To compare the effect of dextromethorphan, promethazine and placebo on nocturnal cough in children aged 1-12 y with upper respiratory infections: a randomized controlled trial

Efficacy of a yeast postbiotic on cold/flu symptoms in healthy children: A randomized-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Children attending school/daycare are at high risk of acute respiratory tract infections. EpiCorTM postbiotic, derived from yeast fermentate, has been demonstrated to improve immune function in adults, reducing the incidence of cold/flu-like or allergy symptoms. As such, studies are warranted in children as available pharmaceutical options have unwanted side effects.

METHODS

Two-hundred and fifty-six children aged 4-12 years attending school/daycare were randomized to either EpiCor or Placebo for 84 days during the 2022-2023 flu season in Ontario, Canada. The Canadian Acute Respiratory Illness and Flu Scale (CARIFS) and study diary assessed the incidence and severity of cold/flu symptoms and the use of cold/flu medications. Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Total CARIFS severity scores, 'sore throat' and 'muscle aches or pains' symptom scores in the EpiCor group were significantly lower compared to Placebo during incidences of cold/flu (P ≤ 0.05). Participants taking Placebo were 1.73 times more likely to use cold/flu medication compared to those receiving EpiCor (P = 0.04). The incidence of cold/flu symptoms was not significantly different between groups. EpiCor was found to be safe and well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

EpiCor supplementation resulted in significantly lower cold/flu symptom severity and less cold/flu medication usage than Placebo demonstrating a beneficial effect on immune function in children.

IMPACT

Children are at high risk of acquiring cold/flu infections and safe and efficacious mitigating regimens are lacking. Children supplemented daily with 500 mg EpiCorTM postbiotic derived from yeast fermentate had significantly lower overall cold/flu symptom severity, and severity of sore throat and muscle aches or pains over the 84-day supplementation period. EpiCor supplementation resulted in decreased use of traditional cold/flu medication. Daily supplementation with 500 mg of EpiCor for 84 days was safe and well tolerated by healthy children aged 4-12 years attending school or daycare.

Current and emerging opioids for the treatment of chronic cough: a mini review

INTRODUCTION

Chronic cough has increasingly been recognized as a distinct clinical entity that affects a significant portion of the global population. Despite advancements in understanding its pathophysiology, treatment options remain limited. Opioid analgesics have long been used for cough, and some have proven clear antitussive potential. However, these have yet to be approved by regulatory authorities for the treatment of chronic cough. Several novel synthetic opioid modulators that demonstrated antitussive effects in early-stage studies also failed to translate into clinical practice.

AREAS COVERED

This mini review aims to summarize the implications of opioid receptors in the development of cough medicines and highlight recent advances in opioid analgesics in cough trials. PUB MED/CINAHL/Web of Science/Scopus was searched (September 2024).

EXPERT OPINION

Our understanding of the precise sites of action and the involvement of peripheral opioid receptors in cough remains limited. Despite these gaps in knowledge, opioids remain a viable option for some patients until more novel effective treatments are available. Due to the frequent opioid side effects, new opioid derivatives with improved properties are needed. The development of tailored or biased delta-opioid receptor ligands and mixed agonists of opioid receptor-like 1/mu receptors may offer hope for new opioid-based drug discovery for chronic cough.

Effectiveness of promethazine on preoperative and intraoperative sequelae in cleft palate surgeries

INTRODUCTION

Anxiety and nosocomial infection are the most common reported problems in children undergoing cleft surgeries. Research shows that there is an enigma in the use of antihistamine therapy in children for the management of upper respiratory tract infection. 'Promethazine' is a first-generation H1 receptor antagonist, and antihistamine also has strong sedative effects. Our study aims at evaluating the Effectiveness of Promethazine (Phenergan) in preoperative and intra operative sequelae in cleft surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single-centre, parallel, randomized, double-blinded randomized control clinical trial, which was conducted among 128 children between 2 and 4 years of age undergoing cleft palate surgery under general anaesthesia. After randomization, the case group was subjected to promethazine syrup 1 mg/kg body weight twice a day, orally for 3 days. The primary outcomes were preoperative anxiety levels which were recorded by children fear scale. The secondary outcomes include preoperative sleep quality and cough rate of children which are recorded by using sleep and cough objective scale respectively. The intraoperative heart rate is monitored with an ECG connected to a monitor.

