Ibuprofen, paracetamol, and steam for patients with respiratory tract infections in primary care: pragmatic randomised factorial trial

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alone or combined, for pain relief in acute otitis media in children

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common childhood infectious diseases and a significant reason for antibiotic prescriptions in children worldwide. Pain from middle ear infection and pressure behind the eardrum is the key symptom of AOM. Ear pain is central to children's and parents' experience of the illness. Because antibiotics provide only marginal benefits, analgesic treatment including paracetamol (acetaminophen) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is regarded as the cornerstone of AOM management in children.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of paracetamol (acetaminophen) or NSAIDs, alone or combined, compared with placebo or no treatment in relieving pain in children with AOM. Our secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of NSAIDs compared with paracetamol in children with AOM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 7, July 2016; MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to August 2016), Embase (from 1947 to August 2016), CINAHL (from 1981 to August 2016), LILACS (from 1982 to August 2016) and Web of Science (from 1955 to August 2016) for published trials. We screened reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for additional trials. We searched WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR) for completed and ongoing trials (search date 19 August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for pain relief in children with AOM. We also included trials of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for children with fever or upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) if we were able to extract subgroup data on pain relief in children with AOM either directly or after obtaining additional data from study authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed methodological quality of the included trials and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall quality of evidence for each outcome of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs (327 children) which were assessed at low to moderate risk of bias.One RCT included 219 children with AOM, and used a three-arm, parallel group, double-blind design to compare paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus placebo. All children also received antibiotics and those with fever > 39 °C could have received paracetamol (30 mg to 60 mg) additionally to the studied treatments.Another RCT involved 156 febrile children (26 of whom had AOM). The study design was a three-arm, parallel group, double-blind design and compared paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus ibuprofen plus paracetamol.The third RCT included 889 children with respiratory tract infections (82 of whom had AOM). This study applied a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial, open-label design and compared paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus ibuprofen plus paracetamol. Study participants were randomised to one of the three treatment groups as well as two dosing groups (regular versus as required) and two steam inhalation groups (steam versus no steam).Authors of two RCTs provided crude subgroup data on children with AOM. We used data from the remaining trial to inform comparison of paracetamol versus placebo (148 children) and ibuprofen versus placebo (146 children) assessments. Data from all included RCTs informed comparison of ibuprofen versus paracetamol (183 children); data from the two RCTs informed comparison of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone (71 children).We found evidence, albeit of low quality, that both paracetamol and ibuprofen as monotherapies were more effective than placebo in relieving pain at 48 hours (paracetamol versus placebo: proportion of children with pain 10% versus 25%, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 7; ibuprofen versus placebo: proportion of children with pain 7% versus 25%, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; NNTB 6). Very low quality evidence suggested that adverse events did not significantly differ between children treated with either paracetamol, ibuprofen or placebo.We found insufficient evidence of a difference between ibuprofen and paracetamol in relieving ear pain at 24 hours (2 RCTs, 39 children; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.18; very low quality evidence), 48 to 72 hours (3 RCTs, 183 children; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.54; low quality evidence) and four to seven days (2 RCTs, 38 children; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.23; very low quality evidence).Data on the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone came from two RCTs that provided crude subgroup data for 71 children with AOM. The small sample provided imprecise effect estimates and we were consequently unable to draw any firm conclusions (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite explicit guideline recommendations on its use, current evidence on the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, in relieving pain in children with AOM is limited. Low quality evidence indicates that both paracetamol and ibuprofen as monotherapies are more effective than placebo in relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM. There is insufficient evidence of a difference between ibuprofen and paracetamol in relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM, whereas data on the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone were insufficient to draw any firm conclusions. Further research is needed to provide insights into the role of ibuprofen as adjunct to paracetamol, and other analgesics such as anaesthetic eardrops, for children with AOM.

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug without Antibiotics for Acute Viral Infection Increases the Empyema Risk in Children: A Matched Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk factors of empyema after acute viral infection and to clarify the hypothesized association(s) between empyema and some viruses and/or the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

STUDY DESIGN

A case-control study was conducted in 15 centers. Cases and controls were enrolled for a source population of children 3-15 years of age with acute viral infections between 2006 and 2009.

