Download PDF
Drug Res (Stuttg) 2016; 66(07): 384-392
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-107788
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Efficacy and Safety of Ambroxol Lozenges in the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Sore Throat – a Pooled Analysis

C. de Mey
1   ACPS – Applied Clinical Pharmacology Services, Mainz-Kastel, Germany
,
S. Koelsch
2   Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany
,
E. Richter
2   Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany
,
T. Pohlmann
2   Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany
,
R. Sousa
2   Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 02 March 2016

accepted 27 April 2016

Publication Date:
09 June 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

A pooled analysis is presented of 7 placebo-controlled RCT that investigated lozenges containing ambroxol for pain relief in acute sore throat.

2 242 patients were treated with different ambroxol doses or control treatments, 2 183 were evaluable for efficacy. The present analysis is focused on the recommended dose of 20 mg (AXL20): 856 patients were treated with AXL20, 847 with matched placebo lozenges (PL).

The average reduction in pain intensity over the first 3 h after the first AXL20 ranged from 38% to 52% of the maximum achievable effect (MAE). The overall treatment difference between AXL20 and PL was 11% (95% CI: 8–13%) of the MAE (post-hoc meta-analysis). The corresponding NNT was 6.0 (CI: 4.7–8.4) for an average pain reduction from baseline of 33% of the MAE over the first 3 h.

71.9, 79.0, and 85.3% of the AXL20-patients scored the efficacy as “very good or good” at the end of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd day, respectively, vs. 57.5, 64.4, and 70.4% of the PL-patients resulting in odds ratios of 1.9 (CI: 1.5–2.3) for the 1st, 2.1 (CI: 1.7–2.6) for the 2nd and 2.43 (CI: 1.8–3.3) for the 3rd day.

At the end of treatment ‘no redness’ or ‘slightly red’ was scored on pharyngeal inspection in 84.4% and 77.3% of AXL20- and PL-patients (OR: 1.6, CI: 1.3–1.9).

AXL20-treatment was well tolerated and is safe and efficacious for acute uncomplicated sore throat of recent onset in adolescent and adult patients.

Key words

drug research - clinical trials - local anaesthetics
 

  • References

  • 1 van Driel ML, De Sutter A, Deveugele M et al. Patients who hope for antibiotics actually asking for pain relief?. Ann Fam Med 2007; 4: 494-499
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 de Mey C, Peil H, Kölsch S et al. Efficacy and safety of ambroxol lozenges in the treatment of acute uncomplicated sore throat. EBM-based clinical documentation. Drug Res/Arzneimittelforschung 2008; 58: 557-568
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chenot JF, Weber P, Friede T. Efficacy of Ambroxol lozenges for pharyngitis: a meta-analysis. BMC Fam Pract 2014; 15: 45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schutz A, Grund HJ, Pschorn U et al. Local anaesthetic properties of ambroxol hydrochloride lozenges in view of sore throat – Clinical proof of concept. Drug Res/Arzneimittelforschung 2002; 52: 194-199
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fischer J, Pschorn U, Vix JM et al. Efficacy and tolerability of ambroxol hydrohloride lozenges in sore throat – Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials regarding the local anaesthetic properties. Arzneim.-Forsch/Drug Res 2002; 52: 256-263
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Farrar JT, Berlin JA, Strom BL. Clinically important changes in acute pain outcome measures: a validation study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003; 25: 406-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Farrar JT. Advances in clinical research methodology for pain clinical trials. Nat Med 2010; 16: 1284-1293
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Farrar JT, Dworkin RH, Max MB. Use of the cumulative proportion of responders analysis graph to present pain data over a range of cut-off points: making clinical trial data more understandable. Journal of pain and Symptom Management 2006; 31: 369-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gaudioso C, Hao J, Martin-Eauclaire MF et al. Menthol pain relief through cumulative inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels. Pain 2012; 153: 473-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Liu BY, Lin YJ, Lee HF et al. Menthol suppresses laryngeal C-fiber hypersensitivity to cigarette smoke in a rat model of gastroesophageal reflux disease: the role of TRPM8. J Appl Physiol 1985 2015; 118: 635-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L et al. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001; 94: 149-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cepeda MS, Africano JM, Polo R et al. What decline in pain intensity is meaningful to patients with acute pain?. Pain 2003; 105: 151-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bijur PE, Chang AK, Esses D et al. Problems with measurement of the minimum clinically significant difference in acute pain in elders. Acad Emerg Med 2011; 18: 135-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kendrick DB, Strout TD. The minimum clinically significant difference in patient-assigned numeric scores for pain. Am J Emerg Med 2005; 23: 828-832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar