-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2009Chronic non-specific cough is a chronic, dry cough of in the absence of identifiable respiratory disease or known aetiology. Although it is usually not reflective of an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic non-specific cough is a chronic, dry cough of in the absence of identifiable respiratory disease or known aetiology. Although it is usually not reflective of an underlying severe illness, it does cause significant morbidity, and as such relief from it is often sought. The use of honey and lozenges to soothe upper respiratory tract irritation is common, inexpensive, and potentially more effective in treating the symptoms than pharmacological interventions.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of honey and/or lozenges in the management of children with chronic non-specific cough.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Airways Group searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, and EMBASE databases in October 2008.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing honey or lozenges with a placebo in treating children with chronic non-specific cough.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The results of the searches were assessed according to the pre-determined criteria. None of the trials identified by the searches were eligible for inclusion, leaving no data available for analysis in this review.
MAIN RESULTS
The search did not provide any applicable randomised controlled trials that investigated the efficacy of honey and lozenges in treating children with non-specific chronic cough. Data from acute studies suggest a potential role for honey in relieving cough, but whether this is applicable to chronic cough is unknown.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Clinically, this review was unable to provide any justifiable recommendation for or against honey and/or lozenges due to the lack of evidence. The absence of applicable studies highlights the need for further research into the area of treating children with chronic non-specific coughs with honey and/or lozenges. These treatments are not recommended when managing very young children (as lozenges are a potential choking hazard, and honey may cause infant botulism in children under 1 year of age).
Topics: Antitussive Agents; Child; Chronic Disease; Cough; Honey; Humans; Tablets
PubMed: 19370690
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007523.pub2 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018Several 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 Review
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: 28 September 2017.
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 50 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; Humans; Mannitol; Mucociliary Clearance; Powders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Respiratory Function Tests
PubMed: 29424930
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008649.pub3 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
JMIR MHealth and UHealth Jun 2022Mobile health (mHealth) apps have facilitated symptom monitoring of COVID-19 symptoms globally and have been used to share data with health care professionals and...
BACKGROUND
Mobile health (mHealth) apps have facilitated symptom monitoring of COVID-19 symptoms globally and have been used to share data with health care professionals and support disease prediction, prevention, management, diagnostics, and improvements in treatments and patient education.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this review is to evaluate the quality and functionality of COVID-19 mHealth apps that support tracking acute and long-term symptoms of COVID-19.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed commercially available mHealth apps for COVID-19 symptom monitoring by searching Google Play and Apple iTunes using search terms such as "COVID-19," "Coronavirus," and "COVID-19 and symptoms." All apps underwent three rounds of screening. The final apps were independently assessed using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), an informatics functionality scoring system, and the Center for Disease Control and World Health Organization symptom guidelines. The MARS is a 19-item standardized tool to evaluate the quality of mHealth apps on engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality. Functionality was quantified across the following criteria: inform, instruct, record (collect, share, evaluate, and intervene), display, guide, remind or alert, and communicate. Interrater reliability between the reviewers was calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 1017 mobile apps were reviewed, and 20 (2%) met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the 20 included apps (n=18, 90%) were designed to track acute COVID-19 symptoms, and only 2 (10%) addressed long-term symptoms. Overall, the apps scored high on quality, with an overall MARS rating of 3.89 out of 5, and the highest domain score for functionality (4.2). The most common functionality among all apps was the instruct function (n=19, 95%). The most common symptoms included in the apps for tracking were fever and dry cough (n=18, 90%), aches and pains (n=17, 85%), difficulty breathing (n=17, 85%), tiredness, sore throat, headache, loss of taste or smell (n=16, 80%), and diarrhea (n=15, 75%). Only 2 (10%) apps specifically tracked long-term symptoms of COVID-19. The top 4 rated apps overall were state-specific apps developed and deployed for public use.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, mHealth apps designed to monitor symptoms of COVID-19 were of high quality, but the majority of apps focused almost exclusively on acute symptoms. Future apps should also incorporate monitoring long-term symptoms of COVID-19 and evidence-based educational materials; they should also include a feature that would allow patients to communicate their symptoms to specific caregivers or their own health care team. App developers should also follow updated technical and clinical guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization.
