶解剂:1项试验的结果表明从第4天到第10天积极治疗优于安慰剂。4. 抗组胺药 - 减充血剂组合:2项研究表明抗组胺药 - 减充血剂组合与安慰剂之间没有差异。5. 其他药物组合:1项试验测试了两种儿科咳嗽糖浆。与安慰剂相比,两种制剂在46%和56%的儿童中显示出“满意的反应”,而安慰剂组为21%。一项研究比较了儿童用镇咳药/支气管扩张剂组合,治疗组之间没有差异。6. 抗组胺药:在一项测试抗组胺药的试验中,积极治疗并不比安慰剂更有效。

综述作者结论

没有充分证据支持或反对非处方药对急性咳嗽的有效性。由于各研究在设计、人群、干预措施和结局方面存在差异,本综述结果必须谨慎解释。每组研究数量较少,且研究结果常常相互矛盾。许多研究中的效应量不明确,所有阳性结果是否具有临床相关性也值得怀疑。关于非处方咳嗽制剂有效性的更多证据将有所帮助,因为确定有效的自我护理治疗方法可能有助于减轻因急性咳嗽导致的工作缺勤天数负担以及初级保健中的咨询次数。确定无效制剂可以避免消费者和医疗服务提供者的费用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验