0
selected
-
1.
Honey for acute cough in children.
Oduwole, O, Udoh, EE, Oyo-Ita, A, Meremikwu, MM
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;(4):CD007094
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their parents. Honey has been used to alleviate cough symptoms. This is an update of reviews previously published in 2014, 2012, and 2010. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (2014 to 8 February 2018), Embase (2014 to 8 February 2018), CINAHL (2014 to 8 February 2018), EBSCO (2014 to 8 February 2018), Web of Science (2014 to 8 February 2018), and LILACS (2014 to 8 February 2018). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 12 February 2018. The 2014 review included searches of AMED and CAB Abstracts, but these were not searched for this update due to lack of institutional access. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials comparing honey alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus no treatment, placebo, honey-based cough syrup, or other over-the-counter cough medications for children aged 12 months to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We included six randomised controlled trials involving 899 children; we added three studies (331 children) in this update.We assessed two studies as at high risk of performance and detection bias; three studies as at unclear risk of attrition bias; and three studies as at unclear risk of other bias.Studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, salbutamol, bromelin (an enzyme from the Bromeliaceae (pineapple) family), no treatment, and placebo. Five studies used 7-point Likert scales to measure symptomatic relief of cough; one used an unclear 5-point scale. In all studies, low score indicated better cough symptom relief.Using a 7-point Likert scale, honey probably reduces cough frequency better than no treatment or placebo (no treatment: mean difference (MD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence; placebo: MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.02 to -0.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Honey may have a similar effect as dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; I² = 87%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Honey may be better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence).Giving honey for up to three days is probably more effective in relieving cough symptoms compared with placebo or salbutamol. Beyond three days honey probably had no advantage over salbutamol or placebo in reducing cough severity, bothersome cough, and impact of cough on sleep for parents and children (moderate-certainty evidence). With a 5-point cough scale, there was probably little or no difference between the effects of honey and bromelin mixed with honey in reducing cough frequency and severity.Adverse events included nervousness, insomnia, and hyperactivity, experienced by seven children (9.3%) treated with honey and two children (2.7%) treated with dextromethorphan (risk ratio (RR) 2.94, 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence). When honey was compared with placebo, 34 children (12%) in the honey group and 13 (11%) in the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Four children who received salbutamol had rashes compared to one child in the honey group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 1 study; 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the no-treatment group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Honey probably relieves cough symptoms to a greater extent than no treatment, diphenhydramine, and placebo, but may make little or no difference compared to dextromethorphan. Honey probably reduces cough duration better than placebo and salbutamol. There was no strong evidence for or against using honey. Most of the children received treatment for one night, which is a limitation to the results of this review. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between the honey and control arms.
-
2.
A traditional herbal medication, Maekmoondong-tang, for cough: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Kim, KI, Shin, S, Lee, N, Lee, BJ, Lee, J, Lee, H
Journal of ethnopharmacology. 2016;:144-54
Abstract
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE Maekmoondong-tang (MMDT) is a traditional herbal medication widely used to improve cough in Korea, Japan, and China. It is composed of six herbs (Ophiopogonis Tuber, Pinelliae Tuber, Glycyrrhizae Radix, Zizyphi Fructus, Ginseng Radix, and Oryzae Semen). AIM OF THE STUDY This study is aimed to systematically review the relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effectiveness and safety of MMDT for cough. MATERIALS AND METHODS Electronic and hand-searching of 7 databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, OASIS, RISS, CNKI and CiNii) was systematically conducted up to February 2015 for RCTs testing MMDT in patients with cough. The primary outcome was cough symptom improvement using cough diary, visual analog scale, or response rate. Risk of bias of the included trials was evaluated with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. The dichotomous data were pooled to obtain a risk ratio (RR) of cough persisting after treatment, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS Nine RCTs involving 2453 participants were included. The methodological quality was largely poor for a majority of the studies. MMDT reduced the severity of cough by 74% compared with the conventional antitussive medications in various conditions (n=1145; RR of cough persisting after treatment=0.26; 95% CI, 0.19-0.34, I(2)=0%). The addition of MMDT to conventional medication in patients with postinfectious cough significantly alleviated symptoms up to day 5 but the effect was not maintained one week afterwards. For other diseases/conditions including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer surgery, and asthma, the evidence is inconsistent for MMDT/mMMDT for cough. Adverse events appear to be rare but the reporting was poor. CONCLUSIONS The current evidence from our systematic review and meta-analysis on MMDT for cough is inconclusive and we propose that rigorously designed, placebo-controlled trials of MMDT should be conducted to establish its place in management of cough.
-
3.
[Therapeutic effect and safety of montelukast sodium combined with budesonide in children with cough variant asthma: a Meta analysis].
Wei, Y, Li, DS, Liu, JJ, Zhang, J, Zhao, HE
Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics. 2016;(11):1100-1105
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the therapeutic effect and safety of montelukast sodium combined with budesonide in children with cough variant asthma. METHODS The databases CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, PubMed, EMbase, and BioMed Central were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of montelukast sodium combined with budesonide in the treatment of children with cough variant asthma. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed for RCTs which met the inclusion criteria, and RevMan 5.3 software was used to perform quality assessment of the articles included and Meta analysis. RESULTS A total of 11 RCTs involving 1 097 patients were included. The results of the Meta analysis showed that compared with the control group (inhalation of budesonide alone), the observation group (inhalation of montelukast sodium combined with budesonide) had significantly higher overall response rate and more improved pulmonary function parameters including forced expiratory volume in the first second, percentage of forced expiratory volume in the first second, and peak expiratory flow, as well as significantly lower recurrence rate (P<0.01). The incidence of adverse events showed no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Inhalation of montelukast sodium combined with budesonide has a significant effect in children with cough variant asthma and does not increase the incidence of adverse events.
-
4.
Honey for acute cough in children.
Oduwole, O, Meremikwu, MM, Oyo-Ita, A, Udoh, EE
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2014;(12):CD007094
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1950 to October week 4, 2014), EMBASE (1990 to November 2014), CINAHL (1981 to November 2014), Web of Science (2000 to November 2014), AMED (1985 to November 2014), LILACS (1982 to November 2014) and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from one to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS We included three RCTs, two at high risk of bias and one at low risk of bias, involving 568 children. The studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, 'no treatment' and placebo for the effect on symptomatic relief of cough using a seven-point Likert scale. The lower the score, the better the cough symptom being assessed.Moderate quality evidence showed that honey may be better than 'no treatment' in reducing the frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I(2) statistic 23%; two studies, 154 participants). High quality evidence also suggests that honey may be better than placebo for reduction of cough frequency (MD -1.85; 95% Cl -3.36 to -0.33; one study, 300 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests that honey does not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies, 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests that honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study, 80 participants).Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies, 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study, 80 participants). When honey was compared with placebo, four children (1.8%) in the honey group and one (1.3%) from the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.33; 95% Cl 0.15 to 11.74). However, there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan, honey versus diphenhydramine or honey versus placebo. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Honey may be better than 'no treatment', diphenhydramine and placebo for the symptomatic relief of cough, but it is not better than dextromethorphan. None of the included studies assessed the effect of honey on 'cough duration' because intervention and follow-up were for one night only. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.