Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC; Duke Evidence-based Practice Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC.
Chest. 2013 Dec;144(6):1827-1838. doi: 10.1378/chest.13-0490.
Understanding the comparative effectiveness of treatments for patients with unexplained or refractory cough is important to increase awareness of proven therapies and their potential adverse effects in this unique population.
We performed a literature search for English-language studies published up to June 2012 that compared symptomatic therapies for chronic cough. Two investigators screened each abstract and full-text article for inclusion, abstracted data, and rated quality. Meta-analysis with random-effects models was used to summarize effects of treatments.
We identified 49 studies (3,067 patients) comprising 68 therapeutic comparisons. Of the studied agents, opioid and certain nonopioid and nonanesthetic antitussives had demonstrated efficacy for chronic cough in adults. Compared with placebo, effect sizes (standardized mean differences for cough severity and rate ratios for cough frequency) for opioids were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.38-0.72; P < .0001) and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.36-0.91; P = .0260), respectively. For dextromethorphan, effect sizes were 0.37 (95% CI, 0.19-0.56; P = .0008) and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.18-0.85; P = .0248), respectively. The overall strength of evidence was limited by inconsistency and imprecision of results and by small numbers of direct comparisons. Nonpharmacologic therapies and the management of cough in children were infrequently studied.
Although evidence is limited, opioid and certain nonopioid and nonanesthetic antitussives demonstrated efficacy for treating chronic cough in adults. There is a need for further studies in patients with unexplained or refractory cough as well as for more systematic study designs, assessment of patient-centered outcomes, and reporting.
了解不明原因或难治性咳嗽患者的治疗效果比较,对于提高对这一特殊人群中已证实疗法及其潜在不良反应的认识很重要。
我们对截至 2012 年 6 月发表的英文文献进行了检索,以比较慢性咳嗽的对症治疗。两位研究者筛选了每篇摘要和全文文章,以确定其是否符合纳入标准,提取数据,并对质量进行评分。采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析以总结治疗效果。
我们共确定了 49 项研究(3067 例患者),包含 68 种治疗比较。在研究的药物中,阿片类药物和某些非阿片类和非麻醉性镇咳药已被证明对成人慢性咳嗽有效。与安慰剂相比,阿片类药物的咳嗽严重程度(咳嗽严重程度的标准化均数差)和咳嗽频率(咳嗽频率的比值比)的效应量分别为 0.55(95%CI,0.38-0.72;P <.0001)和 0.57(95%CI,0.36-0.91;P =.0260)。对于右美沙芬,效应量分别为 0.37(95%CI,0.19-0.56;P =.0008)和 0.40(95%CI,0.18-0.85;P =.0248)。结果的不一致性和不精确性以及直接比较的数量较少,限制了整体证据的强度。非药物治疗和儿童咳嗽的管理研究很少。
尽管证据有限,但阿片类药物和某些非阿片类和非麻醉性镇咳药已被证明对治疗成人慢性咳嗽有效。需要进一步研究不明原因或难治性咳嗽患者,以及采用更系统的研究设计、评估以患者为中心的结局以及报告。