根据一项系统综述,没有证据表明奥氧美嗪对咳嗽有临床疗效。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Trystan Bacon, Clara Blanchard, Estelle Dubois, Hélène Vaillant-Roussel, Rémy Boussageon
{"title":"根据一项系统综述,没有证据表明奥氧美嗪对咳嗽有临床疗效。","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

目的:在全科医生中,咳嗽是促使患者就医的一个普遍症状。在法国,奥美拉唑是治疗咳嗽症状的第二大报销药物,尽管它被广泛使用,但其临床疗效仍不确定。本研究旨在系统评估奥美拉唑治疗咳嗽的临床疗效:方法:根据 "重建证据库"(REB)方案,对随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统性文献综述和荟萃分析。研究人员搜索了比较奥索美嗪与安慰剂或活性对比剂对咳嗽疗效的临床试验。数据不足的试验被排除在外。检索范围包括主要数据库(Medline、Cochrane 对照试验中央登记册和 Embase)和试验登记处(世界卫生组织国际临床试验登记平台和 ClinicalTrials.gov)。研究对象为在咳嗽患者中比较奥索马嗪与安慰剂或活性比较药的 RCT。使用 Cochrane 协作组织的 RoB2 工具对偏倚风险进行了评估。该研究方案已在 PROSPERO 上预先注册,注册号为 CRD42022345496 (15)。本研究未获得任何资助:无研究性试验存在低偏倚风险。因此,根据预先指定的方案,没有进行荟萃分析:本系统综述强调了有关奥索美嗪治疗咳嗽疗效的证据不足,并强调有必要进一步开展设计良好的临床试验,以了解其在初级保健中的临床用途。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

No evidence of clinical efficacy of oxomemazine in cough, according to a systematic review.

No evidence of clinical efficacy of oxomemazine in cough, according to a systematic review.

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.

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
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
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