-
Journal of Preventive Medicine and... Jun 2021We aimed to estimate the prevalence of reported symptoms and comorbidities, and investigate the factors associated with age of the SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to estimate the prevalence of reported symptoms and comorbidities, and investigate the factors associated with age of the SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020182677) where the databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, WHO, Semantic Scholar, and COVID-19 Primer) were searched for clinical studies published from January to April, 2020. Initially, the pooled prevalence of symptoms and comorbidity of COVID-19 patients were estimated using random effect model and the age -related factors were identified performing multivariate analysis [factor analysis].
RESULTS
Twenty-nine articles with 4,884 COVID-19 patients were included in this study. Altogether, we found 33 symptoms and 44 comorbidities where the most frequent 19 symptoms and 11 comorbidities were included in the meta-analysis. The fever (84%), cough/dry cough (61%), and fatigue/weakness (42%) were found more prevalent while acute respiratory distress syndrome, hypertension and diabetes were the most prevalent comorbid condition. The factor analysis showed positive association between a cluster of symptoms and comorbidities with patients' age. The symptoms comprising fever, dyspnea/shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dizziness, anorexia and pharyngalgia; and the comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, COPD/lung disease and ARDS were the factors positively associated with COVID-19 patient's age.
CONCLUSION
As an unique effort, this study found a group of symptoms (fever, dyspnea/shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dizziness, anorexia and pharyngalgia) and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, COPD/lung disease and ARDS), associated with the age of COVID-19 infected patients.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; COVID-19; Comorbidity; Female; Fever; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pandemics; Prevalence; Risk Factors; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34604574
DOI: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2021.62.2.1946 -
European Clinical Respiratory Journal 2015Fabry disease is an X-linked disorder caused by a deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme α-galactosidase A, resulting in accumulation of glycosphingolipids in multiple... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fabry disease is an X-linked disorder caused by a deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme α-galactosidase A, resulting in accumulation of glycosphingolipids in multiple organs, primarily heart, kidneys, skin, CNS, and lungs.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed database, leading to a total number of 154 hits. Due to language restriction, this number was reduced to 135; 53 papers did not concern Fabry disease, 19 were either animal studies or gene therapy studies, and 36 papers did not have lung involvement in Fabry disease as a topic. The remaining 27 articles were relevant for this review.
RESULTS
The current literature concerning lung manifestations describes various respiratory symptoms such as dyspnoea or shortness of breath, wheezing, and dry cough. These symptoms are often related to cardiac involvement in Fabry disease as respiratory examinations are seldom performed. Pulmonary function tests primarily show obstructive airway limitation, but a few articles also report of patients with restrictive limitation and a mixture of both. No significant association has been found between smoking and the development of symptoms or spirometry abnormalities in patients with Fabry disease. Electron microscopy of lung biopsy and induced sputum show lamellar inclusion bodies (Zebra bodies) in the cytoplasm of cells in the airway wall. X-ray and CT scan have shown patchy ground-glass pulmonary infiltrations, fibrosis, and air trapping. Fibrosis diagnosed by high-resolution CT has not been significantly correlated with lung spirometry.
CONCLUSION
Consistent findings have not been shown in the current literature. Pulmonary function tests and registration of symptoms showed various results; however, there is a trend towards obstructive airway limitation in patients with Fabry disease. Further studies are needed to evaluate pathogenesis, progression, and the effects of treatment.
PubMed: 26557248
DOI: 10.3402/ecrj.v2.26721 -
Chinese Medicine Jun 2022To systematically review the clinical efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) with and without Western medicine (WM) for different severity of COVID-19. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the clinical efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) with and without Western medicine (WM) for different severity of COVID-19.
METHODS
CNKI, PubMed, Wanfang Database, ClinicalTrails.gov, Embase, ChiCTR and ICTRP were searched from 01 Jan, 2020 to 30 Jun, 2021. Two authors independently assessed all the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for trial inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). Evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes included total effectiveness rate. Secondary outcomes included improvements in symptom improvement and total adverse event rate. Different severity of COVID-19 patients was assessed in subgroup analysis. This study was registered with INPLASY, INPLASY202210072.
