Primary studies included in this broad synthesis

loading
3 articles (3 References) loading Revert Studify

Primary study

Unclassified

Tijdschrift International journal of clinical pharmacy
Year 2015
Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Currently available over-the-counter cough remedies historically have been criticized for lack of scientific evidence supporting their efficacy. Although the first-generation antihistamine diphenhydramine is classified as an antitussive by the United States Food and Drug Administration, to the authors' knowledge it has never been shown to inhibit cough reflex sensitivity in subjects with pathological cough. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of diphenhydramine on cough reflex sensitivity. SETTING: Montefiore Medical Center, an academic medical center in New York City. METHODS: Twenty two subjects with acute viral upper respiratory tract infection (common cold) underwent cough reflex sensitivity measurement employing capsaicin challenge on 3 separate days, 2 h after ingesting single doses of study drug (to coincide with peak blood concentrations), administered in randomized, double-blind manner: a multicomponent syrup containing diphenhydramine (25 mg), phenylephrine (10 mg), in a natural cocoa formulation; dextromethorphan (30 mg) syrup; and, placebo syrup. The standard endpoint of cough challenge was used: concentration of capsaicin inducing ≥5 coughs (C5). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Effect on cough reflex sensitivity (C5). RESULTS: A significant difference (p = 0.0024) was established among groups, with pairwise analysis revealing a significant increase in mean log C5 (0.4 ± 0.55 (SD); p < 0.01) for the diphenhydramine-containing medication versus placebo, but not for dextromethorphan versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide the initial evidence of the ability of diphenhydramine to inhibit cough reflex sensitivity in subjects with acute pathological cough. Timing of cough reflex sensitivity measurement may not have allowed demonstration of maximal antitussive effect of dextromethorphan.

Primary study

Unclassified

Tijdschrift JAMA pediatrics
Year 2014
Loading references information
IMPORTANCE: Cough is one of the most common reasons why children visit a health care professional. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of a novel formulation of pasteurized agave nectar vs placebo and no treatment on nocturnal cough and the sleep difficulty associated with nonspecific acute cough in infants and toddlers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this randomized clinical trial performed in 2 university-affiliated outpatient, general pediatric practices from January 28, 2013, through February 28, 2014, children 2 to 47 months old with nonspecific acute cough duration of 7 days or less were studied. Surveys were administered to parents on 2 consecutive days, the day of presentation (when no medication had been given the prior evening) and the next day (when agave nectar, placebo, or no treatment had been administered to their child before bedtime) according to a partially double-blind randomization scheme. INTERVENTIONS: A single dose of agave nectar, placebo, or no treatment administered 30 minutes before bedtime. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cough frequency, cough severity, cough bothersomeness, congestion severity, rhinorrhea severity, and cough effect on child and parent sleep. RESULTS Significant differences in symptom improvement were detected between the study groups (P < .05 for all, except P = .06 for cough bothersomeness), with agave nectar and placebo proving to be superior to no treatment, but no significant differences for any outcome were found when comparing agave nectar against placebo. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a comparison of agave nectar, placebo, and no treatment, a placebo effect was demonstrated, with no additional benefit offered by agave nectar. Health care professionals should consider the potential benefits and costs when recommending a treatment with only a placebo effect for infants and toddlers with nonspecific acute cough. Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Primary study

Unclassified

Tijdschrift Pediatrics
Year 2010
Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To determine if a single application of a vapor rub (VR) or petrolatum is superior to no treatment for nocturnal cough, congestion, and sleep difficulty caused by upper respiratory tract infection. METHODS: Surveys were administered to parents on 2 consecutive days - on the day of presentation when no medication had been given the previous evening, and the next day when VR ointment, petrolatum ointment, or no treatment had been applied to their child's chest and neck before bedtime according to a partially double-blinded randomization scheme. RESULTS: There were 138 children aged 2 to 11 years who completed the trial. Within each study group, symptoms were improved on the second night. Between treatment groups, significant differences in improvement were detected for outcomes related to cough, congestion, and sleep difficulty; VR consistently scored the best, and no treatment scored the worst. Pairwise comparisons demonstrated the superiority of VR over no treatment for all outcomes except rhinorrhea and over petrolatum for cough severity, child and parent sleep difficulty, and combined symptom score. Petrolatum was not significantly better than no treatment for any outcome. Irritant adverse effects were more common among VR-treated participants. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of VR, petrolatum, and no treatment, parents rated VR most favorably for symptomatic relief of their child's nocturnal cough, congestion, and sleep difficulty caused by upper respiratory tract infection. Despite mild irritant adverse effects, VR provided symptomatic relief for children and allowed them and their parents to have a more restful night than those in the other study groups. Copyright © 2010 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.