成人难治性或不明原因慢性咳嗽治疗方法的系统文献综述。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Annals of Thoracic Medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-25 DOI:10.4103/atm.atm_105_23
Vishal Bali, Peter Kardos, Clive Page, Paola Rogliani, Luigino Calzetta, Ada Adriano, Aidan Byrne, Adekemi Adeyemi, Andrew Frederickson, Jonathan Schelfhout
{"title":"成人难治性或不明原因慢性咳嗽治疗方法的系统文献综述。","authors":"Vishal Bali, Peter Kardos, Clive Page, Paola Rogliani, Luigino Calzetta, Ada Adriano, Aidan Byrne, Adekemi Adeyemi, Andrew Frederickson, Jonathan Schelfhout","doi":"10.4103/atm.atm_105_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50760,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Thoracic Medicine","volume":"19 1","pages":"56-73"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10911236/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic literature review of treatments used for refractory or unexplained chronic cough in adults.\",\"authors\":\"Vishal Bali, Peter Kardos, Clive Page, Paola Rogliani, Luigino Calzetta, Ada Adriano, Aidan Byrne, Adekemi Adeyemi, Andrew Frederickson, Jonathan Schelfhout\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/atm.atm_105_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Thoracic Medicine\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"56-73\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10911236/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Thoracic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/atm.atm_105_23\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Thoracic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/atm.atm_105_23","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:难治性或原因不明的慢性咳嗽(RCC 或 UCC)很难控制,通常是在标签外使用已批准用于其他适应症的药物进行治疗:本系统性文献综述(SLR)的目的是确定和描述目前已发表的有关 RCC 或 UCC 治疗方法的有效性和安全性的证据:方法:SLR 是根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南进行的。SLR的预定义人群包括年龄≥18岁、确诊患有慢性咳嗽的患者。综述不局限于任何干预类型或研究比较对象,也不受时间范围限制:结果:共纳入了 19 项试验中符合条件的 20 篇文献。其中 17 项试验为随机对照试验,大部分(14/17)为安慰剂对照试验。不同试验在 RCC 或 UCC 的定义、参与者排除和纳入标准、结果测量时间点以及评估的安全性和有效性结果方面存在很大差异。有几项试验发现,参与者在接受治疗期间,咳嗽频率、严重程度或与健康相关的生活质量都有了明显改善,但这些改善在任何一项包含治疗后随访时间点的研究中都没有持续:结论:在没有获得批准的疗法的情况下,安慰剂仍然是潜在的 RCC 或 UCC 治疗试验中最常见的参照物。已发表证据的研究间可比性因研究设计、研究人群和结果测量的异质性以及研究规模和偏倚风险而受到限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Systematic literature review of treatments used for refractory or unexplained chronic cough in adults.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Thoracic Medicine
Annals of Thoracic Medicine CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal will cover studies related to multidisciplinary specialties of chest medicine, such as adult and pediatrics pulmonology, thoracic surgery, critical care medicine, respiratory care, transplantation, sleep medicine, related basic medical sciences, and more. The journal also features basic science, special reports, case reports, board review , and more. Editorials and communications to the editor that explore controversial issues and encourage further discussion by physicians dealing with chest medicine.
期刊最新文献
Effect of surgery on survival of patients with small-cell lung cancer undiagnosed before resection. Investigating the dynamic relationship of sleep-disordered breathing, orthodontic treatment needs, and dental esthetics in the general population. Is chest tube omission safe for patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax scheduled for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery? Sleep disorders among elderly in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study. To assess the differences between thymoma patients with/without myasthenia all of their characteristics must be considered.
×
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