RESULTS
22 high quality RCTs involving 1789 participants were included. There were no trial used CHM alone nor compare placebo or no treatment. Compared with WM, combined CHM and WM (CHM-WM) treatment showed higher total effectiveness rate, lower symptom scores of fever, cough, fatigue, dry throat and pharyngalgia, shorter mean time to viral conversion, better Computerized Tomography (CT) image and blood results, fewer total adverse events and worse conditions (P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the total effectiveness rate of combined CHM-WM group was significantly higher than WM group, especially for mild and moderate patients. No significant differences in mortality and adverse events were found between combined CHM-WM and WM treatment. No serious adverse events and long-term outcomes were reported.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence supported the therapeutic effects and safety of combined CHM-WM treatment on COVID-19, especially for patients with mild and moderate symptoms. Long-term effects of therapy are worthy in further study.
PubMed: 35729581
DOI: 10.1186/s13020-022-00600-z -
Virusdisease Jun 2020Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the seventh-generation coronavirus family causing viral pandemic coronavirus disease (COVID-19) across... (Review)
Review
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the seventh-generation coronavirus family causing viral pandemic coronavirus disease (COVID-19) across globe affecting millions of people. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify the major research themes in COVID-19 literature, (2) determine the origin, symptoms and modes of transmission of COVID, (3) recommend the intervention and mitigation strategies adopted by the Governments globally against the spread of COVID-19 and the traumatization among the public? and (4) study the possible drugs/treatment plans against COVID-19. A systematic literature review and comprehensive analysis of 38 research articles on COVID-19 are conducted. An integrated Research focus parallel-ship network and keyword co-occurrence analysis are carried out to visualize the three research concepts in COVID-19 literature. Some of our observations include: (1) as SARS-CoV-2's RNA matches ~ 96% to SARS-CoV, it is assumed to be transmitted from the bats. (2) The common symptoms are high fever, dry cough, fatigue, sputum production, shortness of breath, diarrhoea etc. (3) A lockdown across 180 affected counties for more than a month with social-distancing and the precautions taken in SARS and MERS are recommended by the Governments. (4) Researchers' claim that nutrition and immunity enhancers and treatment plans such as arbidol, lopinavir/ritonavir, convalescent plasma and mesenchymal stem cells and drugs including remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and favipiravir are effective against COVID-19. This complied report serves as guide to help the administrators, researchers and the medical officers to adopt recommended intervention strategies and the optimal treatment/drug against COVID-19.
PubMed: 32656310
DOI: 10.1007/s13337-020-00604-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Inhaled dry powder mannitol is now available in Australia and some countries... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Inhaled dry powder mannitol is now available in Australia and some countries in Europe. The exact mechanism of action of mannitol is unknown, but it increases mucociliary clearance. Phase III trials of inhaled dry powder mannitol for the treatment of cystic fibrosis have been completed. The dry powder formulation of mannitol may be more convenient and easier to use compared with established agents which require delivery via a nebuliser.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether inhaled dry powder mannitol is well tolerated, whether it improves the quality of life and respiratory function in people with cystic fibrosis and which adverse events are associated with the treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic databases, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences.Date of last search: 16 April 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled studies comparing mannitol with placebo, active inhaled comparators (for example, hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) or with no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, carried out data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
The searches identified nine separate studies (45 publications), of which four studies (36 publications) were included with a total of 667 participants, one study (only available as an abstract) is awaiting assessment and two studies are ongoing. Duration of treatment in the included studies ranged from two weeks to six months with open-label treatment for an additional six months in two of the studies. Three studies compared mannitol with control (a very low dose of mannitol or non-respirable mannitol); two of these were parallel studies with a similar design and data could be pooled, where data for a particular outcome and time point were available; also, one short-term cross-over study supplied additional results. The fourth study compared mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. There was generally a low risk of bias in relation to randomisation and blinding; evidence from the parallel studies was judged to be of low to moderate quality and from the cross-over studies was judged to be of low to very low quality. While the published papers did not provide all the data required for our analysis, additional unpublished data were provided by the drug's manufacturer and the author of one of the studies. There was an initial test to see if participants tolerated mannitol, with only those who could tolerate the drug being randomised to the studies; therefore the study results are not applicable to the cystic fibrosis population as a whole.For the comparison of