RESULTS

Promethazine causes a reduction in the anxiety level by 70%, 64% reduction in cold and cough, improvement in sleep score by 70% and the heart rate was found to be stable throughout the surgery when compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

As the benefits of promethazine in cleft palate surgery rule over its adverse effects, promethazine is considered safe to be used as premedication for children undergoing cleft palate surgeries.

Effect of promethazine in cleft surgeries among Indian children

The use of antihistamine therapy in children for the management of upper respiratory tract infections remains a topic of debate. In this study, we focused on evaluating the effectiveness of promethazine (Phenergan), a first-generation H1 receptor antagonist and sedative, in addressing preoperative and intra-operative sequelae in cleft surgeries. A single-centered, parallel, randomized, double-blinded controlled clinical trial was conducted on 128 children aged 2 to 4 years undergoing cleft palate surgery under general anesthesia. The case group received Phenergan syrup orally twice a day for three days, while the control group received a placebo. Primary outcomes measured preoperative anxiety levels using a children's fear scale, while secondary outcomes assessed preoperative sleep quality and cough rate through objective scales. Intraoperative heart rate was monitored using an ECG connected to a monitor. The results demonstrated that the administration of promethazine resulted in a 34% reduction in anxiety levels, a 46% reduction in cold and cough, a 38% improvement in sleep score, and stable heart rates throughout the surgery compared to the control group. Based on these findings, promethazine is considered a safe premedication option for children undergoing cleft palate surgeries; given its benefits outweigh its adverse effects.

Non-prescription treatments for childhood infections: an Austrian, monocentric, cross-sectional questionnaire study

BACKGROUND

Infectious diseases like the common cold, otitis media, or gastroenteritis frequently occur in childhood. In addition to prescription drugs, parents often use supplementary over-the-counter (OTC) products recommended by pharmacists and other non-medical professionals to relieve their children's symptoms. However, the efficacy of such alternative treatments lacks conclusive evidence. The objective of this study was to investigate the use of OTC products and related active ingredients in children, and the motivations behind this choice.

METHODS

The present study included 215 children aged between 1 and 14 years with an acute respiratory tract infection, e.g., common cold, bronchitis, otitis media, tonsillitis, or gastroenteritis. During their visit to the pediatric practice, parents filled in a self-administered questionnaire about their child's diagnosis, additional treatment options, and motivations to integrate supplementary medicinal products after their first visit for acute infection or follow-up examination. Children with chronic illnesses and patients visiting for a routine maternal and child health program check-up were excluded.

RESULTS

The study included 111 (51.6%) males and 104 (48.4%) females. Median age was 3.00 (IQR 2.0 - 5.0) years. The most common reason for a visit was a respiratory tract infection (78.6%). Out of 215 parents, 182 (84.7%) resorted to non-prescription remedies to alleviate their child's symptoms. Teas (45.1%), and home remedies (43.3%) were the most popular. At total 133 (74.3%) followed recommendations from friends and family regarding additional medications usage. Parents with previous experience with complementary medicine tended to prefer this approach to treat their children (p.adjust = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

The use of non-prescription medicine is increasing as well as the range of related information sources. Evidence-based recommendations in this field might improve pediatric care.

Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold

BACKGROUND

Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo or other active controls (excluding antibiotics) in reducing the duration of symptoms and alleviating symptoms (general feeling of illness, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and cough) in children and adults with the common cold.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, Embase, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Web of Science to 10 June 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics), or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We categorised the included trials according to the active ingredients.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 studies (6304 participants) including 31 treatment comparisons. The control intervention was placebo in 26 trials and an active substance (paracetamol, chlorphenindione + phenylpropanolamine + belladonna, diphenhydramine) in six trials (two trials had placebo as well as active treatment arms). Reporting of methods was generally poor, and there were large differences in study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Most of the included trials involved adult participants. Children were included in nine trials. Three trials included very young children (from six months to five years), and five trials included children aged 2 to 16. One trial included adults and children aged 12 years or older. The trials took place in different settings: university clinics, paediatric departments, family medicine departments, and general practice surgeries.  Antihistamine-decongestant: 14 trials (1298 participants). Eight trials reported on global effectiveness, of which six studies were pooled (281 participants on active treatment and 284 participants on placebo). The odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.48; moderate certainty evidence); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3.9 (95% CI 3.03 to 5.2). On the final evaluation day (follow-up: 3 to 10 days), 55% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 70% on active treatment. Of the two trials not pooled, one showed some global effect, whilst the other showed no effect. Adverse effects: the antihistamine-decongestant group experienced more adverse effects than the control group: 128/419 (31%) versus 100/423 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.78 to 3.21; moderate certainty of evidence). Antihistamine-analgesic: four trials (1608 participants). Two trials reported on global effectiveness; data from one trial were presented (290 participants on active treatment and 292 participants on ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46; moderate certainty evidence); NNTB 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). Forty-three per cent of participants in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group were cured after six days of treatment. The second trial also showed an effect in favour of the active treatment. Adverse effects: there were not significantly more adverse effects in the active treatment group compared to placebo (drowsiness, hypersomnia, sleepiness  10/152 versus 4/120; OR 1.64 (95 % CI 0.48 to 5.59; low certainty evidence). Analgesic-decongestant: seven trials (2575 participants). One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% of participants in the analgesic-decongestant group reported a benefit compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR of treatment failure 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; moderate certainty evidence; NNTB 4.7). Adverse effects: the decongestant-analgesic group experienced significantly more adverse effects than the control group (199/1122 versus 75/675; OR 1.62  95% CI 1.18 to 2.23; high certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH 17).  Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: six trials (1014 participants). Five trials reported on global effectiveness, of which two studies in adults could be pooled: global effect reported with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%) was equivalent to a difference of less than one point on a four- or five-point scale; the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67; low certainty evidence); NNTB 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). One trial in children aged 2 to 12 years, and two trials in adults found no beneficial effect. Adverse effects: in one trial 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with the active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found a lack of data on the effectiveness of antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations for the common cold. Based on these scarce data, the effect on individual symptoms is probably too small to be clinically relevant. The current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about adverse effects associated with the use of over-the-counter nasal preparations containing phenylpropanolamine.

Medications and non-pharmacological measures to alleviate the symptoms of respiratory tract infections in the pediatric population

In the pediatric population, acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are the most common reason for seeking professional help from a physician or a pharmacist. Alleviation of symptoms is the only therapeutic measure in viral RTIs and is an adjunct to antibiotic therapy in bacterial RTIs. This article discusses pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options for treating nasal congestion, cough, fever and sore throat in RTIs and clinical evidence on their efficacy and safety in the pediatric population. In general, clinical studies conducted in children for most of these drug groups are few or nonexistent, making it difficult to create evidence-based recommendations. Nasal decongestants, cough suppressants, mucolytics, expectorants, antipyretics/analgesics and sore throat local preparations are available in suitable pharmaceutical forms and strengths for the certain age. As many of them are over-the-counter (OTC) preparations, it is necessary to strictly take into account the age of the child in whom they may be used and dose properly. Multicomponent preparations carry the risk of taking unnecessary medications and of their side effects. The use of multiple OTC medicines is associated with the risk of an overdose of a component that may be present in different preparations. Appropriate non-pharmacological measures (e.g. oral hydration, nasal saline application or irrigation, honey) may be helpful and should be used whenever possible due to their safety.

Use of antitussive medications in acute cough in young children

Acute cough, a common complaint in young children, is often the result of a viral upper respiratory infection. Cough and cold remedies generate billions of dollars in annual sales in the United States, despite a lack of evidence of their efficacy and multiple warnings by the US Food and Drug Administration. The current article begins with the best available evidence for common over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription antitussive remedies in children. The article concludes with a discussion of the pros and cons for the use of antitussives in children with cough. In general, OTC antitussive medications should not be routinely used in children under 2 years of age. In certain cases, antitussives with minimal adverse profile and some evidence of benefit may be recommended after informed counseling.

Physician's prescription pattern in young infants with upper respiratory infections/cough and cold in emergency department

Objective:

Despite the national/international warnings and little evidence as to whether over-the-counter cough and cold medications (OTC-CCM) are effective, physicians frequently overprescribe, parents overuse these drugs and antibiotics for URTIs in young child. This study aimed to determine the prescription pattern of over-the-counter cough and cold medications (OTC-CCM) in children less than two years.

Methods:

This was a cross-sectional study in which we collected physicians prescriptions in young infants less than two years of age with ARI (acute respiratory infections) who visited pediatric emergency department (ED) between September 2017-April 2018 and received prescription with OTC-CCM enrolled. Infants who did not receive OTC-CCM were excluded.

Results:

During the study period 2476 infants presented to the ED and 1452 (58.6%) had prescription with OTC-CCM. Analyzing the prescription details revealed that 63.8% was with decongestants, 53.5% antitussive and 52.7% antibiotics. One third of the prescriptions with these medications were written by pediatricians (p=0.001). Physicians had tendency to prescribe antibiotic if the infants had fever higher than 38°C (p=0.02).

Conclusion:

We observed that international and national warnings did not show a considerable impact on the prescription pattern. Despite international and national reports, physicians frequently prescribe OTC-CCM in infants.

Codeine versus placebo for chronic cough in children

BACKGROUND

Cough in children is a commonly experienced symptom that is associated with increased health service utilisation and burden to parents. The presence of chronic (equal to or more than four weeks) cough in children may indicate a serious underlying condition such as inhaled foreign body or bronchiectasis. Codeine (and derivative)-based medications are sometimes used to treat cough due to their antitussive properties. However, there are inherent risks associated with the use of these medications such as respiratory drive suppression, anaesthetic-induced anaphylaxis, and addiction. Metabolic response and dosage variability place children at increased risk of experiencing such side effects. A systematic review evaluating the quality of the available literature would be useful to inform management practices.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of codeine (and derivatives) in the treatment of chronic cough in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1946 to 8 June 2016), EMBASE (1974 to 8 June 2016), the online trials registries of the World Health Organization and ClinicalTrials.gov, and the bibliographic references of publications. We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered studies eligible for analysis when: the participant population included children aged less than 18 years with chronic cough (duration equal to or more than four weeks at the time of intervention); and the study design evaluated codeine or codeine-based derivatives against placebo through a randomised controlled trial.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results to determine eligibility against a standardised criteria, and we had a pre-planned method for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 556 records, of which 486 records were excluded on the basis of title and abstract. We retrieved the remaining 70 references in full to determine eligibility. No studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review, and thus we found no evidence to support or oppose the use of codeine or derivatives as antitussive agents for chronic cough in children.While chronic cough is not the same as acute cough, systematic reviews on the use of codeine efficacy for acute cough in children conclude an overall lack of evidence to support or oppose the use of over-the-counter cough and cold medications containing codeine (or derivatives) for treatment of acute cough in children. The lack of sufficient evidence to support the use of these medications has been consistently reaffirmed by medical experts in international chronic cough guidelines and by governing medical and pharmaceutical authorities in the USA, Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Due to the lack of sufficient evidence to support efficacy, and the known risks associated with use - in particular the increased risks for children - these medications are now not recommended for children less than 12 years of age and children between 12 to 18 years with respiratory conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has highlighted the absence of any randomised controlled trials evaluating codeine-based medications in the treatment of childhood chronic cough. Given the potential adverse events of respiratory suppression and opioid toxicity, national therapeutic regulatory authorities recommend the contraindication of access to codeine in children less than 12 years of age. We suggest that clinical practice adhere to clinical practice guidelines and thus refrain from using codeine or its derivatives to treat cough in children. Aetiological-based management practices continue to be advocated for children with chronic cough.

