Does additional antimicrobial treatment have a better effect on URTI cough resolution than homeopathic symptomatic therapy alone? A real-life preliminary observational study in a pediatric population.

IF 2.3 Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine Pub Date : 2015-08-07 eCollection Date: 2015-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s40248-015-0022-3
Alessandro Zanasi, Salvatore Cazzato, Massimiliano Mazzolini, Carla Maria Sofia Ierna, Marianna Mastroroberto, Elena Nardi, Antonio Maria Morselli-Labate
{"title":"Does additional antimicrobial treatment have a better effect on URTI cough resolution than homeopathic symptomatic therapy alone? A real-life preliminary observational study in a pediatric population.","authors":"Alessandro Zanasi, Salvatore Cazzato, Massimiliano Mazzolini, Carla Maria Sofia Ierna, Marianna Mastroroberto, Elena Nardi, Antonio Maria Morselli-Labate","doi":"10.1186/s40248-015-0022-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effectiveness of a homeopathic syrup on cough has been demonstrated in an adult population in a previous double-blind randomized study. The present prospective observational study investigated children affected by wet acute cough caused by non-complicated URTIs, comparing those who received the homeopathic syrup versus those treated with the homeopathic syrup plus antibiotic.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aims were: 1) to assess whether the addition of antibiotics to a symptomatic treatment had a role in reducing the severity and duration of acute cough in a pediatric population, as well as in improving cough resolution; 2) to verify the safety of the two treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty-five children were enrolled in an open study: 46 children received homeopathic syrup alone for 10 days and 39 children received homeopathic syrup for 10 days plus oral antibiotic treatment (amoxicillin/clavulanate, clarithromycin, and erythromycin) for 7 days. To assess cough severity we used a subjective verbal category-descriptive (VCD) scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cough VCD score was significantly (P < 0.001) reduced in both groups starting from the second day of treatment (-0.52 ± 0.66 in the homeopathic syrup group and -0.56 ± 0.55 in children receiving homeopathic syrup plus oral antibiotic treatment). No significant differences in cough severity or resolution were found between the two groups of children in any of the 28 days of the study. After the first week (day 8) cough was completely resolved in more than one-half of patients in both groups. Two children (4.3 %) reported adverse effects in the group treated with the homeopathic syrup alone, versus 9 children (23.1 %) in the group treated with the homeopathic syrup plus antibiotics (P = 0.020).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data confirm that the homeopathic treatment in question has potential benefits for cough in children as well, and highlight the strong safety profile of this treatment. Additional antibiotic prescription was not associated with a greater cough reduction, and presented more adverse events than the homeopathic syrup alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":49031,"journal":{"name":"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine","volume":"10 1","pages":"25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527103/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40248-015-0022-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness of a homeopathic syrup on cough has been demonstrated in an adult population in a previous double-blind randomized study. The present prospective observational study investigated children affected by wet acute cough caused by non-complicated URTIs, comparing those who received the homeopathic syrup versus those treated with the homeopathic syrup plus antibiotic.

Objectives: The aims were: 1) to assess whether the addition of antibiotics to a symptomatic treatment had a role in reducing the severity and duration of acute cough in a pediatric population, as well as in improving cough resolution; 2) to verify the safety of the two treatments.

Methods: Eighty-five children were enrolled in an open study: 46 children received homeopathic syrup alone for 10 days and 39 children received homeopathic syrup for 10 days plus oral antibiotic treatment (amoxicillin/clavulanate, clarithromycin, and erythromycin) for 7 days. To assess cough severity we used a subjective verbal category-descriptive (VCD) scale.

Results: Cough VCD score was significantly (P < 0.001) reduced in both groups starting from the second day of treatment (-0.52 ± 0.66 in the homeopathic syrup group and -0.56 ± 0.55 in children receiving homeopathic syrup plus oral antibiotic treatment). No significant differences in cough severity or resolution were found between the two groups of children in any of the 28 days of the study. After the first week (day 8) cough was completely resolved in more than one-half of patients in both groups. Two children (4.3 %) reported adverse effects in the group treated with the homeopathic syrup alone, versus 9 children (23.1 %) in the group treated with the homeopathic syrup plus antibiotics (P = 0.020).

Conclusions: Our data confirm that the homeopathic treatment in question has potential benefits for cough in children as well, and highlight the strong safety profile of this treatment. Additional antibiotic prescription was not associated with a greater cough reduction, and presented more adverse events than the homeopathic syrup alone.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与单纯的顺势疗法相比,额外的抗菌治疗对尿崩症咳嗽的缓解效果更好吗?一项在儿科人群中进行的实际生活初步观察研究。
背景:在之前的一项双盲随机研究中,顺势疗法糖浆对成人咳嗽的疗效已得到证实。本前瞻性观察研究对非并发尿路感染引起的湿性急性咳嗽患儿进行了调查,并对接受顺势疗法糖浆治疗的患儿与接受顺势疗法糖浆加抗生素治疗的患儿进行了比较:目的:目的是1)评估在对症治疗的基础上加用抗生素是否能减轻小儿急性咳嗽的严重程度和持续时间,以及改善咳嗽的缓解;2)验证两种治疗方法的安全性:方法:85 名儿童参加了一项开放式研究:方法:85 名儿童参加了开放式研究:46 名儿童接受了为期 10 天的单纯顺势疗法糖浆治疗,39 名儿童接受了为期 10 天的顺势疗法糖浆治疗和为期 7 天的口服抗生素治疗(阿莫西林/克拉维酸、克拉霉素和红霉素)。为了评估咳嗽的严重程度,我们使用了主观口头分类描述(VCD)量表:结果:咳嗽 VCD 评分明显降低(P我们的数据证实了顺势疗法对儿童咳嗽也有潜在的疗效,并强调了这种疗法的安全性。与单独使用顺势疗法糖浆相比,额外的抗生素处方与更大的止咳效果无关,而且会产生更多的不良反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine is the official journal of the Italian Respiratory Society - Società Italiana di Pneumologia (IRS/SIP). The journal publishes on all aspects of respiratory medicine and related fields, with a particular focus on interdisciplinary and translational research. The interdisciplinary nature of the journal provides a unique opportunity for researchers, clinicians and healthcare professionals across specialties to collaborate and exchange information. The journal provides a high visibility platform for the publication and dissemination of top quality original scientific articles, reviews and important position papers documenting clinical and experimental advances.
期刊最新文献
Characteristics of culture-negative subclinical pulmonary tuberculosis: a single-center observation. Effective treatment with oral Salbutamol on late onset respiratory impairment in a DOK7 Congenital Myasthenia Syndrome: a case report. Gas exchange abnormalities in Long COVID are driven by the alteration of the vascular component Usability of inhaler devices: a parameter currently misused Characteristics of inpatients with atopic asthma in a tertiary center: do age and gender have an influence?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1