-
The Senior Care Pharmacist Feb 2021The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the available evidence for safety and efficacy of over-the-counter (OTC) sleep aids used for the treatment of...
The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the available evidence for safety and efficacy of over-the-counter (OTC) sleep aids used for the treatment of insomnia in older people.
PubMed, EBSCO, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts.
Five studies were included that involved humans 65 years of age and older being evaluated on OTC sleep aids in the outpatient setting.
Data extraction from each study included primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, such as differences in the mean total sleep time, sleep latency, sleep efficiency, and number of awakenings, along with safety endpoints, such as psychomotor ability, cognitive ability, and adverse effect profiles. Both subjective and objective measures of changes in sleep and adverse effects were included.
Diphenhydramine had a statistically significant increase in sedation and decrease in number of awakenings but was not shown to be any less or more safe than compared products. Despite lacking safety issues, valerian was found to have no effect on subjective or objective sleep outcomes. Overall, melatonin had the most evidence and was found to have a statistically significant positive impact on sleep measures without safety issues.
Diphenhydramine and melatonin appear to be efficacious in improving some sleep measures while causing minimal adverse effects. However, there are very few studies that examine the use of over-the-counter sleep aids in those 65 years of age and older with primary insomnia. Additional studies are needed in this population.Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Diphenhydramine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Melatonin; Nonprescription Drugs; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Sleep Wake Disorders; Valerian
PubMed: 33509331
DOI: 10.4140/TCP.n.2021.83 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Feb 2024There are only a few clinical trials which address the treatment of acute urticaria (AU). Especially, the added value of systemic corticosteroids to antihistamines is... (Review)
Review
There are only a few clinical trials which address the treatment of acute urticaria (AU). Especially, the added value of systemic corticosteroids to antihistamines is unclear in treatment of severe AU. To review the existing evidence-based approaches for AU treatment. A systematic electronic search was done in PubMed and Web of Science to retrieve all studies on the treatment of patients with AU. A descriptive synthesis was conducted based on the PRISMA statement. Quality assessment was independently performed by both reviewers ('Cochrane risk-of-bias tool' for RCTs). Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 857 participants) were included. Four studies assessed corticosteroid effectiveness added to antihistamines and six studies compared the efficacy of H and/ or H -antihistamines. The addition of corticosteroid (prednisone) to an antihistamine (levo)cetirizine did not improve symptoms of AU compared to antihistamine alone in two out of three RCTs. The combination of diphenhydramine (50 mg, IV) and ranitidine (50 mg, IV) or cimetidine (300 mg, IV) was most efficient for relief of urticaria in two out of five studies. Most frequent adverse effects were sedation and drowsiness. Recent guidelines on urticaria treatment mainly focus on chronic urticaria rather than on AU. Moreover, only few, small RCTs provide evidence for the management of AU. Thus, the state-of-the-art management of this frequent condition remains unclear. The addition of corticosteroids to an antihistamine as treatment for AU needs to be further investigated. Well-designed, high-quality interventional trials are needed to establish evidence-based treatment guidelines for AU.
PubMed: 38420865
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.19904 -
European Journal of Clinical... Mar 2020Insomnia is highly prevalent in older persons and significantly impacts quality of life, functional abilities, and health status. It is frequently treated with...
PURPOSE
Insomnia is highly prevalent in older persons and significantly impacts quality of life, functional abilities, and health status. It is frequently treated with benzodiazepines or Z-drugs. Due to adverse events, an increased use of alternative sedative medications has been observed in older adults. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of alternative sedative medications for treating insomnia in older people, excluding benzodiazepines and Z-drugs.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials databases. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective quasi-experimental studies, conducted in patients older than 65 years, without psychiatric or neurological comorbidities.
RESULTS
The systematic search yielded 9483 articles, of which 24 were included in this review, describing nine different sleep medications in total. No clear beneficial impact on sleep could be demonstrated in studies investigating the impact of melatonin (n = 10), paroxetine (n = 1), diphenhydramine (n = 1), tiagabine (n = 2), and valerian (n = 1). Ramelteon slightly improved sleep latency (n = 4), while doxepin was found to provide a sustained sleep improvement with a safety profile that was comparable to placebo (n = 3). Suvorexant showed an improved sleep maintenance with only mild side effects (n = 1). One study detected increased adverse effects of trazodone after 3 months but did not evaluate the effect on sleep.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall level of evidence was limited, making it difficult to draw robust conclusions. Preliminary evidence points towards suvorexant, doxepin, and possibly ramelteon as effective and safe pharmacological alternatives for treating insomnia in older adults.
Topics: Aged; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders
PubMed: 31838549
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-019-02812-z -
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2023Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is identified as a major concern after surgery as it can lead to increased morbidity and prolonged hospital stay. A suitable...
Pharmacological interventions for reducing catheter-related bladder discomfort in patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is identified as a major concern after surgery as it can lead to increased morbidity and prolonged hospital stay. A suitable agent to prevent and treat postoperative CRBD is not yet established, and the literature is scarce in this regard. So, we aimed to find the efficacy of various drugs in preventing CRBD after elective surgery.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for the study, and electronic databases like PubMed Central, Cochrane database and Embase were searched. The methodological quality of selected studies was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Review Manager 5.4.1 was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis revealed that antimuscarinic agents were able to lower the incidence of CRBD significantly at 0 hour, 1 hour, 2 hours and 6 hours ( < 0.01) after the surgery. Tramadol was effective at 1 hour, 2 hours and 6 hours postoperatively ( < 0.01), whereas ketamine was effective at 2 and 6 hours ( < 0.01) postoperatively. Antiepileptic drugs (pregabalin and gabapentin) were able to lower the incidence of CRBD at 0 hour ( < 0.01), 1 hour ( < 0.05), 2 hours ( < 0.05) and 6 hours ( < 0.01) postoperatively while dexmedetomidine at 0 hour ( < 0.01) and 2 hours ( < 0.01) after the surgery. Injections paracetamol, amikacin and diphenhydramine were also shown to reduce the incidence of CRBD in separate randomised controlled trials.
CONCLUSION
The current meta-analysis showed that antimuscarinic agents, tramadol, pregabalin, gabapentin, paracetamol and dexmedetomidine are effective in significantly reducing the incidence of postoperative CRBD.
PubMed: 37122936
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_200_22 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2012Urticaria is a common skin disease characterised by itching weals or hives, which can occur almost anywhere on the body. There are a number of different subtypes and a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Urticaria is a common skin disease characterised by itching weals or hives, which can occur almost anywhere on the body. There are a number of different subtypes and a range of available treatment options. There is lack of agreement on the efficacy of H2-receptor antagonists used in the treatment of urticaria.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety and effectiveness of H2-receptor antagonists in the treatment of urticaria.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 7 October 2011: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of H2-receptor antagonists in people with a clinical diagnosis of urticaria of any duration or of any subtype. Studies including H1-antihistamines for chronic urticaria are the topic of a separate Cochrane review; thus, they were not included in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted and analysed data.
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies of a relatively small size, involving 144 participants, were included in this review. A combination of ranitidine with diphenhydramine was more effective at improving the resolution of urticaria than diphenhydramine administered alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 2.36). Although there was a similar improvement in itching, weal size, and intensity, cimetidine provided no statistically significant greater overall improvement in symptoms of urticaria when compared to diphenhydramine. However, a combination of these medications was more effective than diphenhydramine alone (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.94). Adverse events were reported with several of the interventions, i.e. ranitidine and diphenhydramine, causing drowsiness and sedation, but there was no significant difference in the level of sedation from baseline with either famotidine or diphenhydramine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The very limited evidence provided by this review was based on a few old studies of a relatively small size, which we categorised as having high to unclear risk of bias. Thus, at present, the review does not allow confident decision-making about the use of H2-receptor antagonists for urticaria. Although some of these studies have reported a measure of relief of symptoms of urticaria and rather minimal clinical improvement in some of the participants, the evidence was weak and unreliable. We have emphasised the lack of precision and limitations in the reported data where appropriate in this review.
Topics: Cimetidine; Diphenhydramine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Famotidine; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranitidine; Urticaria
PubMed: 22419335
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008596.pub2 -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ May 2018To determine the effectiveness of prophylactic anticholinergic medications in reducing extrapyramidal symptoms in patients taking acute antiemetics with a dopamine D2... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effects of prophylactic anticholinergic medications to decrease extrapyramidal side effects in patients taking acute antiemetic drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of prophylactic anticholinergic medications in reducing extrapyramidal symptoms in patients taking acute antiemetics with a dopamine D2 receptor antagonist effect.
METHODS
Systematic searches of all published studies through March 2017 were identified from PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus. Only randomised controlled trials of patients receiving dopamine D2 antagonist antiemetic therapy for acute migraine in which an anticholinergic or placebo was compared were included. Pooled ORs were calculated for incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms and sedation.
RESULTS
Four placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials consisting of 737 patients met the inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. The effect of diphenhydramine differed depending on the method of administration of the antiemetic. When the antiemetic was delivered as a 2 min antiemetic bolus, the odds of extrapyramidal symptoms were significantly reduced in the diphenhydramine group compared with placebo (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.81; P=0.01). However, when the antiemetic was given as a 15 min infusion, there was no significant difference in extrapyramidal symptoms with or without diphenhydramine (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.91; P=0.85). The lowest incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms was observed in patients receiving a 15 min antiemetic infusion without diphenhydramine prophylaxis (9.8%). In two trials including 351 patients that dichotomously reported sedation scales, diphenhydramine had significantly higher rates of sedation (31.6%vs19.2%, OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.33; P=0.007).
