Rococo study: a real-world evaluation of an over-the-counter medicine in acute cough (a multicentre, randomised, controlled study)

S S Birring, J Brew, A Kilbourn, V Edwards, R Wilson, A H Morice, S S Birring, J Brew, A Kilbourn, V Edwards, R Wilson, A H Morice

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of CS1002, an over-the-counter cough treatment containing diphenhydramine, ammonium chloride and levomenthol in a cocoa-based demulcent.

Design: A multicentre, randomised, parallel group, controlled, single-blinded study in participants with acute upper respiratory tract infection-associated cough.

Setting: 4 general practitioner (GP) surgeries and 14 pharmacies in the UK.

Participants: Participants aged ≥18 years who self-referred to a GP or pharmacist with acute cough of <7 days' duration. Participant inclusion criterion was cough severity ≥60 mm on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Exclusion criteria included current smokers or history of smoking within the past 12 months (including e-cigarettes). 163 participants were randomised to the study (mean participant age 38 years, 57% females).

Interventions: Participants were randomised to CS1002 (Unicough) or simple linctus (SL), a widely used cough treatment, and treatment duration was 7 days or until resolution of cough.

Main outcome measures: The primary analysis was intention-to-treat (157 participants) and comprised cough severity assessed using a VAS after 3 days' treatment (prespecified primary end point at day 4). Cough frequency, sleep disruption, health status (Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ-acute)) and cough resolution were also assessed.

Results: At day 4 (primary end point), the adjusted mean difference (95% CI) in cough severity VAS between CS1002 and SL was -5.9 mm (-14.4 to 2.7), p=0.18. At the end of the study (day 7) the mean difference in cough severity VAS was -4.2 mm (-12.2 to 3.9), p=0.31. CS1002 was associated with a greater reduction in cough sleep disruption (mean difference -11.6 mm (-20.6 to 2.7), p=0.01) and cough frequency (mean difference -8.1 mm (-16.2 to 0.1), p=0.05) compared with SL. There was greater improvement in LCQ-acute quality of life scores with CS1002 compared with SL: mean difference (95% CI) 1.2 (0.05 to 2.36), p=0.04 after 5 days' treatment. More participants prematurely stopped treatment due to cough improvement in the CS1002 group (24.4%) compared with SL (10.7%; p=0.02). Adverse events (AEs) were comparable between CS1002 (20.5%) and SL (27.6%) and largely related to the study indication. 6 participants (7%) in the CS1002 group reduced the dose of medication due to drowsiness/tiredness, which subsequently resolved. These events were not reported by participants as AEs.

Conclusions: Although the primary end point was not achieved, CS1002 was associated with greater reductions in cough frequency, sleep disruption and improved health status compared with SL.

Trial registration number: EudraCT number 2014-004255-31.

Keywords: Controlled clinical trial; Cough; Demulcent; Diphenhydramine; Simple Linctus.

Conflict of interest statement

SSB has received personal fees from Infirst Healthcare during the conduct of the study for advisory work. AHM has received personal fees from Infirst Healthcare during the conduct of the study for advisory work. JB, VE and TK are employees of Infirst Healthcare. RW is a statistical consultant to Infirst Healthcare.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design. GP, general practitioner; LCQ-acute, Leicester Cough Questionnaire; VAS, visual analogue scale.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Trial CONSORT flow diagram. VAS, visual analogue scale.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Change in cough severity over time. ITT, intention-to-treat.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Change in cough frequency over time. ITT, intention-to-treat; MMRM, mixed model for repeated measures.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Resolution of cough: cumulative percentage of participants. ITT, intention-to-treat; VAS, visual analogue scale.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Change in cough sleep disruption over time. ITT, intention-to-treat; MMRM, mixed model for repeated measures.

References

    1. Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB). Self Care Forum cough fact sheet. (accessed Mar 2016).
    1. Morice AH, McGarvey L, Pavord I, British Thoracic Society Cough Guideline Group . Recommendations for the management of cough in adults. Thorax 2006;61(Suppl 1):i1–24. 10.1136/thx.2006.065144
    1. Birring SS, Prudon B, Carr AJ et al. . Development of a symptom specific health status measure for patients with chronic cough: Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ). Thorax 2003;58:339–43. 10.1136/thorax.58.4.339
    1. Dicpinigaitis PV, Colice GL, Goolsby MJ et al. . Acute cough: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Cough 2009;5:11 10.1186/1745-9974-5-11
    1. Sales value of over-the-counter (OTC) cough/cold/sore throat medicines in Great Britain in 2014, by category (in millions GBP). (accessed Mar 2016).
    1. Smith SM, Schroeder K, Fahey T. Over-the-counter (OTC) medications for acute cough in children and adults in ambulatory settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;8:CD001831 10.1002/14651858.CD001831
    1. Dicpinigaitis PV, Dhar S, Johnson A et al. . Inhibition of cough reflex sensitivity by diphenhydramine during acute viral respiratory tract infection. Int J Clin Pharm 2015;37:471–4. 10.1007/s11096-015-0081-8
    1. Eccles R. Menthol and related cooling compounds. J Pharm Pharmacol 1994;46:618–30. 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1994.tb03871.x
    1. Morice AH, Marshall AE, Higgins KS et al. . Effect of inhaled menthol on citric acid induced cough in normal subjects. Thorax 1994;49:1024–6. 10.1136/thx.49.10.1024
    1. Behera D. Textbook of pulmonary medicine. 2nd edn Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd, 2010:20.
    1. Eccles R. Mechanisms of the placebo effect of sweet cough syrups. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2006;152:340–8.
    1. Lee KK, Matos S, Evans DH et al. . A longitudinal assessment of acute cough. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;187:991–7. 10.1164/rccm.201209-1686OC
    1. Yousaf N, Lee KK, Jayaraman B et al. . The assessment of quality of life in acute cough with the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ-acute). Cough 2011;7:4 10.1186/1745-9974-7-4
    1. Brignall K, Jayaraman B, Birring SS. Quality of life and psychosocial aspects of cough. Lung 2008;186(Suppl 1):S55–58. 10.1007/s00408-007-9034-x
    1. Boulet LP, Coeytaux RR, McCrory DC et al. . Tools for assessing outcomes in studies of chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2015;147:804–14. 10.1378/chest.14-2506
    1. Raj AA, Birring SS. Clinical assessment of chronic cough severity. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2007;20:334–7. 10.1016/j.pupt.2006.10.002
    1. Birring SS, Fleming T, Matos S et al. . The Leicester Cough Monitor: preliminary validation of an automated cough detection system in chronic cough. Eur Respir J 2008;31:1013–18. 10.1183/09031936.00057407

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj