Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19937046›Full record

Trial reportLung2010

The efficacy of a NOP1 agonist (SCH486757) in subacute cough.

Ashley Woodcock, Robbie L McLeod, Jonathan Sadeh, Jaclyn A Smith

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lung, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00230230 (SCH 486757 vs Codeine and Placebo in Subjects With Persistent Postviral Cough), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00230230 phase2completednot on this map

SCH 486757 vs Codeine and Placebo in Subjects With Persistent Postviral Cough

TypeinterventionalSponsorMerck Sharp & Dohme LLCRan2005 to 2007Enrolled91ConditionsCoughArmsSCH 486757
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Treatments for subacute cough in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Antitussive drugs--past, present, and future.Pharmacological reviews · 2014
    Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ashley WoodcockRespiratory Research Group, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Robbie L McLeod
Jonathan Sadeh
Jaclyn A Smith
University of Manchester · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701918
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, opiates are widely used as antitussives but have substantial side effects. Recently, it has been proposed that NOP1 receptor agonists may be useful as a novel approach to cough suppression. Therefore, we compared the effect of NOP1 receptor agonist SCH486757 with matched placebo and codeine in a multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group study in patients with subacute cough. The primary outcome was change in cough severity scores, with the key secondary outcome change in objective daytime cough counts. We studied 91 subjects with subacute cough [59 (65%) female, median age = 41(range = 18-64) years, and median cough duration = 33 (range = 16-99) days]. Subjects were randomised to receive either SCH486757 100 mg, codeine 30 mg, or matched placebo twice daily for 5 days. Cough severity was scored throughout using a diary card and objective cough frequency recorded for 8 h at baseline and on the first and last treatment days. There were no significant differences in changes in average cough severity scores from baseline to treatment between SCH486757 and placebo [mean change = -0.57 (-30.1%) vs. mean change = -0.49 (-19.7%); P = 0.56] or between codeine and placebo [mean change = -0.72 (-33.2%); P = 0.07 compared to placebo). Changes in objective cough counts also showed no differences between the three treatment groups. There were some hints of possible limited antitussive efficacy with SCH486757. Unfortunately, the maximum clinical dose is limited by its tendency to produce somnolence. If the therapeutic ratio of NOP1 agonists could be improved, these drugs may still prove to contain effective antitussives.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAdultAnalysis of VarianceAntitussive AgentsAzabicyclo CompoundsCoughDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisMaleMiddle AgedNociceptin ReceptorOpioid PeptidesPyrimidinesReceptors, Opioid8-(bis(2-chlorophenyl)methyl)-3-(2-pyrimidinyl)-8-azabicyclo(3.2.1)octan-3-olAntitussive AgentsAzabicyclo CompoundsNociceptin ReceptorOpioid PeptidesOPRL1 protein, humanPyrimidinesReceptors, Opioid

Identifiers

PMID19937046
OpenAlexW2108144209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.