"Nebulized lidocaine for intractable cough in hospice care: a comprehensive review of efficacy, safety, and future perspectives"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Intractable cough, affecting 10-50% of terminally ill patients, significantly impairs quality of life. Conventional therapies often fail due to dose-limiting side effects or inadequate efficacy, necessitating alternative treatments. This review evaluates the efficacy, safety, and clinical applicability of nebulized lidocaine for managing intractable cough in hospice care. METHODS: A systematic literature search (1973-2023) across PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library identified studies on nebulized lidocaine in hospice or palliative populations. Inclusion criteria the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data on cough reduction, side effects, and dosing were synthesized thematically. RESULTS: Among 265 screened studies, 58 met inclusion criteria. Nebulized lidocaine (1-4%) demonstrated rapid cough suppression (within 15 min) in 70% of cancer patients, with effects lasting 2-4 h. Mild side effects, including oropharyngeal numbness (15%) and bitter taste (10%), were transient. However, 25% of asthmatic patients experienced bronchoconstriction (forced expiratory volume in 1 s FEV1FEV1 decline ≥ 15%), resolving with bronchodilators. Lidocaine reduced opioid reliance and improved comfort in 80% of cases. Variability in efficacy was noted, with limited benefits in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with acute respiratory failure. CONCLUSION: Nebulized lidocaine offers a safe, non-invasive option for intractable cough in hospice care, minimizing systemic side effects. Its rapid action and compatibility with opioid-sparing regimens enhance palliative outcomes. However, cautious use is warranted in asthma and (COPD) due to bronchoconstriction risks. Future research should prioritize standardized dosing, long-term safety, and Randomized controlled trials(RCTs in diverse hospice populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".