Search

This study aims to explore the effect of Jinzhen Oral Liquid(JOL) on cough after infection in rats and the mechanism. To be specific, a total of 60 male SD rats were classified into 6 groups: normal group(equivalent volume of distilled water, ig), model group(equivalent volume of distilled water, ig), Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide Oral Solution group(3.67 mL·kg~(-1), ig), high-, medium-, and low-dose JOL groups(11.34, 5.67, and 2.84 mL·kg~(-1), respectively, ig). Lipopolysaccharide(LPS, nasal drip), smoking, and capsaicin(nebulization) were employed to induce cough after infection in rats except the normal group. Administration began on the 19 th day and lasted 7 days. Capsaicin(nebulization) was used to stimulate cough 1 h after the last administration and the cough frequency and cough incubation period in rats were recorded. The pathological morphology of lung tissue was observed based on hematoxylin-eosin(HE) staining. Immunohistochemistry(IHC) was used to detect the specific expression of transient receptor potential vanilloid 1(Trpv1), nerve growth factor(NGF), tropomyosin receptor kinase A(TrkA), and phosphorylated-p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase(p-p38 MAPK) in lung tissue, Western blot the protein expression of Trpv1, NGF, TrkA, and p-p38 MAPK in lung tissue, and real-time fluorescent quantitative polymerase chain reaction(real-time PCR) the mRNA expression of Trpv1, NGF, and TrkA. The results showed that model group demonstrated significantly high cough frequency, obvious proliferation and inflammatory cell infiltration in lung tissue, significantly enhanced positive protein expression of Trpv1, NGF, TrkA, and p-p38 MAPK in lung tissue and significant increase in the mRNA expression of Trpv1, NGF, and TrkA compared with the normal group. Compared with the model group, JOL can significantly reduce the cough frequency, alleviate the pathological changes of lung tissue, and decrease the protein expression of Trpv1, NGF, TrkA, and p-p38 MAPK in lung tissue, and high-dose and medium-dose JOL can significantly lower the mRNA expression of Trpv1, NGF, and TrkA. This study revealed that JOL can effectively inhibit Trpv1 pathway-related proteins and improve cough after infection. The mechanism is that it reduces the expression of NGF, TrkA, and p-p38 MAPK in lung tissue, thereby decreasing the expression of Trpv1 and cough sensitivity.

Objective: Out of hospital medication-related adverse events (AEs) from cough and cold medications (CCMs) can have significant public health impact. The objective of this study was to characterize pediatric medication error AEs involving over-the-counter (OTC) CCMs to identify preventable factors., Methods: Multisource national data surveillance system study using an expert panel evaluating CCM AEs related to medication errors., Inclusion Criteria: age <12 years, and at least 1 significant AE from at least 1 index ingredient from a CCM OTC product., Results: From 2009 through 2016, 4756 cases were determined to have a significant AE related to an OTC CCM ingredient and 513 (10.8%) cases were due to a medication error. Nearly half of medication errors involved children 2 to <6 years old (n = 235; 45.8%). Many involved administration by a parent (n = 231; 45.0%) or alternative caregiver (n = 148; 28.8%). In nearly all cases (93.2%), the medication error involved the wrong dose of the medication. Health care facility evaluation occurred in 381 (74.3%) cases. Diphenhydramine and dextromethorphan were responsible for most medication errors and medication errors involving health care facility evaluation. There were no deaths from medication errors., Conclusion: In this multiyear surveillance study, medication errors most commonly occurred in children <6 years old who received the wrong volume of a liquid product. Diphenhydramine and dextromethorphan dosing errors were the most common cause of medication errors resulting from CCM use. Continued standardization of measuring devices, concentrations, and units of measure along with consumer education are needed to further decrease medication errors from CCMs., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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.

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.

Background: Dextromethorphan hydrobromide (DM) is a widely used antitussive. This study determined, for the first time, the basic pharmacokinetic profile of DM and its active metabolite, dextrorphan (DP) in children and adolescents., Methods: Thirty-eight male and female subjects at risk for developing an upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), or symptomatic with cough due to URTI, were enrolled in this single-dose, open-label study: ages 2-5 years (Group A, n = 8), 6-11 years (Group B, n = 17), 12-17 years (Group C, n = 13). Subjects were genotyped for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 polymorphisms and characterized as poor (PM) or non-poor metabolizers (non-PM). Groups A and B were dosed using an age-weight dosing schedule (DM range 7.5-24.75 mg); a 30-mg dose was used for Group C., Results: Average exposures to total DP increased as age group increased, and average exposure to DM was highest in the adolescent group. One subject in that group was a PM. The terminal half-life (t ½) values were longer in the adolescent group due in part to the single PM subject. No relationship between body weight and pharmacokinetic parameters was noted., Conclusions: This is the first evaluation of the pharmacokinetic characteristics of DM in children and adolescents. A single dose of DM in this population was safe, and well tolerated at all doses tested. The data are used to model and compare pediatric DM exposures with those of adults.

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 the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to December week 4, 2011); EMBASE (1990 to January 2012); CINAHL (1981 to January 2012); Web of Science (2000 to January 2012); AMED (1985 to January 2012); LILACS (1982 to January 2012); and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2012)., 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 two 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 two RCTs of high risk of bias involving 265 children. The studies compared the effect of honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and 'no treatment' on symptomatic relief of cough using the 7-point Likert scale.Honey was better than 'no treatment' in reducing frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.53 to -0.60; two studies; 154 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests honey did 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 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) but there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan or honey versus diphenhydramine. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group., Authors' Conclusions: Honey may be better than 'no treatment' and diphenhydramine in the symptomatic relief of cough but not better than dextromethorphan. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.

During a 2-year period from 2004 and 2005, emergency departments treated over 1,500 children under the age of 2 years for adverse events related to over-the-counter (OTC) cough and cold medication use; these incidents include 3 infant deaths. The risk of overdose, incorrect dosing and adverse events is increased in young children due to the greater number of colds they acquire each year. Lack of evidence to support the use of OTC medications in young children is well documented in the literature; however, people continue to use OTC medications with young children. The common cold is generally a mild, self-limited illness that usually improves with time. Recommended care and treatment for the common cold includes symptomatic treatment. This article presents and reviews the available evidence regarding the use of OTC cough and cold medications for pediatric healthcare providers. This review of the evidence will be helpful for healthcare providers to minimize risks to young children who intentionally or unintentionally ingest these medications and to educate child caregivers regarding proper use of OTC cough and cold medications with children.

Background: The efficacy of dextromethorphan (DM) for treating acute cough is uncertain, and its use is not supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Nevertheless, DM is often administered to children as an antitussive. DM dosages are based on age rather than body weight, resulting in substantial variability in the relative amount of drug administered., Objective: The aim of this work was to determine whether a dose-response relationship existed among a group of children administered a single nocturnal dose of DM for cough due to an upper respiratory tract infection., Methods: As part of a larger double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of over-the-counter cough medications, children received DM. The administered doses (per manufacturer recommendations) were as follows: ages 2 to 5 years, 7.5 mg; ages 6 to 11 years, 15 mg; and ages 12 to 18 years, 30 mg. This resulted in a range of 0.35 to 0.94 mg/kg per dose. Subjective parental assessments of cough and sleep were obtained using a 7-point Likert-type scale that compared symptoms after medication with symptoms during the prior night (without medication). Three dose ranges were compared as a subset analysis of the group that received DM., Results: Thirty-three patients (19 girls, 14 boys; median [interquartile range] age, 4.90 [2.90-6.80] years; age range, 2.10-16.50 years) received DM and completed the study. No significant differences were found for any of the outcome measures when comparing the effects of different doses of DM, but our observations suggested somewhat more symptomatic relief for patients receiving medium-dose DM (0.45 to <0.60 mg/kg per dose) or high-dose (HD) DM (0.60-0.94 mg/kg per dose) compared with low-dose DM (0.35 to <0.45 mg/kg per dose). Adverse events occurred most often in the HD group., Conclusions: Although no statistically significant differences were detectable for the outcomes studied, our observations suggest the potential for improved clinical symptom control with increasing doses of DM. Our findings may further suggest that a dose of 0.5 mg/kg should be considered in future assessments of the antitussive effect of DM in pediatric studies, to balance symptomatic relief with the avoidance of adverse events.

Objectives: To determine whether the commonly used over-the-counter medications dextromethorphan and diphenhydramine are superior to placebo for the treatment of nocturnal cough and sleep difficulty associated with upper respiratory infections and to determine whether parents have improved sleep quality when their children receive the medications when compared with placebo., Methods: Parents of 100 children with upper respiratory infections were questioned to assess the frequency, severity, and bothersome nature of the nocturnal cough. Their answers were recorded on 2 consecutive days, initially on the day of presentation, when no medication had been given the previous evening, and then again on the subsequent day, when either medication or placebo was given before bedtime. Sleep quality for both the child and the parent were also assessed for both nights., Results: For the entire cohort, all outcomes were significantly improved on the second night of the study when either medication or placebo was given. However, neither diphenhydramine nor dextromethorphan produced a superior benefit when compared with placebo for any of the outcomes studied. Insomnia was reported more frequently in those who were given dextromethorphan, and drowsiness was reported more commonly in those who were given diphenhydramine., Conclusions: Diphenhydramine and dextromethorphan are not superior to placebo in providing nocturnal symptom relief for children with cough and sleep difficulty as a result of an upper respiratory infection. Furthermore, the medications given to children do not result in improved quality of sleep for their parents when compared with placebo. Each clinician should consider these findings, the potential for adverse effects, and the individual and cumulative costs of the drugs before recommending them to families.

Numerous prescription and nonprescription medications are currently available for suppression of cough, a common symptom in children. Because adverse effects and overdosage associated with the administration of cough and cold preparations in children have been reported, education of patients and parents about the lack of proven antitussive effects and the potential risks of these products is needed.

The results of a double-blind, randomized clinical trial involving 209 adult patients of either sex with moderate non-productive cough are reported. The therapeutic efficacy and the tolerability of levodropropizine syrup (60 mg t.i.d. for 5 days) was evaluated in comparison with dextromethorphan syrup (15 mg t.i.d. for 5 days). Efficacy was assessed by the number of coughing spells in a 6h period, the cough frequency classes, the cough intensity and the night awakenings due to cough. Tolerability was evaluated by laboratory results, vital signs and any adverse event occurred during the clinical trial, including presence or absence of somnolence. Independently from the underlying pathology and from the degree of baseline cough severity, the number of coughing spells was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced by both levodropropizine and dextromethorphan already after the 2nd day of treatment, the effect and its time of onset being similar for both drugs. Cough intensity was significantly (P < 0.01) reduced by both drugs throughout the treatment, at an earlier time with levodropropizine than with dextromethorphan. Concurrently with the relief of cough, the number of night awakenings was decreased remarkably and significantly (P < 0.05), with levodropropizine displaying an improvement significantly higher (P < 0.05) than dextromethorphan. No change in laboratory tests values was considered clinically relevant and vital signs were not clinically affected by the study drugs. The number of patients reporting adverse events was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in the dextromethorphan (12.1%) than in the levodropropizine (3.6%) group. Overall, somnolence was reported for a low percentage of patients with both drugs, with the percentage of patients experiencing this side effect being one half in the group treated with levodropropizine (4.6%) as compared with dextromethorphan (10.4%). These results confirm the antitussive effectiveness of levodropropizine and point out a more favourable benefit/risk profile when compared to dextromethorphan.

Background: Cough is one of the most common symptoms of respiratory infections for which patients seek relief. This study was done to assess the effectiveness of three commonly prescribed cough syrups., Methods: In this multipractice, office-based, randomized clinical trial, guaifenesin was compared with guaifenesin plus codeine or guaifenesin plus dextromethorphan in patients with uncomplicated respiratory tract infections. Family physicians enrolled 97 patients between February 1988 and April 1990. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment and were interviewed by telephone at 2, 4, and 10 days to assess cough relief, treatment adherence, and side effects. There were no statistically significant differences among treatment groups at base line., Results: At day 2 there were no statistically significant differences among treatment groups for any of the outcome measures. At day 4 five of the outcome measures of cough quality, frequency, sleep disturbances, and absenteeism were not statistically significantly different among groups. The only statistically significant difference was the ability to keep up with usual activities, which improved least in patients assigned to dextromethorphan than in patients in other groups. There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups at day 10 for any of the outcomes., Conclusion: It appears that codeine, dextromethorphan, and guaifenesin are equally effective in relieving cough symptoms.

Twenty-four inpatients affected by chronic cough completed a single-dose double-blind cross-over study of placebo, glaucine 30 mg and dextromethorphan 30 mg. The study was carried out using a balanced incomplete block design, each patient receiving two of the three experimental treatments. Objective evaluation of cough was ensured by means of a writing cough recorder. Coughs after dextromethorphan and glaucine were fewer than coughs after placebo: however only glaucine was significantly different from placebo in reducing coughs. Treatments were well tolerated: clinical results included a reduction in pulse rate after both dextromethorphan and glaucine , and a large number of patients reporting side effects after dextromethorphan administration.