Tools for assessing outcomes in studies of chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report

BACKGROUND

Since the publication of the 2006 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) cough guidelines, a variety of tools has been developed or further refined for assessing cough. The purpose of the present committee was to evaluate instruments used by investigators performing clinical research on chronic cough. The specific aims were to (1) assess the performance of tools designed to measure cough frequency, severity, and impact in adults, adolescents, and children with chronic cough and (2) make recommendations or suggestions related to these findings.

METHODS

By following the CHEST methodologic guidelines, the CHEST Expert Cough Panel based its recommendations and suggestions on a recently published comparative effectiveness review commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a corresponding summary published in CHEST, and an updated systematic review through November 2013. Recommendations or suggestions based on these data were discussed, graded, and voted on during a meeting of the Expert Cough Panel.

RESULTS

We recommend for adults, adolescents (≥ 14 years of age), and children complaining of chronic cough that validated and reliable health-related quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires be used as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough, such as the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in adult and adolescent patients and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire in children. We recommend acoustic cough counting to assess cough frequency but not cough severity. Limited data exist regarding the performance of visual analog scales, numeric rating scales, and tussigenic challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Validated and reliable cough-specific health-related QoL questionnaires are recommended as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough on patients. How they compare is yet to be determined. When used, the reporting of cough severity by visual analog or numeric rating scales should be standardized. Previously validated QoL questionnaires or other cough assessments should not be modified unless the new version has been shown to be reliable and valid. Finally, in research settings, tussigenic challenges play a role in understanding mechanisms of cough.

Over-the-counter (OTC) medications for acute cough in children and adults in community settings

BACKGROUND

Acute cough due to upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) is a common symptom. Non-prescription, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines are frequently recommended as a first-line treatment, but there is little evidence as to whether these drugs are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral OTC cough preparations for acute cough in children and adults in community settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March week 3 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2014), CINAHL (January 2010 to March 2014), LILACS (January 2010 to March 2014), Web of Science (January 2010 to March 2014) and the UK Department of Health National Research Register (March 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral OTC cough preparations with placebo in children and adults suffering from acute cough in community settings. We considered all cough outcomes; secondary outcomes of interest were adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened potentially relevant citations, extracted data and assessed study quality. We performed quantitative analysis where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Due to the small numbers of trials in each category, the limited quantitative data available and the marked differences between trials in terms of participants, interventions and outcome measurement, we felt that pooling of the results was inappropriate.We included 29 trials (19 in adults, 10 in children) involving 4835 people (3799 adults and 1036 children). All studies were placebo-controlled RCTs. However, assessment of the risk of bias of the included studies was limited by poor reporting, particularly for the earlier studies.In the adult studies, six trials compared antitussives with placebo and had variable results. Three trials compared the expectorant guaifenesin with placebo; one indicated significant benefit, whereas the other two did not. One trial found that a mucolytic reduced cough frequency and symptom scores. Two studies examined antihistamine-decongestant combinations and found conflicting results. Four studies compared other combinations of drugs with placebo and indicated some benefit in reducing cough symptoms. Three trials found that antihistamines were no more effective than placebo in relieving cough symptoms.In the child studies, antitussives (data from three studies), antihistamines (data from three studies), antihistamine-decongestants (two studies) and antitussive/bronchodilator combinations (one study) were no more effective than placebo. No studies using expectorants met our inclusion criteria. The results of one trial favoured active treatment with mucolytics over placebo. One trial tested two paediatric cough syrups and both preparations showed a 'satisfactory response' in 46% and 56% of children compared to 21% of children in the placebo group. One new trial indicated that three types of honey were more effective than placebo over a three-day period.Twenty-one studies reported adverse effects. There was a wide range across studies, with higher numbers of adverse effects in participants taking preparations containing antihistamines and dextromethorphan.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review have to be interpreted with caution because the number of studies in each category of cough preparations was small. Availability, dosing and duration of use of over-the-counter cough medicines vary significantly in different countries. Many studies were poorly reported making assessment of risk of bias difficult and studies were also very different from each other, making evaluation of overall efficacy difficult. There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough. This should be taken into account when considering prescribing antihistamines and centrally active antitussive agents in children; drugs that are known to have the potential to cause serious harm.