RESULTS

Among 215 empyemas, 83 cases (children with empyema and acute viral infection within the 15 preceding days) were included, and 83 controls (children with acute viral infection) were matched to cases. Considering the intake of any drug within 72 hours after acute viral infection onset and at least 6 consecutive days of antibiotic use and at least 1 day of NSAIDs exposure, the multivariable analysis retained an increased risk of empyema associated with NSAIDs exposure (aOR 2.79, 95% CI 1.4-5.58, P = .004), and a decreased risk associated with antibiotic use (aOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11-0.97, P = .04). The risk of empyema associated with NSAIDs exposure was greater for children not prescribed an antibiotic and antibiotic intake diminished that risk for children given NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs use during acute viral infection is associated with an increased risk of empyema in children, and antibiotics are associated with a decreased risk. The presence of antibiotic-NSAIDs interaction with this risk is suggested. These findings suggest that NSAIDs should not be recommended as a first-line antipyretic treatment during acute viral infections in children.

Effectiveness of steam inhalation and nasal irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews support nasal saline irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms, but trials have been small and few in primary care settings. Steam inhalation has also been proposed, but supporting evidence is lacking. We investigated whether brief pragmatic interventions to encourage use of nasal irrigation or steam inhalation would be effective in relieving sinus symptoms.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial involving adults (age 18-65 yr) from 72 primary care practices in the United Kingdom who had a history of chronic or recurrent sinusitis and reported a "moderate to severe" impact of sinus symptoms on their quality of life. Participants were recruited between Feb. 11, 2009, and June 30, 2014, and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 advice strategies: usual care, daily nasal saline irrigation supported by a demonstration video, daily steam inhalation, or combined treatment with both interventions. The primary outcome measure was the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI). Patients were followed up at 3 and 6 months. We imputed missing data using multiple imputation methods.

RESULTS

Of the 961 patients who consented, 871 returned baseline questionnaires (210 usual care, 219 nasal irrigation, 232 steam inhalation and 210 combined treatment). A total of 671 (77.0%) of the 871 participants reported RSDI scores at 3 months. Patients' RSDI scores improved more with nasal irrigation than without nasal irrigation by 3 months (crude change -7.42 v. -5.23; estimated adjusted mean difference between groups -2.51, 95% confidence interval -4.65 to -0.37). By 6 months, significantly more patients maintained a 10-point clinically important improvement in the RSDI score with nasal irrigation (44.1% v. 36.6%); fewer used over-the-counter medications (59.4% v. 68.0%) or intended to consult a doctor in future episodes. Steam inhalation reduced headache but had no significant effect on other outcomes. The proportion of participants who had adverse effects was the same in both intervention groups.

INTERPRETATION

Advice to use steam inhalation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care was not effective. A similar strategy to use nasal irrigation was less effective than prior evidence suggested, but it provided some symptomatic benefit.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, no. 88204146.

Primary care randomised controlled trial of a tailored interactive website for the self-management of respiratory infections (Internet Doctor)

OBJECTIVE

To assess an internet-delivered intervention providing advice to manage respiratory tract infections (RTIs).

DESIGN

Open pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care in UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (aged ≥18) registered with general practitioners, recruited by postal invitation.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomised with computer-generated random numbers to access the intervention website (intervention) or not (control). The intervention tailored advice about the diagnosis, natural history, symptom management (particularly paracetamol/ibuprofen use) and when to seek further help.

OUTCOMES

Primary: National Health Service (NHS) contacts for those reporting RTIs from monthly online questionnaires for 20 weeks. Secondary: hospitalisations; symptom duration/severity.

RESULTS

Results 3044 participants were recruited. 852 in the intervention group and 920 in the control group reported one or more RTIs, among whom there a modest increase in NHS Direct contacts in the intervention group (intervention 44/1734 (2.5%) versus control 24/1842 (1.3%); multivariate Risk Ratio (RR) 2.53 (95% CI 1.10 to 5.82, p=0.029)). Conversely reduced contact with doctors occurred (283/1734 (16.3%) vs 368/1845 (20.0%); risk ratio 0.71, 0.53 to 0.95, p=0.019). Reduction in contacts occurred despite slightly longer illness duration (11.3 days versus 10.9 days respectively; multivariateestimate 0.48 days longer (-0.16 to 1.12, p=0.141) and more days of illness rated moderately bad or worse illness (0.53 days; 0.12 to 0.94, p=0.012). The estimate of slower symptom resolution in the intervention group was attenuated when controlling for whether individuals had used webpages which advocated ibuprofen use (length of illness 0.22 days, −0.51 to 0.95, p=0.551; moderately bad or worse symptoms 0.36 days, −0.08 to 0.80, p=0.105). There was no evidence of increased hospitalisations (risk ratio 0.13; 0.02 to 1.01; p=0.051).

CONCLUSIONS

An internet-delivered intervention for the self-management of RTIs modifies help-seeking behaviour, and does not result in more hospital admissions due to delayed help seeking. Advising the use of ibuprofen may not be helpful.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN91518452.