Trystan Bacon, Clara Blanchard, Estelle Dubois, Hélène Vaillant-Roussel, Rémy Boussageon
{"title":"No evidence of clinical efficacy of oxomemazine in cough, according to a systematic review.","authors":"Trystan Bacon, Clara Blanchard, Estelle Dubois, Hélène Vaillant-Roussel, Rémy Boussageon","doi":"10.1007/s00228-024-03716-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Cough is a prevalent symptom driving patients to seek medical attention in general practice. Despite its widespread use, the clinical efficacy of oxomemazine, the second most reimbursed molecule in France for symptomatic cough treatment, remains uncertain. This study aims to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of oxomemazine in cough.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted according to the Rebuild the Evidence Base (REB) protocol. Clinical trials comparing the efficacy of oxomemazine versus placebo or active comparator in cough were searched for. Trials with insufficient data were excluded. Searches were conducted across major databases (Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase) and trial registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov). RCTs comparing oxomemazine versus placebo or active comparators in cough were sought. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's RoB2 tool. The protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO under the number CRD42022345496 (15). This study received no funding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No RCTs were at low risk of bias. Therefore, no meta-analysis was conducted, in accordance to the pre-specified protocol.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review highlights the lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of oxomemazine in cough treatment and underscores the need for further well-designed clinical trials to inform its clinical utility in primary care settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":11857,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"1593-1595"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-024-03716-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Cough is a prevalent symptom driving patients to seek medical attention in general practice. Despite its widespread use, the clinical efficacy of oxomemazine, the second most reimbursed molecule in France for symptomatic cough treatment, remains uncertain. This study aims to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of oxomemazine in cough.
Methods: A systematic literature review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted according to the Rebuild the Evidence Base (REB) protocol. Clinical trials comparing the efficacy of oxomemazine versus placebo or active comparator in cough were searched for. Trials with insufficient data were excluded. Searches were conducted across major databases (Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase) and trial registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov). RCTs comparing oxomemazine versus placebo or active comparators in cough were sought. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's RoB2 tool. The protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO under the number CRD42022345496 (15). This study received no funding.
Results: No RCTs were at low risk of bias. Therefore, no meta-analysis was conducted, in accordance to the pre-specified protocol.
Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of oxomemazine in cough treatment and underscores the need for further well-designed clinical trials to inform its clinical utility in primary care settings.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology publishes original papers on all aspects of clinical pharmacology and drug therapy in humans. Manuscripts are welcomed on the following topics: therapeutic trials, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, pharmacogenetics, drug metabolism, adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, all aspects of drug development, development relating to teaching in clinical pharmacology, pharmacoepidemiology, and matters relating to the rational prescribing and safe use of drugs. Methodological contributions relevant to these topics are also welcomed.
Data from animal experiments are accepted only in the context of original data in man reported in the same paper. EJCP will only consider manuscripts describing the frequency of allelic variants in different populations if this information is linked to functional data or new interesting variants. Highly relevant differences in frequency with a major impact in drug therapy for the respective population may be submitted as a letter to the editor.
Straightforward phase I pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic studies as parts of new drug development will only be considered for publication if the paper involves
-a compound that is interesting and new in some basic or fundamental way, or
-methods that are original in some basic sense, or
-a highly unexpected outcome, or
-conclusions that are scientifically novel in some basic or fundamental sense.