التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Systematic literature review of treatments used for refractory or unexplained chronic cough in adults. |
| المؤلفون: |
Bali, Vishal, Kardos, Peter, Page, Clive, Rogliani, Paola, Calzetta, Luigino, Adriano, Ada, Byrne, Aidan, Adeyemi, Adekemi, Frederickson, Andrew, Schelfhout, Jonathan |
| المصدر: |
Annals of Thoracic Medicine; Jan-Mar2024, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p56-73, 18p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
CHRONIC cough, PATIENT safety, RESEARCH funding, MEDICALLY unexplained symptoms, TREATMENT effectiveness, SYSTEMATIC reviews, DRUG efficacy, EVALUATION, SYMPTOMS, ADOLESCENCE, ADULTS |
| مستخلص: |
BACKGROUND: Refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC or UCC) is difficult to manage and is usually treated by the off-label use of drugs approved for other indications. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic literature review (SLR) were to identify and characterize the current published body of evidence for the efficacy and safety of treatments for RCC or UCC. METHODS: The SLR was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The SLRs pre-defined population included patients ≥18 years of age who were diagnosed with chronic cough. The review was not restricted to any intervention type or study comparator, nor by timeframe. RESULTS: A total of 20 eligible publications from 19 unique trials were included. Seventeen of these trials were randomized controlled trials and most (14/17) were placebo-controlled. There was considerable variability between trials in the definition of RCC or UCC, participant exclusion and inclusion criteria, outcome measurement timepoints, and the safety and efficacy outcomes assessed. Several trials identified significant improvements in cough frequency, severity, or health-related quality of life measures while participants were on treatment, although these improvements did not persist in any of the studies that included a post-treatment follow-up timepoint. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of an approved therapy, placebo remains the most common comparator in trials of potential RCC or UCC treatments. The between-study comparability of the published evidence is limited by heterogeneity of study design, study populations, and outcomes measures, as well as by concerns regarding study size and risk of bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Annals of Thoracic Medicine is the property of Wolters Kluwer India Pvt Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
Full Text Finder