Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41312188›Full record

ReviewDrugs in context2025

N-acetylcysteine in paediatrics: a review of efficacy, safety and dosing strategies in respiratory care.

Francesca Benedetti, Pierachille Santus

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs in context, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

2 authors.

Francesca BenedettiDepartment of Women and Children's Health, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Pierachille SantusDivision of Respiratory Diseases, Università degli Studi di Milano, Sacco University Hospital, Milano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is widely used for its mucolytic, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and synergistic antibacterial properties in the treatment of respiratory diseases. NAC and other mucolytics and mucoactive medications are frequently employed in the adult population and in paediatric settings to improve mucus clearance in conditions such as cystic fibrosis, bronchiolitis, pneumonia, and both chronic and acute bronchitis, with varying degrees of success. This narrative review evaluates the efficacy and safety of NAC in paediatric acute and chronic respiratory diseases, synthesizing data from clinical trials, observational studies and real-world evidence, with a particular focus on optimizing dosing based on patient-specific characteristics. Numerous studies indicate that oral NAC doses of 20 mg/kg/day for acute conditions and 200 mg three times daily for chronic conditions are generally effective and well tolerated in children. However, most participants in these studies were older than 9 years, resulting in a lack of literature-based evidence for the optimal dosing in younger children over 2 years of age. Given the significant weight variations within this age group, weight-based dosing is recommended to ensure appropriate drug exposure and optimize treatment benefits. Weight-based dosing adjustments and patient monitoring may help optimize treatment outcomes and reinforce the overall positive safety and tolerability profile in paediatric settings. NAC is a valuable therapeutic agent for paediatric respiratory diseases, particularly in older children. In younger patients, weight-adjusted dosing and careful monitoring for potential adverse effects may help maximize efficacy and maintain its favourable tolerability profile.

Indexed as

bronchitischildrencystic fibrosismucolytic agentsN-acetylcysteineover-the-counter drugspaediatricsrespiratory diseases

Identifiers

PMID41312188
PMCPMC12657002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.