...
首页> 外文期刊>The British journal of general practice: the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners >Treatments for subacute cough in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials
【24h】

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

机译:基层医疗中亚急性咳嗽的治疗:随机临床试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文

摘要

Background 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.Aim To provide a systematic overview of treatment options and outcomes evaluated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs).Design and setting Systematic review and meta-analyses assessing the overall effects of any treatment for subacute cough.Method 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.Results 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.Conclusion Evidence on treatment options for subacute cough is weak. There is no treatment showing clear patient-relevant benefits in clinical trials.
机译:背景持续3–8周的非特异性病毒感染后,亚急性咳嗽很常见。然而,尽管有许多治疗选择,但仍没有系统的评价来评估这些目的。目的是提供对在随机临床试验(RCT)中评估的治疗选择和结果的系统概述。设计和设置评估任何治疗总体效果的系统评价和荟萃分析方法作者系统搜索了PubMed / MEDLINE和Cochrane对照试验中央登记册(最新搜索,2017年3月),以研究成人亚急性咳嗽患者的RCT。作者考虑了评估除传统中药和亚洲药物外任何药物或非药物治疗的任何结果的试验。他们通过随机荟萃分析将治疗效果与咳嗽相关结局相结合。结果确定了包括724例患者在内的6项符合条件的RCT。这些评估了孟鲁司特,沙丁胺醇加异丙托溴铵,明胶,丙酸氟替卡松,布地奈德和伤害感受阿片样物质1受体激动剂和可待因。五项研究报告了在不同时间点对各种咳嗽严重程度评分的影响。在任何研究中或在14天和28天的咳嗽结果的荟萃分析中,没有任何治疗选择与咳嗽恢复或其他与患者相关的结局有明显益处相关。报告的不良事件相当轻微,在所有治疗中均报告有14%的患者。结论亚急性咳嗽的治疗选择证据不足。在临床试验中,没有治疗方法显示出明显的患者相关益处。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号