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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of general practice 2018-10, Vol.68 (675), p.e694-e702 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 & 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 |