Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Postgrad Med ; 128(5): 485-91, 2016 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27177045

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Our knowledge of cough physiology is limited despite years of study. Even less is known about the sensation of urge to cough. Given that limited clinical data are available about urge to cough and cough attributes during a common cold, we sought to gain insights into experiences and perceptions related to these symptoms. METHODS: An internet survey consisting of 51 questions was fielded in the United States. Eligible survey participants included men and women aged 18 years and older who had suffered from a cold with cough within the three months preceding the survey. Participants who confirmed suffering from recurrent cough, asthma, chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, or gastrointestinal reflux were excluded. RESULTS: Of 19,530 initial respondents, 8011 had a cold in the past three months. Of these, 6484 (81%) had experienced cough symptoms; 2708 respondents with cough due to cold and no exclusionary condition made up the analysis sample. Most respondents (62%) reported that cough developed one to two days after the onset of cold symptoms, and 45% felt that cough worsened their other cold symptoms. In 69% of respondents, cough outlasted other cold symptoms. Urge to cough was reported by 98% of respondents, and among these respondents, 64% described it as uncontrollable and 65% rated severity as moderate. More than half of respondents (57%) considered the sensation of urge to cough and the act of coughing as equally bothersome. Although urge to cough and inability to control cough were the most bothersome aspects of cough due to cold, few (<20%) respondents asked healthcare providers for treatment recommendations. CONCLUSION: Symptoms of urge to cough and cough are common and have a significant impact on cold sufferers. Understanding attributes of these symptoms may provide insights for effective management and the development of novel treatment strategies.


Asunto(s)
Resfriado Común/complicaciones , Tos/etiología , Tos/fisiopatología , Sensación , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Tos/tratamiento farmacológico , Femenino , Humanos , Internet , Masculino , Medicina Tradicional , Persona de Mediana Edad , Moco , Medicamentos sin Prescripción/uso terapéutico , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Fitoterapia/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicamentos bajo Prescripción/uso terapéutico , Automedicación/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Factores de Tiempo , Estados Unidos , Adulto Joven
2.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 96(4): 606-14, 2006 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16680933

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that diphenhydramine and desloratadine effectively relieve symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of 50 mg of diphenhydramine hydrochloride, 5 mg of desloratadine, and placebo in relieving symptoms in patients with moderate-to-severe SAR. METHODS: In this 1-week, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study, 610 patients with moderate-to-severe SAR received 50 mg of diphenhydramine hydrochloride 3 times daily, 5 mg of desloratadine once daily, or placebo. Daily 24-hour reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) (primary end point), total symptom scores, and individual symptom scores were evaluated. A global evaluation of response to treatment was conducted at 2 posttreatment visits. RESULTS: The mean reduction from baseline in 24-hour reflective TNSSs relative to the placebo response was 77.6% for the diphenhydramine group (P < .001) and 21.0% for the desloratadine group (P = .12). A TNSS between-treatment difference of -1.81 (46.7%; P < .001) was observed when comparing diphenhydramine with desloratadine. A similar between-treatment difference was observed for the 24-hour reflective total symptom score comparing diphenhydramine to desloratadine (-3.35; 45.5%; P < .001). Diphenhydramine provided clinically and statistically significant reductions vs placebo and desloratadine in all individual symptoms, including nasal congestion. Desloratadine had a tendency toward improvement compared with placebo for most individual symptom scores. However, a statistically significant result was reached only for sneezing (-0.27; 33.9%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Diphenhydramine, 50 mg, given for 1 week provided statistically significant and clinically superior improvements in symptoms compared with 5 mg of desloratadine in patients with moderate-to-severe SAR. Somnolence occurred more frequently with diphenhydramine (22.1%) compared with desloratadine (4.5%) and placebo (3.4%).


Asunto(s)
Difenhidramina/uso terapéutico , Loratadina/análogos & derivados , Descongestionantes Nasales/uso terapéutico , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/tratamiento farmacológico , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Antialérgicos/efectos adversos , Antialérgicos/uso terapéutico , Niño , Difenhidramina/efectos adversos , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos H1/efectos adversos , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos H1/uso terapéutico , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos H1 no Sedantes/efectos adversos , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos H1 no Sedantes/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Loratadina/efectos adversos , Loratadina/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Descongestionantes Nasales/efectos adversos , Obstrucción Nasal
3.
Am J Rhinol ; 19(1): 25-31, 2005.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15794071

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Pseudoephedrine (60 mg) is widely used as an oral decongestant taken in tablet or syrup formulations every 4-6 hours for the treatment of nasal congestion associated with common cold and allergy. However, there are relatively few studies in the literature that have used objective measures of nasal airway resistance (NAR) to assess the efficacy of pseudoephedrine, and most studies use only a single dose of medication. The present study has the aims of studying the safety and efficacy of a new pseudoephedrine formulation after single and multiple doses in patients with URTI. METHODS: The study was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial conducted over three study days at a single center. Patients suffering from nasal congestion associated with common cold were recruited and total NAR was measured by the technique of posterior rhinomanometry. NAR and subjective scores of nasal congestion were measured at baseline and after dosing with study medication, every hour over a four-hour period on day 1 after a single dose, and on day 3 after multiple doses of medication. Subjective scores of congestion/stuffiness were also made as a summary score at the end of each day of treatment. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-eight patients with nasal congestion associated with acute upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), mean age 20 years, were recruited to the study and received treatment. After a single dose on day 1 the pseudoephedrine group had a statistically significant lower area under the NAR curve than placebo (p = 0.006) for the primary efficacy variable area under the NAR curve from 0-3 hours (NAR AUC 0-3h), and similarly for the secondary efficacy variable NAR AUC 0-4h (p = 0.001). On day three after multiple doses, the pseudoephedrine group had a statistically significant lower NAR AUC 0-3h and AUC 0-4h than placebo (p < 0.001), On day 1, the pseudoephedrine group had significantly lower subjective scores for congestion than placebo visual analog scale (VAS) AUC 0-3h (p = 0.029) and similarly for VAS AUC 0-4h (p = 0.021). On day 3, the differences in subjective scores were not significantly different. The mean decrease from baseline of the summary score for congestion/stuffiness over the duration of the study was greater in the pseudoephedrine group compared to the placebo group (p = 0.016). On average, heart rate was between two and four beats per minute greater in the pseudoephedrine group compared to placebo. Five adverse events were reported in both treatment groups and these were deemed to be unrelated to treatment. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that pseudoephedrine is a safe and effective treatment for nasal congestion associated with URTI. The results from the laboratory study on day 1 demonstrate by both objective and subjective measures of nasal congestion that a single dose of 60 mg pseudoephedrine is superior to placebo treatment. Support for the decongestant efficacy of multiple doses of pseudoephedrine is provided by objective measures on day 3 and subjective measures made over three days, but not by the VAS scores on day 3.


Asunto(s)
Resfriado Común/tratamiento farmacológico , Efedrina/administración & dosificación , Obstrucción Nasal/tratamiento farmacológico , Simpatomiméticos/administración & dosificación , Administración Oral , Adulto , Resistencia de las Vías Respiratorias/efectos de los fármacos , Distribución de Chi-Cuadrado , Resfriado Común/complicaciones , Resfriado Común/fisiopatología , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Obstrucción Nasal/etiología , Obstrucción Nasal/fisiopatología , Rinomanometría , Resultado del Tratamiento
6.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 168(3): 397; author reply 397; discussion 397-8, 2003 Aug 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-12888612
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...