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic diphenhydramine reduces extrapyramidal symptoms in patients receiving bolus antiemetic therapy with a dopamine D2 antagonist effect, but not when it is given as an infusion. Because of significantly greater sedation with diphenhydramine, the most effective strategy is to administer the D2 antagonist antiemetic as a 15 min infusion without prophylaxis.
Topics: Antiemetics; Basal Ganglia Diseases; Cholinergic Antagonists; Diphenhydramine; Humans
PubMed: 29431143
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2017-206944 -
CNS Drugs Mar 2019Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia. However, it has a high burden of adverse events, including common adverse events such... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia. However, it has a high burden of adverse events, including common adverse events such as sialorrhea. Sialorrhea can lead to severe physical complications such as aspiration pneumonia, as well as psychological complications including embarrassment and low self-esteem. Compromised adherence and treatment discontinuation can occur due to intolerability. There have been no meta-analyses examining strategies to mitigate clozapine-induced sialorrhea.
METHODS
We systematically searched Chinese and Western research databases for randomised controlled trials examining agents for clozapine-induced sialorrhea. No limit to language or date were applied to the search. Where sufficient data for individual agents was available, pairwise meta-analyses were conducted. Results were provided as risk ratios and number needed to treat. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by study quality. Adverse events were provided as number needed to harm.
RESULTS
19 studies provided data for use in the meta-analysis. Improvement in clozapine-induced sialorrhea was seen in meta-analyses of propantheline (studies = 6, risk ratio [RR] 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-3.73; number needed to treat [NNT] 3, 95% CI 1.9-2.7), diphenhydramine (studies = 5, RR 3.09, 95% CI 2.36-4.03; NNT 2, 95% CI 1.5-2.0), chlorpheniramine (studies = 2, RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.59-3.55; NNT 3, 95% CI 1.6-3.5), and benzamide derivatives (odds ratio [OR] 6.93, 95% CI 3.03-15.86). When meta-analyses were limited to high-quality studies, all these results remained significant. Single studies of benzhexol, cyproheptadine, doxepin and Kongyan Tang showed promise. Propantheline increased rates of constipation with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 9 (95% CI 4.2-204.1).
CONCLUSION
Clozapine-induced sialorrhea is a potentially serious adverse event. Included studies in this meta-analysis were limited by poor study quality. Diphenhydramine, chlorpheniramine and benzamide derivatives appear to have the best supporting evidence and lowest reported adverse events. Caution should be exercised when using propantheline given its increased risk of constipation.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Muscarinic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salivation; Schizophrenia; Sialorrhea
PubMed: 30758782
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-019-00612-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Postburn pruritus (itch) is a common and distressing symptom experienced on healing or healed burn or donor site wounds. Topical, systemic, and physical treatments are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postburn pruritus (itch) is a common and distressing symptom experienced on healing or healed burn or donor site wounds. Topical, systemic, and physical treatments are available to control postburn pruritus; however, it remains unclear how effective these are.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for treating postburn pruritus in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2022, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and scanned references of relevant publications to identify eligible trials. There were no restrictions with respect to language, publication date, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with postburn pruritus to compare an intervention for postburn pruritus with any other intervention, placebo or sham intervention, or no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs assessing 21 interventions with 1166 randomised participants. These 21 interventions can be grouped into six categories: neuromodulatory agents (such as doxepin, gabapentin, pregabalin, ondansetron), topical therapies (such as CQ-01 hydrogel, silicone gel, enalapril ointment, Provase moisturiser, beeswax and herbal oil cream), physical modalities (such as massage therapy, therapeutic touch, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, enhanced education about silicone gel sheeting), laser scar revision (pulsed dye laser, pulsed high-intensity laser, fractional CO2 laser), electrical stimulation (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation), and other therapies (cetirizine/cimetidine combination, lemon balm tea). Most RCTs were conducted at academic hospitals and were at a high risk of performance, attrition, and detection bias. While 24 out of 25 included studies reported change in burn-related pruritus, secondary outcomes such as cost-effectiveness, pain, patient perception, wound healing, and participant health-related quality of life were not reported or were reported incompletely. Neuromodulatory agents versus antihistamines or placebo There is low-certainty evidence that doxepin cream may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with oral antihistamine (mean difference (MD) -2.60 on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.79 to -1.42; 2 studies, 49 participants). A change of 2 points represents a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Due to very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether doxepin cream impacts the incidence of somnolence as an adverse event compared to oral antihistamine (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; 1 study, 24 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is low-certainty evidence that gabapentin may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with cetirizine (MD -2.40 VAS, 95% CI -4.14 to -0.66; 1 study, 40 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. There is low-certainty evidence that gabapentin reduces the incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38; 1 study, 40 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is low-certainty evidence that pregabalin may result in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with cetirizine with pheniramine maleate (MD -0.80 VAS, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.36; 1 study, 40 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. There is low-certainty evidence that pregabalin reduces the incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.69; 1 study, 40 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is moderate-certainty evidence that ondansetron probably results in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with diphenhydramine (MD -0.76 on a 0 to 10 numeric analogue scale (NAS), 95% CI -1.50 to -0.02; 1 study, 38 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. No data were reported on pain and adverse events in the included study. Topical therapies versus relevant comparators There is moderate-certainty evidence that enalapril ointment probably decreases mean burn-related pruritus compared with placebo control (MD -0.70 on a 0 to 4 scoring table for itching, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.36; 1 study, 60 participants). No data were reported on pain and adverse events in the included study. Physical modalities versus relevant comparators Compared with standard care, there is low-certainty evidence that massage may reduce burn-related pruritus (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.86, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.27; 2 studies, 166 participants) and pain (SMD -1.32, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.98). These SMDs equate to a 4.60-point reduction in pruritus and a 3.74-point reduction in pain on a 10-point VAS. A change of 2 VAS points in itch represents a MCID. No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies. There is low-certainty evidence that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with sham stimulation (SMD -1.20, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.75; 2 studies, 91 participants). This equates to a 5.93-point reduction in pruritus on a 22-point 12-item Pruritus Severity Scale. There is low-certainty evidence that ESWT may reduce pain compared with sham stimulation (MD 2.96 on a 0 to 25 pressure pain threshold (PPT), 95% CI 1.76 to 4.16; 1 study, 45 participants). No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies. Laser scar revision versus untreated or placebo controls There is moderate-certainty evidence that pulsed high-intensity laser probably results in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with placebo laser (MD -0.51 on a 0 to 1 Itch Severity Scale (ISS), 95% CI -0.64 to -0.38; 1 study, 49 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence that pulsed high-intensity laser probably reduces pain compared with placebo laser (MD -3.23 VAS, 95% CI -5.41 to -1.05; 1 study, 49 participants). No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate to low-certainty evidence on the effects of 21 interventions. Most studies were small and at a high risk of bias related to blinding and incomplete outcome data. Where there is moderate-certainty evidence, practitioners should consider the applicability of the evidence for their patients.
Topics: Humans; Pruritus; Burns; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Bias; Antipruritics
PubMed: 38837237
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013468.pub2 -
Psychiatrische Praxis Jul 2013In many countries diphenhydramine (DPH) is commonly available over the counter, frequently used, and generally regarded as a harmless drug. It is used as a sedative,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
In many countries diphenhydramine (DPH) is commonly available over the counter, frequently used, and generally regarded as a harmless drug. It is used as a sedative, antiallergic or antiemetic substance.
METHODS
We present a systematic review of literature search in Pubmed from 1972 to 2012 describing DPH addiction. The literature search in reveals that the addictive potential of DPH can be regarded as proved, based on cases series, eight case reports, a pharmacological overview, one uncontrolled, and one randomized, placebo controlled study. In addition we report a case of an abstinent alcoholic patient treated in our department for DPH-dependency.
CONCLUSION
Especially when treating patients with a history of addiction, physicians should consider and check the possibility of a DPH dependency.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Alcoholism; Comorbidity; Diphenhydramine; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Tolerance; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Male; Middle Aged; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 23459952
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1332949 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2012Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to December week 4, 2011); EMBASE (1990 to January 2012); CINAHL (1981 to January 2012); Web of Science (2000 to January 2012); AMED (1985 to January 2012); LILACS (1982 to January 2012); and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from two to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two RCTs of high risk of bias involving 265 children. The studies compared the effect of honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and 'no treatment' on symptomatic relief of cough using the 7-point Likert scale.Honey was better than 'no treatment' in reducing frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.53 to -0.60; two studies; 154 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests honey did not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies; 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study; 80 participants).Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies; 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study; 80 participants) but there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan or honey versus diphenhydramine. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Honey may be better than 'no treatment' and diphenhydramine in the symptomatic relief of cough but not better than dextromethorphan. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.
Topics: Adolescent; Antitussive Agents; Apitherapy; Child; Child, Preschool; Cough; Dextromethorphan; Honey; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22419319
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007094.pub3