左旋丙哌嗪治疗成人和儿童咳嗽:已发表研究的荟萃分析

IF 2.3
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine Pub Date : 2015-05-31 eCollection Date: 2015-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s40248-015-0014-3
Alessandro Zanasi, Luigi Lanata, Giovanni Fontana, Federico Saibene, Peter Dicpinigaitis, Francesco De Blasio
{"title":"左旋丙哌嗪治疗成人和儿童咳嗽:已发表研究的荟萃分析","authors":"Alessandro Zanasi,&nbsp;Luigi Lanata,&nbsp;Giovanni Fontana,&nbsp;Federico Saibene,&nbsp;Peter Dicpinigaitis,&nbsp;Francesco De Blasio","doi":"10.1186/s40248-015-0014-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cough is one of the most common symptoms for which patients seek medical attention from primary care physicians and lung specialists. About 40% of the population at any one time report cough. Cough is associated with significantly impaired health-related quality of life. Levodropropizine is an effective and very well tolerated peripheral antitussive drug. We want to compare it to central cough suppressants efficacy (opioids and non-opioids) that may be associated with side effects limiting their use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After a comprehensive literature search, a meta-analysis of 7 clinical studies of levodropropizine vs. control, including a total of 1,178 patients, was performed with the aim to evaluate the overall comparative efficacy of levodropropizine in the pediatric and adult population. Three electronic databases and reference list were used to search for studies that assessed the efficacy of levodropropizine for treating cough in children and adults using as standardized efficacy parameters the cough frequency and severity, and number of night awakenings as outcome parameters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis of all standardized efficacy parameters showed a highly statistically significant difference in the overall antitussive efficacy in favor of levodropropizine vs. control treatments (p = 0.0015). The heterogeneity test for the efficacy outcome was not statistically significant (p = 0.0534). Seven studies met out inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of the eligible ones showed a statistically significant difference in the overall anti-tussive effect of levodropropizine versus control (p = 0.0015).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This analysis indicates that levodropropizine is an effective antitussive drug in children and adults, with statistically significant better overall efficacy outcomes vs. central antitussive drugs (codeine, cloperastine, dextromethorphan) in terms of reducing cough intensity and frequency, and nocturnal awakenings. This result further reinforces the favorable benefit/risk profile of levodropropizine in the management of cough. The efficacy of levodropropizine in the treatment of cough in children and adults is higher than that of the common centrally-acting anti-tussive.</p>","PeriodicalId":49031,"journal":{"name":"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine","volume":"10 1","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40248-015-0014-3","citationCount":"32","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Levodropropizine for treating cough in adult and children: a meta-analysis of published studies.\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro Zanasi,&nbsp;Luigi Lanata,&nbsp;Giovanni Fontana,&nbsp;Federico Saibene,&nbsp;Peter Dicpinigaitis,&nbsp;Francesco De Blasio\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40248-015-0014-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cough is one of the most common symptoms for which patients seek medical attention from primary care physicians and lung specialists. About 40% of the population at any one time report cough. Cough is associated with significantly impaired health-related quality of life. Levodropropizine is an effective and very well tolerated peripheral antitussive drug. We want to compare it to central cough suppressants efficacy (opioids and non-opioids) that may be associated with side effects limiting their use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After a comprehensive literature search, a meta-analysis of 7 clinical studies of levodropropizine vs. control, including a total of 1,178 patients, was performed with the aim to evaluate the overall comparative efficacy of levodropropizine in the pediatric and adult population. Three electronic databases and reference list were used to search for studies that assessed the efficacy of levodropropizine for treating cough in children and adults using as standardized efficacy parameters the cough frequency and severity, and number of night awakenings as outcome parameters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis of all standardized efficacy parameters showed a highly statistically significant difference in the overall antitussive efficacy in favor of levodropropizine vs. control treatments (p = 0.0015). The heterogeneity test for the efficacy outcome was not statistically significant (p = 0.0534). Seven studies met out inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of the eligible ones showed a statistically significant difference in the overall anti-tussive effect of levodropropizine versus control (p = 0.0015).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This analysis indicates that levodropropizine is an effective antitussive drug in children and adults, with statistically significant better overall efficacy outcomes vs. central antitussive drugs (codeine, cloperastine, dextromethorphan) in terms of reducing cough intensity and frequency, and nocturnal awakenings. This result further reinforces the favorable benefit/risk profile of levodropropizine in the management of cough. The efficacy of levodropropizine in the treatment of cough in children and adults is higher than that of the common centrally-acting anti-tussive.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49031,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40248-015-0014-3\",\"citationCount\":\"32\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40248-015-0014-3\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40248-015-0014-3","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: 32