mannitol and control, we found no consistent differences in health-related quality of life in any of the domains, except for burden of treatment, which was less for mannitol up to four months in the two pooled studies of a similar design; this difference was not maintained at six months. Up to and including six months, lung function in terms of forced expiratory volume at one second (millilitres) and per cent predicted were significantly improved in all three studies comparing mannitol to control. Beneficial results were observed in these studies in adults and in both concomitant dornase alfa users and non users. A significant reduction was shown in the incidence of pulmonary exacerbations in favour of mannitol at six months; however, the estimate of this effect was imprecise so it is unclear whether the effect is clinically meaningful. Cough, haemoptysis, bronchospasm, pharyngolaryngeal pain and post-tussive vomiting were the most commonly reported side effects on both treatments. Mannitol was not associated with any increase in isolation of bacteria over a six-month period.In the 12-week cross-over study (28 participants), no significant differences were found in the recorded domains of health-related quality of life or measures of lung function between mannitol versus dornase alfa alone and versus mannitol plus dornase alfa. There seemed to be a higher rate of pulmonary exacerbations in the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm compared with dornase alfa alone; although not statistically significant, this was the most common reason for stopping treatment in this arm. Cough was the most common side effect in the mannitol alone arm but there was no occurrence of cough in the dornase alfa alone arm and the most commonly reported reason of withdrawal from the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm was pulmonary exacerbations. Mannitol (with or without dornase alfa) was not associated with any increase in isolation of bacteria over the 12-week period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence to show that treatment with mannitol over a six-month period is associated with an improvement in some measures of lung function in people with cystic fibrosis compared to control. There is no evidence that quality of life is improved for participants taking mannitol compared to control; a decrease in burden of treatment was observed up to four months on mannitol compared to control but this difference was not maintained to six months. Randomised information regarding the burden of adding mannitol to an existing treatment is limited. There is no randomised evidence of improvement in lung function or quality of life comparing mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa.Mannitol as a single or concomitant treatment to dornase alfa may be of benefit to people with cystic fibrosis, but further research is required in order to establish who may benefit most and whether this benefit is sustained in the longer term.The clinical implications from this review suggest that mannitol could be considered as a treatment in cystic fibrosis; however, studies comparing its efficacy against other (established) mucolytic therapies need to be undertaken before it can be considered for mainstream practice.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adult; Cystic Fibrosis; Deoxyribonuclease I; Humans; Mannitol; Mucociliary Clearance; Powders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins
PubMed: 26451533
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008649.pub2 -
Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences 2022Chronic cough is a common reason for medical referral and its prevalence is on the rise. With only one pharmaceutical therapy currently under review for the treatment of...
BACKGROUND
Chronic cough is a common reason for medical referral and its prevalence is on the rise. With only one pharmaceutical therapy currently under review for the treatment of refractory chronic cough, exploring non-pharmacological chronic cough management therapies is important. This systematic review summarizes the effectiveness of non-pharmacological chronic cough therapies in adults with non-productive refractory chronic cough or cough due to chronic respiratory diseases.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Scopus from inception to September 2021. Randomized controlled trials published in English, Portuguese, or French, and examining the effects of non-pharmacological therapies in adults with chronic non-productive cough (>8 weeks; <2 teaspoons sputum) were included. Mean differences, medians, and odds ratios were calculated as appropriate.
RESULTS
16,546 articles were identified and six articles representing five unique studies were included. Studies evaluated 228 individuals with refractory chronic cough or chronic cough due to a chronic respiratory disease [162 women (71%); 52 ± 11 to 61 ± 8 years old]. Obstructive sleep apnea was the only chronic respiratory disease studied. Non-pharmacological therapies included education, cough suppression, breathing techniques, mindfulness, and continuous positive airway pressure. When standing alone, non-pharmacological cough therapies improved cough-specific health related quality of life when not associated with interventions (mean diff MD 1.53 to 4.54), cough frequency (MD 0.59 95%CI 0.36 to 0.95), and voice outcomes (MD 0.3 to 1) when compared to control interventions.
CONCLUSION
The evidence of non-pharmacological therapies for non-productive chronic cough is limited. Existing studies reflect the heterogeneity in study design, sample size, and outcome measures. Thus, clinical recommendations for using the most effective interventions remain to be confirmed.
PubMed: 36188925
DOI: 10.3389/fresc.2022.905257 -
Allergologia Et Immunopathologia 2021The current systematic review presented and discussed the most recent studies on pediatric chronic cough. In addition, the Italian Society of Pediatric Allergy and...