Topics: COVID-19; Health Personnel; Humans; Mobile Applications; Reproducibility of Results; Telemedicine
PubMed: 35609313
DOI: 10.2196/36065 -
Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.) Sep 2013Both enalapril and losartan are effective and widely used in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This review aimed to evaluate the benefits of enalapril and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Both enalapril and losartan are effective and widely used in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This review aimed to evaluate the benefits of enalapril and losartan in adults with CKD.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched, without language limitations, for randomized controlled trials (RCT), in which enalapril and losartan were compared in adults with CKD. Standard methods, consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, were used. Reviewer Manager software, ver. 5.2, was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 318 citations retrieved, 17 RCT (14 parallel-group and three cross-over) met our inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis for parallel RCT showed that the effects of enalapril and losartan on blood pressure, renal function and serum uric acid (UA) were similar. Meta-analysis indicated that patients taking enalapril had a higher risk of dry cough (risk ratio, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.11-7.48; P=0.03). Sensitivity analysis showed good robustness of these findings.
CONCLUSION
Enalapril has similar effects to losartan on systemic blood pressure, renal function and serum UA in patients with CKD, but carries a higher risk of dry cough. Larger trials are required to evaluate the effects of these medications on clinical outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Biomarkers; Blood Pressure; Chi-Square Distribution; Cough; Creatinine; Enalapril; Female; Humans; Kidney; Losartan; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Renin-Angiotensin System; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Uric Acid
PubMed: 23869492
DOI: 10.1111/nep.12134 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2013Acetaminophen is frequently prescribed for treating patients with the common cold, but there is little evidence as to whether it is effective. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acetaminophen is frequently prescribed for treating patients with the common cold, but there is little evidence as to whether it is effective.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen in the treatment of the common cold in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 1, Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to January week 5, 2013), EMBASE (1980 to February 2013), CINAHL (1982 to February 2013) and LILACS (1985 to February 2013).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acetaminophen to placebo or no treatment in adults with the common cold. Studies were included if the trials used acetaminophen as one ingredient of a combination therapy. We excluded studies in which the participants had complications. Primary outcomes included subjective symptom score and duration of common cold symptoms. Secondary outcomes were overall well being, adverse events and financial costs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed standard statistical analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs involving 758 participants. We did not pool data because of heterogeneity in study designs, outcomes and time points. The studies provided sparse information about effects longer than a few hours, as three of four included studies were short trials of only four to six hours. Participants treated with acetaminophen had significant improvements in nasal obstruction in two of the four studies. One study showed that acetaminophen was superior to placebo in decreasing rhinorrhoea severity, but was not superior for treating sneezing and coughing. Acetaminophen did not improve sore throat or malaise in two of the four studies. Results were inconsistent for some symptoms. Two studies showed that headache and achiness improved more in the acetaminophen group than in the placebo group, while one study showed no difference between the acetaminophen and placebo group. None of the included studies reported the duration of common cold symptoms. Minor side effects (including gastrointestinal adverse events, dizziness, dry mouth, somnolence and increased sweating) in the acetaminophen group were reported in two of the four studies. One of them used a combination of pseudoephedrine and acetaminophen.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Acetaminophen may help relieve nasal obstruction and rhinorrhoea but does not appear to improve some other cold symptoms (including sore throat, malaise, sneezing and cough). However, two of the four included studies in this review were small and allocation concealment was unclear in all four studies. The data in this review do not provide sufficient evidence to inform practice regarding the use of acetaminophen for the common cold in adults. Further large-scale, well-designed trials are needed to determine whether this intervention is beneficial in the treatment of adults with the common cold.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adult; Common Cold; Humans; Nasal Obstruction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis
PubMed: 23818046
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008800.pub2