Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pholcodine and dextromethorphan in the management of patients with acute, non-productive cough : a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study.

Roberto Equinozzi, Maria Robuschi
{"title":"Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pholcodine and dextromethorphan in the management of patients with acute, non-productive cough : a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study.","authors":"Roberto Equinozzi,&nbsp;Maria Robuschi","doi":"10.2165/00151829-200605060-00014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of pholcodine with that of dextromethorphan, one of the most used cough sedative products, in patients with acute, non-productive cough.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>129 adults with a diagnosis of acute, frequent, non-productive cough participated in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter trial. Medications were in a syrup formulation and were taken orally three times daily for 3 days. The efficacy endpoints were the change from baseline in the daytime and night-time cough frequency on 5-point scales at day 3, and cough intensity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A reduction of 1.4 and 1.3 points in the mean daytime cough frequency at day 3 was seen in the pholcodine and dextromethorphan groups, respectively, in the per-protocol population. The reduction in mean night-time cough was 1.3 for both groups. Cough intensity reduction was 0.7 for pholcodine and 0.8 for dextromethorphan.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings indicate that the efficacy of a 3-day course of pholcodine is similar to that of dextromethorphan in the treatment of adult patients with acute, non-productive cough. Both medications were well tolerated.</p>","PeriodicalId":87162,"journal":{"name":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","volume":"5 6","pages":"509-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2165/00151829-200605060-00014","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2165/00151829-200605060-00014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of pholcodine with that of dextromethorphan, one of the most used cough sedative products, in patients with acute, non-productive cough.

Methods: 129 adults with a diagnosis of acute, frequent, non-productive cough participated in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter trial. Medications were in a syrup formulation and were taken orally three times daily for 3 days. The efficacy endpoints were the change from baseline in the daytime and night-time cough frequency on 5-point scales at day 3, and cough intensity.

Results: A reduction of 1.4 and 1.3 points in the mean daytime cough frequency at day 3 was seen in the pholcodine and dextromethorphan groups, respectively, in the per-protocol population. The reduction in mean night-time cough was 1.3 for both groups. Cough intensity reduction was 0.7 for pholcodine and 0.8 for dextromethorphan.

Conclusions: These findings indicate that the efficacy of a 3-day course of pholcodine is similar to that of dextromethorphan in the treatment of adult patients with acute, non-productive cough. Both medications were well tolerated.

福可定和右美沙芬治疗急性非干咳的比较疗效和耐受性:一项随机、双盲、多中心研究
简介:本研究的目的是比较福可定与右美沙芬(一种最常用的止咳药)在急性非咳性咳嗽患者中的疗效和耐受性。方法:129例诊断为急性、频繁、非生产性咳嗽的成年人参加了一项随机、双盲、平行组、多中心试验。药物为糖浆制剂,每日口服3次,连用3天。疗效终点为第3天白天和夜间咳嗽频率(5分量表)与基线的变化以及咳嗽强度。结果:在按方案人群中,福可定组和右美沙芬组在第3天的平均日间咳嗽频率分别降低了1.4和1.3个点。两组患者夜间咳嗽次数平均减少了1.3次。伏可定和右美沙芬的咳嗽强度分别为0.7和0.8。结论:这些结果表明,3天疗程的福可定治疗成人急性非生产性咳嗽的疗效与右美沙芬相似。两种药物的耐受性均良好。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信