摘要

背景:咳嗽是患者向初级保健医生和肺病专家寻求医疗关注的最常见症状之一。在任何时候都有大约40%的人报告咳嗽。咳嗽与健康相关的生活质量显著受损有关。左旋丙哌嗪是一种有效且耐受性良好的外周止咳药。我们想将其与中枢止咳药的疗效(阿片类药物和非阿片类药物)进行比较,后者可能与限制其使用的副作用有关。方法:综合文献检索,对7项左旋丙嗪与对照组的临床研究进行meta分析,共1178例患者,目的是评价左旋丙嗪在儿童和成人人群中的总体比较疗效。使用三个电子数据库和参考文献列表来检索以咳嗽频率和严重程度以及夜间醒来次数作为标准疗效参数来评估左旋丙哌嗪治疗儿童和成人咳嗽疗效的研究。结果:所有标准化疗效参数的荟萃分析显示,左旋丙哌嗪与对照治疗的总体止咳疗效有高度统计学意义(p = 0.0015)。疗效结局异质性检验无统计学意义(p = 0.0534)。7项研究符合纳入标准。对符合条件的meta分析显示左丙丙嗪与对照组的整体止咳效果差异有统计学意义(p = 0.0015)。结论:本分析表明,左旋丙哌嗪是一种有效的儿童和成人止咳药,在降低咳嗽强度和频率以及夜间觉醒方面,与中枢止咳药(可待因、氯培司汀、右美沙芬)相比,其总体疗效结果具有统计学意义。这一结果进一步强化了左旋丙哌嗪治疗咳嗽的有利获益/风险概况。左旋丙哌嗪治疗儿童和成人咳嗽的疗效高于普通的中枢作用止咳药。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Levodropropizine for treating cough in adult and children: a meta-analysis of published studies.

Levodropropizine for treating cough in adult and children: a meta-analysis of published studies.

Background: Cough is one of the most common symptoms for which patients seek medical attention from primary care physicians and lung specialists. About 40% of the population at any one time report cough. Cough is associated with significantly impaired health-related quality of life. Levodropropizine is an effective and very well tolerated peripheral antitussive drug. We want to compare it to central cough suppressants efficacy (opioids and non-opioids) that may be associated with side effects limiting their use.

Methods: After a comprehensive literature search, a meta-analysis of 7 clinical studies of levodropropizine vs. control, including a total of 1,178 patients, was performed with the aim to evaluate the overall comparative efficacy of levodropropizine in the pediatric and adult population. Three electronic databases and reference list were used to search for studies that assessed the efficacy of levodropropizine for treating cough in children and adults using as standardized efficacy parameters the cough frequency and severity, and number of night awakenings as outcome parameters.

Results: The meta-analysis of all standardized efficacy parameters showed a highly statistically significant difference in the overall antitussive efficacy in favor of levodropropizine vs. control treatments (p = 0.0015). The heterogeneity test for the efficacy outcome was not statistically significant (p = 0.0534). Seven studies met out inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of the eligible ones showed a statistically significant difference in the overall anti-tussive effect of levodropropizine versus control (p = 0.0015).

Conclusions: This analysis indicates that levodropropizine is an effective antitussive drug in children and adults, with statistically significant better overall efficacy outcomes vs. central antitussive drugs (codeine, cloperastine, dextromethorphan) in terms of reducing cough intensity and frequency, and nocturnal awakenings. This result further reinforces the favorable benefit/risk profile of levodropropizine in the management of cough. The efficacy of levodropropizine in the treatment of cough in children and adults is higher than that of the common centrally-acting anti-tussive.

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
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.
×
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