The current systematic review presented and discussed the most recent studies on pediatric chronic cough. In addition, the Italian Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology elaborated a comprehensive algorithm to guide the primary care approach to a pediatric patient with chronic cough.Several algorithms on chronic cough management have been adopted and validated in clinical practice; however, unlike the latter, we developed an algorithm focused on pediatric age, from birth until adulthood. Based on our findings, children and adolescents with chronic cough without cough pointers can be safely managed, initially using the watchful waiting approach and, successively, starting empirical treatment based on cough characteristics. Unlike other algorithms that suggest laboratory and instrumental investigations as a first step, this review highlighted the importance of a "wait and see" approach, consisting of parental reassurance and close clinical observation, also due to inter-professional collaboration and communication between general practitioners and specialists that guarantee better patient management, appropriate prescription behavior, and improved patient outcome. Moreover, the neonatal screening program provided by the Italian National Health System, which intercepts several diseases precociously, allowing to treat them in a very early stage, helps and supports a "wait and see" approach.Conversely, in the presence of cough pointers or persistence of cough, the patient should be tested and treated by the specialist. Further investigations and treatments will be based on cough etiology, aiming to intercept the underlying disease, prevent potentially irreversible tissue damage, and improve the general health of patients affected by chronic cough, as well as the quality of life of patients and their family.
Topics: Allergy and Immunology; Antitussive Agents; Child; Chronic Disease; Combined Modality Therapy; Cough; Humans; Italy; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quality of Life; Societies, Medical; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 33641305
DOI: 10.15586/aei.v49i2.44 -
Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome 2021/Aim: Various reports of the occurrence of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in patients with COVID-19 have been published, denoting an association between both diseases....
BACKGROUND
/Aim: Various reports of the occurrence of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in patients with COVID-19 have been published, denoting an association between both diseases. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review to summarize the prevalence of T1DM in COVID-19 patients and to identify the clinical presentations and outcomes in this patient population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Up to 10/27/2020, Medline, Embase, cochrane and google scholar databases were searched for original studies investigating the association between COVID-19 and T1DM. A manual search was conducted to identify missing studies. The quality of included studies was analyzed by the National Institute of Health (NIH) risk of bias tool. Outcomes included length of hospital stay, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), severe hypoglycemia, and death.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Included studies reported data of both adult and pediatric patients. The prevalence of T1DM in COVID-19 patients ranged from 0.15% to 28.98%, while the rate of COVID-19 in patients with T1DM ranged from 0% to 16.67%. Dry cough, nausea, vomiting, fever and elevated blood glucose levels were the most commonly reported presentations. The investigated outcomes varied widely among studied populations.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of T1DM in patients with COVID-19 ranged from 0.15% to 28.98%. The most common presentation of COVID-19 in patients with T1DM included fever, dry cough, nausea and vomiting, elevated blood glucose and diabetic ketoacidosis. The outcomes of COVID-19 in terms of length of hospital stay, hospitalization, ICU admission, DKA rate, and severe hypoglycemia were reported variably in included studies. Due to the heterogeneous study populations and the presence of many limitations, more studies are still warranted to reach a definitive conclusion.
Topics: Blood Glucose; COVID-19; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Humans; Length of Stay
PubMed: 33592371
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2021.02.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Mannitol increases mucociliary clearance, but its exact mechanism of action... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Mannitol increases mucociliary clearance, but its exact mechanism of action is unknown. The dry powder formulation of mannitol may be more convenient and easier to use compared with established agents which require delivery via a nebuliser. Phase III trials of inhaled dry powder mannitol for the treatment of cystic fibrosis have been completed and it is now available in Australia and some countries in Europe. This is an update of a previous review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether inhaled dry powder mannitol is well tolerated, whether it improves the quality of life and respiratory function in people with cystic fibrosis and which adverse events are associated with the treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic databases, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences. Date of last search: 12 December 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled studies comparing mannitol with placebo, active inhaled comparators (for example, hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) or with no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, carried out data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies (reported in 36 unique publications) were included with a total of 784 participants. Duration of treatment in the included studies ranged from 12 days to six months, with open-label treatment for an additional six months in two of the studies. Five studies compared mannitol with control (a very low dose of mannitol or non-respirable mannitol) and the final study compared mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. Two large studies had a similar parallel design and provided data for 600 participants, which could be pooled