Systematic literature review of treatments used for refractory or unexplained chronic cough in adults

Author:

Bali Vishal1,Kardos Peter2,Page Clive3,Rogliani Paola4,Calzetta Luigino5,Adriano Ada6,Byrne Aidan6,Adeyemi Adekemi7,Frederickson Andrew78,Schelfhout Jonathan1

Affiliation:

1. Center for Observational and Real-World Evidence, Merck and Co. Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA

2. Red Cross Hospital, Department for Respiratory, Allergy, and Sleep, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

3. Professor of Pharmacology, Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, King’s College, London, United Kingdom

4. Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

5. Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

6. Outcomes Research, MSD, London, United Kingdom

7. PRECISIONheor, New York, NY, United States

8. PRECISIONheor, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Abstract

Abstract: 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.

Publisher

Medknow

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine,Surgery

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3