Treatments for subacute cough in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials

Subacute cough following a non-specific viral infection lasting 3-8 weeks is common. However, despite many treatment options there are no systematic reviews evaluating these. To provide a systematic overview of treatment options and outcomes evaluated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Systematic...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of general practice 2018-10, Vol.68 (675), p.e694-e702
Hauptverfasser: Speich, Benjamin, Thomer, Anja, Aghlmandi, Soheila, Ewald, Hannah, Zeller, Andreas, Hemkens, Lars G
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e702
container_issue 675
container_start_page e694
container_title British journal of general practice
container_volume 68
creator Speich, Benjamin
Thomer, Anja
Aghlmandi, Soheila
Ewald, Hannah
Zeller, Andreas
Hemkens, Lars G
description Subacute cough following a non-specific viral infection lasting 3-8 weeks is common. However, despite many treatment options there are no systematic reviews evaluating these. To provide a systematic overview of treatment options and outcomes evaluated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Systematic review and meta-analyses assessing the overall effects of any treatment for subacute cough. The authors systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (last search March 2017) for RCTs in adult patients with subacute cough. The authors considered trials evaluating any outcome of any drug or non-drug treatments, apart from traditional Chinese and Asian medicines. They combined treatment effects on cough-related outcomes in random effects meta-analyses. Six eligible RCTs including 724 patients were identified. These assessed montelukast, salbutamol plus ipratropium bromide, gelatine, fluticasone propionate, budesonide, and nociception opioid 1 receptor agonist and codeine. Five studies reported effects on various cough severity scores at various timepoints. No treatment option was associated with a clear benefit on cough recovery or other patient-relevant outcomes in any of the studies or in meta-analyses for cough outcomes at 14 days and 28 days. Reported adverse events were rather mild and reported for 14% of patients across all treatments. Evidence on treatment options for subacute cough is weak. There is no treatment showing clear patient-relevant benefits in clinical trials.
doi_str_mv 10.3399/bjgp18X698885
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6145999</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2127423176</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-a5e9c80d87b334855f5b93864dbfb9b82fddd78c849c80c819280558534b125e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc2LFDEQxYMo7uzq0asEvHhpzWd3xYMgi6vCgpcVvIUkXT2bobszJumV-e_tYcfF9fSg6sejXj1CXnH2Tkpj3vvdds_hZ2sAQD8hG646aLRQ4inZMNOyhrdKnpHzUnaMCdFy9pycSSYYBwEbsr_J6OqEcy10SJmWxbuwVKQhLdtbGme6z3Fy-UCDy_iBlkOpOLkaA814F_E3dXNPJ6yucbMbDwULTQPN6zRNsWBPwxjnGNxIa45uLC_Is2EVfHnSC_Lj6vPN5dfm-vuXb5efrpugFK-N02gCsB46L6UCrQftjYRW9X7wxoMY-r7vIIA6YgG4EcC0Bi2V50KjvCAf7333i5-wD2vC7EZ7SmOTi_bxZo63dpvubMuVNsasBm9PBjn9WrBUu-YJOI5uxrQUKzgTUsiuPaJv_kN3acnrO46U6JSQvGtXqrmnQk6lZBwejuHMHru0j7pc-df_Jnig_5Yn_wD_zpze</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2127423176</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Treatments for subacute cough in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials</title><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Speich, Benjamin ; Thomer, Anja ; Aghlmandi, Soheila ; Ewald, Hannah ; Zeller, Andreas ; Hemkens, Lars G</creator><creatorcontrib>Speich, Benjamin ; Thomer, Anja ; Aghlmandi, Soheila ; Ewald, Hannah ; Zeller, Andreas ; Hemkens, Lars G</creatorcontrib><description>Subacute cough following a non-specific viral infection lasting 3-8 weeks is common. However, despite many treatment options there are no systematic reviews evaluating these. To provide a systematic overview of treatment options and outcomes evaluated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Systematic review and meta-analyses assessing the overall effects of any treatment for subacute cough. The authors systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (last search March 2017) for RCTs in adult patients with subacute cough. The authors considered trials evaluating any outcome of any drug or non-drug treatments, apart from traditional Chinese and Asian medicines. They combined treatment effects on cough-related outcomes in random effects meta-analyses. Six eligible RCTs including 724 patients were identified. These assessed montelukast, salbutamol plus ipratropium bromide, gelatine, fluticasone propionate, budesonide, and nociception opioid 1 receptor agonist and codeine. Five studies reported effects on various cough severity scores at various timepoints. No treatment option was associated with a clear benefit on cough recovery or other patient-relevant outcomes in any of the studies or in meta-analyses for cough outcomes at 14 days and 28 days. Reported adverse events were rather mild and reported for 14% of patients across all treatments. Evidence on treatment options for subacute cough is weak. There is no treatment showing clear patient-relevant benefits in clinical trials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-1643</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1478-5242</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X698885</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30201828</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Royal College of General Practitioners</publisher><subject>Clinical outcomes ; Clinical trials ; Cold remedies ; Drug therapy ; Evidence-based medicine ; Primary care ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>British journal of general practice, 2018-10, Vol.68 (675), p.e694-e702</ispartof><rights>British Journal of General Practice 2018.</rights><rights>Copyright Royal College of General Practitioners Oct 2018</rights><rights>British Journal of General Practice 2018 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-a5e9c80d87b334855f5b93864dbfb9b82fddd78c849c80c819280558534b125e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-a5e9c80d87b334855f5b93864dbfb9b82fddd78c849c80c819280558534b125e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6145999/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6145999/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30201828$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Speich, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomer, Anja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aghlmandi, Soheila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewald, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeller, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hemkens, Lars G</creatorcontrib><title>Treatments for subacute cough in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials</title><title>British journal of general practice</title><addtitle>Br J Gen Pract</addtitle><description>Subacute cough following a non-specific viral infection lasting 3-8 weeks is common. However, despite many treatment options there are no systematic reviews evaluating these. To provide a systematic overview of treatment options and outcomes evaluated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Systematic review and meta-analyses assessing the overall effects of any treatment for subacute cough. The authors systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (last search March 2017) for RCTs in adult patients with subacute cough. The authors considered trials evaluating any outcome of any drug or non-drug treatments, apart from traditional Chinese and Asian medicines. They combined treatment effects on cough-related outcomes in random effects meta-analyses. Six eligible RCTs including 724 patients were identified. These assessed montelukast, salbutamol plus ipratropium bromide, gelatine, fluticasone propionate, budesonide, and nociception opioid 1 receptor agonist and codeine. Five studies reported effects on various cough severity scores at various timepoints. No treatment option was associated with a clear benefit on cough recovery or other patient-relevant outcomes in any of the studies or in meta-analyses for cough outcomes at 14 days and 28 days. Reported adverse events were rather mild and reported for 14% of patients across all treatments. Evidence on treatment options for subacute cough is weak. There is no treatment showing clear patient-relevant benefits in clinical trials.</description><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cold remedies</subject><subject>Drug therapy</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0960-1643</issn><issn>1478-5242</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpdkc2LFDEQxYMo7uzq0asEvHhpzWd3xYMgi6vCgpcVvIUkXT2bobszJumV-e_tYcfF9fSg6sejXj1CXnH2Tkpj3vvdds_hZ2sAQD8hG646aLRQ4inZMNOyhrdKnpHzUnaMCdFy9pycSSYYBwEbsr_J6OqEcy10SJmWxbuwVKQhLdtbGme6z3Fy-UCDy_iBlkOpOLkaA814F_E3dXNPJ6yucbMbDwULTQPN6zRNsWBPwxjnGNxIa45uLC_Is2EVfHnSC_Lj6vPN5dfm-vuXb5efrpugFK-N02gCsB46L6UCrQftjYRW9X7wxoMY-r7vIIA6YgG4EcC0Bi2V50KjvCAf7333i5-wD2vC7EZ7SmOTi_bxZo63dpvubMuVNsasBm9PBjn9WrBUu-YJOI5uxrQUKzgTUsiuPaJv_kN3acnrO46U6JSQvGtXqrmnQk6lZBwejuHMHru0j7pc-df_Jnig_5Yn_wD_zpze</recordid><startdate>20181001</startdate><enddate>20181001</enddate><creator>Speich, Benjamin</creator><creator>Thomer, Anja</creator><creator>Aghlmandi, Soheila</creator><creator>Ewald, Hannah</creator><creator>Zeller, Andreas</creator><creator>Hemkens, Lars G</creator><general>Royal College of General Practitioners</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181001</creationdate><title>Treatments for subacute cough in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials</title><author>Speich, Benjamin ; Thomer, Anja ; Aghlmandi, Soheila ; Ewald, Hannah ; Zeller, Andreas ; Hemkens, Lars G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-a5e9c80d87b334855f5b93864dbfb9b82fddd78c849c80c819280558534b125e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cold remedies</topic><topic>Drug therapy</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Speich, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomer, Anja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aghlmandi, Soheila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewald, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeller, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hemkens, Lars G</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>British journal of general practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Speich, Benjamin</au><au>Thomer, Anja</au><au>Aghlmandi, Soheila</au><au>Ewald, Hannah</au><au>Zeller, Andreas</au><au>Hemkens, Lars G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Treatments for subacute cough in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials</atitle><jtitle>British journal of general practice</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Gen Pract</addtitle><date>2018-10-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>68</volume><issue>675</issue><spage>e694</spage><epage>e702</epage><pages>e694-e702</pages><issn>0960-1643</issn><eissn>1478-5242</eissn><abstract>Subacute cough following a non-specific viral infection lasting 3-8 weeks is common. However, despite many treatment options there are no systematic reviews evaluating these. To provide a systematic overview of treatment options and outcomes evaluated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Systematic review and meta-analyses assessing the overall effects of any treatment for subacute cough. The authors systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (last search March 2017) for RCTs in adult patients with subacute cough. The authors considered trials evaluating any outcome of any drug or non-drug treatments, apart from traditional Chinese and Asian medicines. They combined treatment effects on cough-related outcomes in random effects meta-analyses. Six eligible RCTs including 724 patients were identified. These assessed montelukast, salbutamol plus ipratropium bromide, gelatine, fluticasone propionate, budesonide, and nociception opioid 1 receptor agonist and codeine. Five studies reported effects on various cough severity scores at various timepoints. No treatment option was associated with a clear benefit on cough recovery or other patient-relevant outcomes in any of the studies or in meta-analyses for cough outcomes at 14 days and 28 days. Reported adverse events were rather mild and reported for 14% of patients across all treatments. Evidence on treatment options for subacute cough is weak. There is no treatment showing clear patient-relevant benefits in clinical trials.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Royal College of General Practitioners</pub><pmid>30201828</pmid><doi>10.3399/bjgp18X698885</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0960-1643
ispartof British journal of general practice, 2018-10, Vol.68 (675), p.e694-e702
issn 0960-1643
1478-5242
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6145999
source PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Clinical outcomes
Clinical trials
Cold remedies
Drug therapy
Evidence-based medicine
Primary care
Systematic review
title Treatments for subacute cough in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T13%3A24%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Treatments%20for%20subacute%20cough%20in%20primary%20care:%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analyses%20of%20randomised%20clinical%20trials&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20general%20practice&rft.au=Speich,%20Benjamin&rft.date=2018-10-01&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=675&rft.spage=e694&rft.epage=e702&rft.pages=e694-e702&rft.issn=0960-1643&rft.eissn=1478-5242&rft_id=info:doi/10.3399/bjgp18X698885&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2127423176%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2127423176&rft_id=info:pmid/30201828&rfr_iscdi=true