where data for a particular outcome and time point were available. The remaining studies had much smaller sample sizes (ranging from 22 to 95) and data could not be pooled due to differences in design, interventions and population. Pooled evidence from the two large parallel studies was judged to be of low to moderate quality and from the smaller studies was judged to be of low to very low quality. In all studies, there was an initial test to see if participants tolerated mannitol, with only those who could tolerate the drug being randomised; therefore, the study results are not applicable to the cystic fibrosis population as a whole. While the published papers did not provide all the data required for our analysis, additional unpublished data were provided by the drug's manufacturer and the author of one of the studies. Pooling the large parallel studies comparing mannitol to control, up to and including six months, lung function (forced expiratory volume at one second) measured in both mL and % predicted was significantly improved in the mannitol group compared to the control group (moderate-quality evidence). Beneficial results were observed in these studies in adults and in both concomitant dornase alfa users and non-users in these studies. In the smaller studies, statistically significant improvements in lung function were also observed in the mannitol groups compared to the non-respirable mannitol groups; however, we judged this evidence to be of low to very low quality. For the comparisons of mannitol and control, we found no consistent differences in health-related quality of life in any of the domains except for burden of treatment, which was less for mannitol up to four months in the two pooled studies of a similar design; this difference was not maintained at six months. It should be noted that the tool used to measure health-related quality of life was not designed to assess mucolytics and pooling of the age-appropriate tools (as done in some of the included studies) may not be valid so results were judged to be low to very low quality and should be interpreted with caution. Cough, haemoptysis, bronchospasm, pharyngolaryngeal pain and post-tussive vomiting were the most commonly reported side effects in both treatment groups. Where rates of adverse events could be compared, statistically no significant differences were found between mannitol and control groups; although some of these events may have clinical relevance for people with CF. For the comparisons of mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa, very low-quality evidence from a 12-week cross-over study of 28 participants showed no statistically significant differences in the recorded domains of health-related quality of life or measures of lung function. Cough was the most common side effect in the mannitol alone arm but there was no occurrence of cough in the dornase alfa alone arm and the most commonly reported reason of withdrawal from the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm was pulmonary exacerbations. In terms of secondary outcomes of the review (pulmonary exacerbations, hospitalisations, symptoms, sputum microbiology), evidence provided by the included studies was more limited. For all comparisons, no consistent statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences were observed between mannitol and control treatments (including dornase alfa).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-quality evidence to show that treatment with mannitol over a six-month period is associated with an improvement in some measures of lung function in people with cystic fibrosis compared to control. There is low to very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in quality of life for participants taking mannitol compared to control. This review provides very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in lung function or quality of life comparing mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. The clinical implications from this review suggest that mannitol could be considered as a treatment in cystic fibrosis; but further research is required in order to establish who may benefit most and whether this benefit is sustained in the longer term. Furthermore, studies comparing its efficacy against other (established) mucolytic therapies need to be undertaken before it can be considered for mainstream practice.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adult; Child; Cystic Fibrosis; Deoxyribonuclease I; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Mannitol; Mucociliary Clearance; Powders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Respiratory Function Tests; Vital Capacity
PubMed: 32358807
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008649.pub4 -
Journal of Public Health (Oxford,... Sep 2015To investigate the efficacy and the adverse effects (AEs) of the electronic cigarette, we performed a systematic review of published studies. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To investigate the efficacy and the adverse effects (AEs) of the electronic cigarette, we performed a systematic review of published studies.
METHODS
We selected experimental and observational studies examining the efficacy (as reduction of desire to smoke and/or number of cigarettes smoked and/or quitting or as reduction of nicotine withdrawal symptoms) and the safety of EC (AEs self-reported or clinical/laboratory). The following search engines were used: PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register.
RESULTS
Finally, six experimental studies and six cohort studies were included. In the prospective 12-month, randomized controlled trial, smoking reduction was documented in 22.3 and 10.3% at Weeks 12 and 52, respectively (P < 0.001 versus baseline). Moreover, two cohort studies reported a reduction in the number of cigarette/day (from 50 to 80%) after the introduction of the EC. 'Mouth and throat irritation', 'nausea', 'headache' and 'dry cough' were the most frequently AEs reported.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of the EC can reduce the number of cigarettes smoked and withdrawal symptoms, but the AEs reported are mainly related to a short period of use. Long-term studies are needed to evaluate the effects of the EC usage after a chronic exposure.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Smoking
PubMed: 25108741
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdu055