Open Access

Effectiveness of a Chinese herbal medicine preparation in the treatment of cough in uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infection: a randomised double-blinded placebo-control trial

  • Wong WCW1Email author,
  • Lee A1,
  • Lam AT2,
  • Li KT2,
  • Leung CYM2,
  • Leung PC3,
  • Wong ELY3 and
  • Tang JL1
Cough20062:5

DOI: 10.1186/1745-9974-2-5

Received: 20 September 2005

Accepted: 22 June 2006

Published: 22 June 2006

Abstract

Background

Rigorous scientific and well-designed clinical trials to evaluate the effect of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is lacking. We, therefore, designed this study to evaluate the effectiveness of a commonly used TCM preparation in treating acute cough of uncomplicated URTI in adults and to search for a safe, effective and affordable alternative treatment for this common condition.

Methods

A randomised, double-blinded, placebo-control study comparing this TCM preparation with a placebo was conducted in 82 patients who attended the Family Medicine Training Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong between November and December, 2003. The TCM herbal preparation includes nine commonly used TCM herbs for cough such as chuanbei, fangfeng, jiegeng, gancao and baibu (see Table 1) The treatment lasted for 5 days and patients were followed-up for another 6 days. Patients were asked to fill in a cough score and validated Leicester cough questionnaire (LCQ).

Results

62 patients (75.6%) had completed the trial and no adverse effects were reported. Both intervened and control groups had improved in cough score and LCQ in the follow-up period, despite no overall statistical significance was observed in the differences of scores between the two groups. Women taking TCM had significantly fewer problems with sputum production (p = 0.03) and older subjects (>35 years of age) reported a significant improvement in hoarseness (p = 0.05) when compared to those using placebo.

Conclusion

TCM was well-tolerated and received among the Hong Kong Chinese population. This TCM preparation appeared to have some benefits in the treatment of cough. Future research on TCM should concentrate more on commonly encountered conditions such as UTRI and cough. Our experience on the sensitivity of assessment tools used in detecting subtle differences in an otherwise self-limiting illness and clinical trial methodology when applying the underlying theory of how TCM works in disease management was invaluable.

Background

Acute cough is a common presentation of upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) encountered in general practice [1]. In Australia in 1999, cough was treated in 7.5% of general consultation [2]. Cough can lead to high morbidity and cause debilitating symptoms such as exhaustion, insomnia, hoarseness, musculoskeletal pain, sweating and even urinary incontinence (3,4). The pressure produced during coughing could also potentially cause some kind of complication in nearly all organ systems [3]. More importantly, cough can be so profound that it may have an adverse effect on the patient's quality of life [4].

In 1994, over-the-counter sales of anti-tussives products in the United States was worth US$19 billions, which accounted for 38–50% of all respiratory sales [5]. The retail sale of cough mixtures in the United Kingdom rose by an annul rate of 3% to ₤94 m in 1999 [6]. Statistics from Pharmacy of the Department of Health in Hong Kong showed that their outpatients alone had consumed 370,000 liters of anti-tussives worth over 2 million Hong Kong dollars (US$1 = HK$7.8) in 2000 [7].

However, the effectiveness of anti-tussive in western medicine remains doubtful despite its large market and wide consumption. Only a small number of clinical trials investigating the anti-tussives so that evidence on their effectiveness is rather limited. Schroeder et al. [8] published a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials on various types of anti-tussives in 2002. They identified five trials tested for anti-tussives with placebo. Two on codeine and found none was more effective than placebo. One of two studies of dextromethorphan [9] favoured active treatment over placebo whereas the other found no significant effect. Moguisteine (one trial) led to mean differences in cough scores of about 0.5 in groups with severe cough on days 2 and 3 (P < 0.05), but there were no differences between groups at final follow up [10].

It is well known that not every ill person consults a health care professional. [11] Social and cultural factors may influence the pattern of symptomatology and phenomenology [12]. Patients disappointed with ineffective conventional treatments and naturally look for alternatives. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been practiced in China for over 2000 years: Chinese patients take TCM for chronic health problems and they may also do that for some acute self-limiting problems [11]. TCM is considered to be a very acceptable alternative in Hong Kong and a sizable segment of the population consults TCM practitioners for their health problems [13]. In one survey, nearly half had previously consulted a TCM practitioner [14]. This is partly a cultural phenomenon but dissatisfaction with other forms of health care as in the case of cough was a commonly cited reason for resorting to TCM treatment [15].

We therefore designed this study to evaluate the effectiveness of a TCM formulary in treating acute cough of uncomplicated URTIs in adults. TCM used in this study was extracted from nine commonly used herbs in treating cough and, their functions and side effects were well documented [16]. Literature search was performed and the formulary was recommended by from a panel of three experienced Chinese herbalists. The nine ingredients used in this formulary are shown in Table 1. Bulbus Fritillariae Cirrhossae is the commonly used herb for the treatment of cough and it has been used for many centuries [17]. Animal studies showed that some alkaloids (imperialine, verticine and verticinone) extracted from Bulbus Fritilariae Cirrhossae acts like muscarinic receptor antagonist and are more potent than salbutamol and diphenhydramine in relaxing isolated rat trachea and bronchi [18]. Another major ingredient Radix platycodi has both anti-tussive and expectorant activities including the promotion of salivary and bronchial secretions [17]. Pericarpium Citri Reticulatae has expectorant activities and broncho-dilatative effect [17].
Table 1

The components of TCM formulary in treating acute cough of uncomplicated URTIs

Bulbus Fritillariae Cirrhosae

27.3%

Herba Schizonepetae

10.5%

Radix Ledebouriellar

10.5%

Radix Platycodi

10.5%

Radix Glycyrrhizae

4.4%

Radix Asteris

10.5%

Radix Stemonae

10.5%

Rhizoma Cynanchi Stannotonii

10.5%

Pericarpium Citri Reticulatae

5.3%

Methods

Study design

This was a single-centre, randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled and parallel study comparing TCM with placebo in patients who had presented with cough resulting from uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infections.

Study patients

Patients were eligible for the study if they were over 18 years old, had cough due to clinically diagnosed URTIs that did not require antibiotics, not allergic to fexofenadine (Telfast®), not on other concurrent alternative medications for cough and were mentally capable to give an informed written consent and willing to comply with study requirements. We excluded patients who were pregnant or breastfeeding, current smokers, had lung disease (include asthma or chronic obstructive arirway disease) or cardiac disease (including valvular heart disease), had concurrent gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain or diarrhoea) or if they were illiterate and had difficulties in filling in the diary.

Study organisation

Patients were recruited from 17 Nov 2003 to 23 Dec 2003 at Prince of Wales Hospital Staff Clinic which mainly served Hospital Authority (HA) staff as well as their dependents such as spouse and children in New Territory East, one of the 6 districts in Hong Kong. Staff and students from the medical faculty might also attend. It mainly provided general medical consultations, specialty referrals, chronic disease management and pre-employment health checks.

Study medication and dosage

TCM used in this study and the matching placebo were manufactured by the Hong Kong Institute of Biotechnology Ltd, based on Good Manufacturing Practice. The TCM powder using extract granules had been formulated into uniform tablets under the supervision of the Institute of Chinese Medicine at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. The dosage of study drug was 3 tablets (500 mg per tablet) three times a day.

Randomisation

Randomisation and allocation was taken place on patients' first visit at the Staff Clinic. Informed consent was obtained according to the local laws and the Good Clinical Practices Guidelines, prior to the enrolment in this study and assignment of the subject study number. Subjects were given information regarding the nature, significance and scope of the study, tests to be performed and potential risks. They were also informed about their right to revoke their consent at any time without obligation to explain the reason and without prejudice to their further treatment.

Outcome measures and data analysis

Treatment period lasted for 5 days. During which, clinical assessments including history, examination and tests (if necessary) were performed at day 4 and day 7. The participants were asked to fill a questionnaire to grade the severity of a range of symptoms related to cough and the functional disturbance of cough is measured by LCQ, which had been validated and permission to use it in this study from the original author was obtained. The first primary safety outcome is tolerability, which was defined as a permanent discontinuation of the mixture of TCM as the result of an adverse event. The second efficacy outcomes were a change in the cough symptom score and in the vitality status. Subjects were encouraged to withdraw from the trial and to be treated accordingly if there were any signs of deterioration in clinical presentation. This study was done on intention-to-treat basis that patients initially treated but subsequently dropouts were included in the final analysis.

Group data were expressed as the frequency unless otherwise specified. To analyse differences in the baseline parameters between TCM and placebo groups, student t-test was performed. The statistical significance of change differences between two study groups was tested by the Mann-Whitney U test in the comparison of cough symptoms and by the student t-test in the comparison of the results of quality of life scores. Subgroup analysis of age (those older than 35) and sex were performed using Mann-Whitney U test. All statistical tests were 2 sided and exact values for the rank sum. Data entry and analyses were performed with the SPSS software package.

Results

Of the total numbers of 141 subjects screened, 81 consented to participate the study. Reasons for refusal included: Not willing to take TCM (41.7%), not available for study (13.3%), not willing to receive placebo (10%), not willing to take tablet (1.7%), not willing to do the questionnaire (1.7%), not interested in the study (1.7%), western medicine to TCM preferred (1.7%) and antitussive requested (1.7%). The baseline characteristics of patients in the intervened and control groups are shown in table 2.
Table 2

Characteristics of participants and dropouts in two study groups

 

Participants

Dropouts

 

TCM group N (%)

Placebo group N (%)

TCM group N (%)

Placebo group N (%)

Characteristic

N = 41

N = 40

N = 11

N = 8

Sex

    

   Male

8 (19.5)

5(12.5)

3 (27)

2 (25)

   Female

33 (80.5)

35 (87.5)

8 (73)

6 (75)

Marital status

    

   Single

16 (39.0)

12 (30.0)

2 (18)

4 (50)

   Married

25 (61.0)

28 (70.0)

9 (82)

4 (50)

Education level

    

   < Primary level

5 (12.2)

3 (7.5)

1 (9)

0

   < F.5

5 (12.2)

3 (7.5)

6(55)

5(63)

   > F.5

16 (39.0)

17 (42.5)

1(9)

0

   University level or above

15 (36.6)

17 (42.5)

3(27)

3(37)

Status

    

   HA/CU staff

36 (87.8)

38 (95.0)

11 (100)

8 (100)

   Dependant of HA/CU staff

5 (12.2)

1 (2.5)

0

0

Occupation

    

   HA staff:

36 (44.4)

39 (48.1)

  

   Nurses

8 (19.5)

11 (27.5)

2(18)

1 (12)

   Allied health

5 (12.2)

4 (10)

1(9)

3(38)

   Technician/Researcher

2 (4.9)

3 (7.5)

0

0

   HCA (Health Care Assistant)

2 (4.9)

1 (2.5)

1(9)

0

   GSA/WS/Workman

9 (22.0)

5 (12.5)

2(18)

1(12)

   Administration/Clerk

8 (19.5)

8 (20.0)

4(37)

2(26)

   Medical student

2 (4.9)

5 (12.5)

1(9)

1(12)

   Retired

0 (0)

1 (2.5)

  

   Chaplin

0 (0)

1 (2.5)

  

   Dependent of HA/CU staff

5 (6.2)

1 (1.2)

  

   Non-health professional

2 (4.9)

1 (2.5)

  

   White collar

1 (2.4)

0(0)

  

   Student

2 (4.9)

0(0)

  

Baseline

    
 

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Age

36.0 (10.9)

35.4 (8.5)

37.1(8.8)

31.8(5.8)

Days of cough onset for this episode

3.7 (2.6)

4.3 (6.5)

2.9(1.7)

1.6(0.7)

Height (cm)

159 (6.9)

158.9 (9.0)

159.7(8.0)

162.3(3.3)

Weight (kg)

58.7 (11.8)

56.1 (8.7)

60.8(11.9)

56.9(7.1)

SBP (mmHg)

125.5 (16.3)

121.3 (16.8)

131.4(12.0)

123.9(11.4)

DBP (mmHg)

73.6 (12.1)

69.8 (9.3)

79.3(11.0)

72.5(7.5)

Pulse/min

79.5 (9.6)

77.2 (11.7)

84.4(9.0)

73.8(8.3)

Temperature (°C)

36.5 (0.4)

36.5 (0.4)

36.5(0.5)

36.6(0.3)

There were 19 subjects subsequently withdrawn from the study (characteristics shown in table 2) and the reasons were: worsening symptoms (57.9%), over-the-counter cough medicine used (21.2%), cough improved and stopped (10.4%), conditions evolved and antibiotics required (5.3%) and difficulties in taking the tablets (5.3%). Nevertheless, none of the subject had reported any adverse effect after taking TCM cough tablet.

The subjects had on average 4-days history of cough at presentation. Table 3 shows the baseline symptom severity and quality of life in physical, psychological and social domains measured by LCQ. No difference was observed in the symptoms and LCQ scores between the two groups at the start of the study. Based on clinical assessment, Fexofenadine (Telfast) was prescribed to 67 subjects (82.7%) for rhinitis, Paracetamol (Panadol) to 44 subjects (54.3%) for fever and myalgia, Benzydamine HCL (Difflam) to 15 subjects (18.5%) or Dequalinium (Dequadin) to 18 subjects (22.2%) with sore throat, Mefenamic acid (Ponstan) to 18 subjects (22.2%) with more severe myalgia, Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) to 28 subjects (24.6%), Chlorpheniramine Maleate (Piriton) to 3 subjects (3.7%) with rhinitis, Promethazine HCL (Phenergan) to 2 subjects (2.5%) with worse nocturnal nasal symptom and Triacinolone acetonide (Kenalog in orobase) to 1 subject (1.2%) with aphthous ulcer.
Table 3

Comparison of baseline parameters in two study groups

 

Study Group

 
 

TCM group N = 41 Mean (sd)

Placebo group N = 40 Mean (sd)

P-value

Symptoms (score range 0: none – 4: very severe)

   

   Day cough

1.6 (0.8)

1.5 (0.4)

0.500

   Night cough

1.7 (1.1)

1.6 (1.0)

0.635

   Sputum

1.5 (1.2)

1.2 (1.1)

0.228

   Nasal congestion

1.6 (1.2)

1.2 (1.1)

0.895

   Running nose

1.7 (1.2)

1.8 (1.4)

0.679

   Sneezing

1.1 (0.9)

1.3 (1.3)

0.541

   Hoarseness

1.7 (1.0)

1.6 (1.2)

0.536

   Sore throat

2 (1.1)

2 (1.2)

0.842

   Muscle pain

1.4 (1.2)

1.0 (1.1)

0.064

   Chest pain

0.6 (0.9)

0.5 (0.8)

0.752

   Headache

1.5 (1.3)

1.2 (1.4)

0.232

   Total score (sum of above 11 symptoms: 0–44)

16.6 (6.7)

15.3 (7.0)

0.383

QoLs (score range)

   

   Physical domain (8–56)

4.7 (0.9)

4.5 (0.9)

0.278

   Psychological domain (7–49)

4.9 (1.2)

4.9 (1.1)

0.955

   Social domain (4–28)

4.8 (1.2)

4.7 (1.2)

0.636

   Total score (sum of above 3 domains: 3–21)

14.4 (3.0)

14.0 (2.9)

0.616

Tables 4 and 5 show the changes of the symptoms and LCQ at Day 4 and 7. A significant improvement in symptoms and LCQ scores were observed in both the treatment and control groups during the study period, but no difference was seen between the two groups except in coughing bouts when significantly more improvement were reported in the placebo group (p = 0.027). Women taking TCM had significantly fewer problems with sputum production (p = 0.03) and older subjects (>35 years of age) reported a significant improvement in hoarseness (p = 0.05) when compared to those using placebo. (Tables 6 and 7 respectively)
Table 4

Change of Symptoms after taking either the TCM preparation or placebo in the studied patients

 

Study Group

    
 

TCM group (N = 41)

Placebo group (N = 40)

    

Symptom

Difference between D4 and D1

Difference between D7 and D4

Difference between D7 and D1

Difference between D4 and D1

Difference between D7 and D4

Difference between D7 and D1

P value1 (D4–D1)

P value1 (D7–D4)

P value1 (D4–D1)

P value2(trend difference)

Day Cough

-0.17

-0.49

-0.66

-0.05

-0.70

-0.75

0.665

0.279

0.734

0.559

Night Cough

-0.34

-0.39

-0.73

-0.05

-0.78

-0.83

0.384

0.102

0.796

0.234

Sputum

-0.10

-0.41

-0.51

0.13

-0.20

-0.08

0.385

0.374

0.142

0.258

Nasal Congestion

-0.71

-0.27

-0.98

-0.80

-0.40

-1.20

0.749

0.541

0.502

0.763

Running Nose

-0.73

-0.24

-0.98

-0.73

-0.35

-1.08

0.982

0.664

0.730

0.911

Sneezing

-0.63

-0.10

-0.73

-0.63

-0.40

-1.02

0.973

0.178

0.273

0.399

Hoarseness

-0.76

-0.27

-1.02

-0.53

-0.55

-1.08

0.433

0.233

0.862

0.549

Sore Throat

-0.73

-0.49

-1.22

-0.63

-0.78

-1.40

0.738

0.286

0.523

0.605

Muscle Pain

-0.90

-0.07

-0.98

-0.70

0.00

-0.70

0.425

0.640

0.286

0.564

Chest Pain

-0.24

-0.15

-0.39

-0.40

-0.08

-0.48

0.461

0.444

0.662

0.672

Headache

-0.93

-0.20

-1.12

-0.85

-0.05

-0.90

0.783

0.503

0.468

0.718

Total Symptom Score

-6.24

-3.07

-0.92

-5.23

-4.28

-9.50

0.590

0.355

0.924

0.633

1 by independent student t-test; 2 by repeated measure ANOVA;* P < 0.05

Table 5

Change of LCQ scoresafter taking either the TCM preparation or placebo in the studied patients

 

Study Group

 
 

TCM group (N = 41)

Placebo group (N = 40)

 

Symptom

Difference between D7 and D1

Difference between D7 and D1

P value1 (D7–D1)

Q1 chest/stomach pain

0.41

0.65

0.489

Q2 sputum

0.24

0.70

0.260

Q3 tired

0.95

1.60

0.169

Q4 felt in control

1.05

1.10

0.908

Q5 felt embarrassed

0.80

0.53

0.488

Q6 felt anxious

0.59

0.75

0.626

Q7 interfered with daily activities

0.73

0.68

0.899

Q8 interfered with life enjoyment

0.88

0.95

0.848

Q9 paints/fumes

0.00

0.68

0.067

Q10 sleep

0.76

1.35

0.169

Q11 coughing bouts

0.32

1.18

0.027*

Q12 felt frustrated

0.54

0.63

0.808

Q13 felt fed up

0.78

0.90

0.777

Q14 hoarse voice

1.32

1.25

0.863

Q15 energy

0.95

0.45

0.066

Q16 worry

0.73

0.88

0.642

Q17 concern with other people

0.88

0.60

0.404

Q18 conversation

0.46

0.90

0.267

Q19 annoyed friends

0.80

0.88

0.853

Physical Domain

0.62

0.98

0.161

Psychological Domain

0.77

0.77

0.996

Social Domain

0.72

0.85

0.683

Total Score

2.11

2.60

0.543

1 by independent student t-test; * P < 0.05

Table 6

Differences in symptoms between the TCM and placebo groups in female subjects

 

Study Group

 
 

TCM Group

Placebo Group

 

Parameters

Median (range)

Median (range)

P Value

Symptoms

   

   Day Cough

-1 (-3 – 4)

-1 (-3 – 3)

0.958

   Nigh Cough

-1 (-3 – 4)

-1 (-3 – 3)

0.910

   Sputum

-1 (-4 – 4)

0 (-2 –4)

0.029*

   Nasal Congestion

-1 (-3 – 2)

-1 (-4 – 3)

0.749

   Running Nose

-1 (-3 – 4)

-1 (-3 – 3)

0.944

   Sneezing

-1 (-3 – 3)

-1 (-3 – 1)

0.629

   Hoarseness

-1 (-3 – 3)

-1 (-3 – 2)

0.594

   Sore Throat

-1 (-3 – 2)

-1 (-4 – 1)

0.517

   Muscle Pain

-1 (-4 – 1)

0 (-3 – 1)

0.374

   Chest Pain

0 (-4 – 1)

0 (-3 – 0)

0.937

   Headache

-1 (-4 – 1)

0 (-4 – 2)

0.510

Total Score

-11 (-26 – 16)

-10 (-27 – 15)

0.722

= visit 3 – visit 1

Table 7

Differences in symptoms between the TCM and placebo groups in subjects >35

 

Study Group

 
 

TCM Group

Placebo Group

 

Parameters

Median (range)

Median (range)

P Value

Symptoms

   

   Day Cough

0 (-3 – 1)

0 (-2 – 3)

0.163

   Nigh Cough

0 (-3 – 2)

0 (-3 – 4)

0.885

   Sputum

0 (-3 – 1)

0 (-2 – 3)

0.261

   Nasal Congestion

-1 (-3 – 0)

0 (-3 – 2)

0.250

   Running Nose

-1 (-2 – 1)

0 (-3 – 2)

0.281

   Sneezing

-1 (-3 – 1)

0 (-3 – 1)

0.064

   Hoarseness

-1 (-4 – 3)

0 (-2 – 1)

0.048*

   Sore Throat

-1 (-3 – 3)

-1 (-3 – 4)

0.965

   Muscle Pain

-1 (-4 – 0)

0 (-3 – 1)

0.159

   Chest Pain

0 (-3 – 0)

0 (-3 – 1)

0.859

   Headache

-1 (-3 – 0)

0 (-4 – 2)

0.235

Total Score

-8.5 (-24 – 9)

-4 (-21 – 19)

0.143

= visit 3 – visit 1

Discussion

The present study aimed to look for an effective, safe and affordable alternative treatment of acute cough resulted from uncomplicated URTI. The results of this study confirmed that URTI was a usually self-limiting disease with its symptoms improved in the first week of presentation. However, the herbal combination used in this study showed it did not improve symptoms when compared to the placebo. This formulary was well tolerated with no adverse effects reported. This finding had significant clinical implications for the Chinese population because this formulary shared many components in commercially available ready-made TCM preparations in the market (for example, Pei Pa Kao). Other components of these preparations might have significant roles to play such as the soothing effect of a syrup preparation. In addition, this study also highlighted some difficulties when conducting a TCM research in a western clinical setting as discussed below.

Firstly, this study covered mainly young working adults, who had expected western treatment. There was an added possibility that, in a fast paced society such as Hong Kong, immediate relief of symptoms might outweigh the other advantages of TCM. This might account for high drop-out rates and the demand for concomitant use of other relieving medication such as antihistamine, NSAIDs and vitamin C, which could potentially have confounding effects on relieving cough symptoms of the TCM preparation. For example, cough induced by post-nasal drip could be reduced by the anti-histamines. However, clinicians usually found that, in reality, patients had expected the other symptoms to be controlled at first presentation and this reflected how the studied drug would be used in a normal clinical setting. Secondly, one might argue that it would be better to compare the TCM in study with a commonly used cough medicine, for example, dextromethorphan. However, it would be very difficult to blind the subjects as they were of very different preparation with different odour and taste (the TCM had its own distinct favour), and when the effectiveness of currently available cough medicine were in question. Thirdly, the symptoms of URTI were usually very subtle and hence a very sensitive tool might be required to measure the changes in such a short period of time. LCQ was originally designed to measure changes in chronic cough and no tools tracking changes in acute cough was available.

Available research and evidence of using TCM in treating cough was limited and only two studies were found in literature search using Medline: one on tumeric oil [19] and the other on Feiyan Chuansou Oral Liquid (FCOL) [20]. It was found that turmeric volatile oil was significantly active in removing sputum, relieving cough and preventing asthma. FCOL were significantly better in its antitussive, expectorant, anti-asthmatic effect and resolution of dry and moist rale, and wheezing in treatment group than those in the control group. On the other hand, a recent study found the popular Echinacea to be ineffective in treating URTI in children age from 2 to 11 years old in the USA [21]. In all these studies, a standard herbal formula was used to irrespective of "TCM differentiation". "TCM differentiation" was the fundamental to TCM care and treatment whereby TCM practitioners would choose different formulas for different types of cough based on TCM diagnoses made for individual patients. Many TCM research including this one used fixed formula and did not deal with the rationale of such choice and hence the appropriation of the formulation is questionable. On the other hand, if we were to assess the efficacy of Chinese medicine without standardisation, this lack of standardisation would introduce many confounding variables and make comparison impossible.

In Hong Kong, polypharmacy (a URTI patient received an average of 1.3 cough medicine) and using dangerous drugs such as theophylline or steroid at the risk of developing drugs interactions, side effects or complications, was common in the management of URTI [7]. The high prevalence and morbidity of this illness as well as its economic and social implications warrant further search for an effective treatment and measuring tools in this area.

Conclusion

In order to coincide with government's effort in reducing use of antibiotics to treat URTI, patients were encouraged not to seek medical help at the first instance but try to self-medicate for their symptoms. However, evidence on the effectiveness of different types of anti-tussive was inconclusive. At best, only a limited number of anti-tussive such as dextromethorphan and guaifenesin may be helpful in relieving this symptom. Since Chinese herbal medicine was widely used and accepted in Hong Kong, it might provide a good base to look into its role in relieving acute cough symptom as some TCM ingredients had already been shown to be effective. The studied combination in the tablet preparation did not show any overall self-reported improvement in terms of acute symptoms or quality of life. Other factors such as syrup preparation or placebo effects might have contributed to the popularity of herbal cough medicine available to the general public. Further search for a safe and effective TCM was warranted.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Surinder Birring, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester LE3 9QP, United Kingdom who has kindly allowed us to use the LCQ in this study.

Abbreviations

URTI: 

– Upper Respiratory Tract Infections

TCM: 

– Traditional Chinese Medicine

LCQ: 

– Leicester cough questionnaire

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Community and Family Medicine, the Chinese University of Hong Kong
(2)
Family Medicine Training Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital
(3)
Clinical Trial Centre, Institute of Chinese Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

References

  1. Fahey T, Stocks N, Thomas T: Quantitative systemic review of randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic with placebo for acute cough in adults. BMJ. 1998, 316 (7135): 906-910.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bridges-Webb C, Britt H, Miles DA, Neary S, Charles J, Traynor V: Morbidity and treatment in general practice in Australia. Aust Fam Physician. 1993, 22 (3): 336-391.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Irwin RS, Madison JM: Primary care: The diagnosis and treatment of cough. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2000, 343 (23): 1715-1721. 10.1056/NEJM200012073432308.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Mello CJ, Irwin RS, Curley FJ: Predictive values of the character, timing and complications of chronic cough in diagnosing its cause. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1996, 156 (9): 997-1003. 10.1001/archinte.156.9.997.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Nicholas Hall: OTC yearbook reports (MSP) 1996–1997.Google Scholar
  6. Proprietary Association of Great Britain. Annual review and report. 2000, London: PAGBGoogle Scholar
  7. Wong WCW, Dickinson JA, Chan CSY: Cough mixtures: rational or irrational prescribing in Hong Kong?. Fam Prac. 2005,Google Scholar
  8. Schroeder K: Systemic review of randomized controlled trials of over the counter cough medicines for acute cough in adults. BMJ. 2002, 324 (7333): 329-334. 10.1136/bmj.324.7333.329.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuhn JJ, Hendley JO, Adams KF, Clark JW, Gwaltney JM: Antitussive effect of guaifenesin in young adults with natural colds. Chest. 1982, 82: 713-718.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Adams R, Hosie J, James I, Khong T, Kohn H, Smith I, Wade A: Antitussive activity and tolerability of moguisteine in patients with acute cough: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adv Ther. 1993, 10: 263-271.Google Scholar
  11. Lam TP: Strengths and weaknesses of traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine in the eyes of some Hong Kong Chinese. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2001, 55 (10): 762-765. 10.1136/jech.55.10.762.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Helman CG: Culture, health and illness. 2000, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 4Google Scholar
  13. Chung-Kuo Chung Yao Tsa Chih [Effect of turmetic volatile oil on the respiratory tract]. [Chinese]. China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica. 1988, 23 (10): 624-625.Google Scholar
  14. Wong TW, Wong SL, Donnan SPB: Prevalence and determinants of the use of traditional Chinese medicine in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chinese Medicine. 1995, XXV (3–4): 367-373.Google Scholar
  15. Wong TW, Yu TS, Liu JL, Lee NL, Lloyd OL: Factors associated with the utilization of traditional Chinese medicine in a small town in Hong Kong. American Journal of Chinese Medicine. 1997, 367-373. 3–4Google Scholar
  16. Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China. Pharmacopoeia Comission of the Ministry of Public Health. 2000, 1:Google Scholar
  17. Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China. Beijing: State Pharmacopoeia Commission of China. 2000, 225-Google Scholar
  18. Chan SW, Kwan YW, Lin G, Ho YP, Li P: Effect of Fritillaria alkaloids on isolated rat trachea and bronchi. PharmSci. 1988, 1: S369-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Chung-Kuo Chung His I Chieh Ho Tsa Chih: [Clinical and experimental studies in treating infantile acute respiratory tract infection with feiyan chuansou oral liquid] [Chinese]. 1993, 18 (2): 92-94.Google Scholar
  20. Lo WL: A sustainable improvement in the antimicrobial prescribing habit. The Hong Kong Practitioner. 2002, 24 (6): 271-Google Scholar
  21. Taylor JA, Weber W, Standish L, Quinn H, Goesling J, McGann M, Calabrese C: Efficacy and Safety of Echinacea in Treating Upper Respiratory Tract Infections in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2003, 290 (21): 2824-2830. 10.1001/jama.290.21.2824.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© WCW et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement