Trial reportInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2015
Inhibition of cough reflex sensitivity by diphenhydramine during acute viral respiratory tract infection.
Trial report in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Rococo study: a real-world evaluation of an over-the-counter medicine in acute cough (a multicentre, randomised, controlled study).BMJ open · 2017Trial
- Comprehensive evidence-based review on European antitussives.BMJ open respiratory research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently available over-the-counter cough remedies historically have been criticized for lack of scientific evidence supporting their efficacy. Although the first-generation antihistamine diphenhydramine is classified as an antitussive by the United States Food and Drug Administration, to the authors' knowledge it has never been shown to inhibit cough reflex sensitivity in subjects with pathological cough.
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of diphenhydramine on cough reflex sensitivity.
settingMontefiore Medical Center, an academic medical center in New York City.
methodsTwenty two subjects with acute viral upper respiratory tract infection (common cold) underwent cough reflex sensitivity measurement employing capsaicin challenge on 3 separate days, 2 h after ingesting single doses of study drug (to coincide with peak blood concentrations), administered in randomized, double-blind manner: a multicomponent syrup containing diphenhydramine (25 mg), phenylephrine (10 mg), in a natural cocoa formulation; dextromethorphan (30 mg) syrup; and, placebo syrup. The standard endpoint of cough challenge was used: concentration of capsaicin inducing ≥5 coughs (C5).
main outcome measureEffect on cough reflex sensitivity (C5).
resultsA significant difference (p = 0.0024) was established among groups, with pairwise analysis revealing a significant increase in mean log C5 (0.4 ± 0.55 (SD); p < 0.01) for the diphenhydramine-containing medication versus placebo, but not for dextromethorphan versus placebo.
conclusionsOur results provide the initial evidence of the ability of diphenhydramine to inhibit cough reflex sensitivity in subjects with acute pathological cough. Timing of cough reflex sensitivity measurement may not have allowed demonstration of maximal antitussive effect of dextromethorphan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.