Nasal decongestants for the common cold

Assessment of the Prevalence of the Use of Nasal Decongestants Among the General Population in Saudi Arabia

Background A topical nasal decongestant (NDC) is widely prescribed in ENT practice and used as self-medication because it is available over the counter, which makes it an easily accessible medication. Due to its common and long-term use, it is associated with serious nasal complications. It is commonly self-administrated in many otolaryngology diseases like the common cold, sinusitis, and acute or chronic rhinitis. The long-term usage of nasal decongestants is associated with significantly increased side effects. Aim To assess the prevalence of the usage of nasal decongestants among the general population in Saudi Arabia ad the pattern of its use. Methodology A questionnaire-based, cross-sectional survey was applied to level all available populations in Saudi Arabia. Participants with ages aged 10 to 60 years old in Saudi Arabia were invited to participate in the survey. Data were collected from participants using a predesigned online questionnaire. The questionnaire included the participant's demographic data, NDC use, and pattern of use. The questionnaire was uploaded online by researchers and their friends using social media platforms. Results A total of 1456 participants completed the study questionnaire. Participants ages ranged from 10 to 60 years with a mean age of 26.9 ± 12.4 years old. Exact 585 (40.2%) participants were males and 1270 (87.2%) were from urban regions. A total of 657 (45.1%) respondents reported using nasal decongestants while 799 (54.9%) did not use NDC. As for the duration of use, 70.8% used NDC for less than five days and 13.5% used it for 5-15 days. The most reported causes of using NDC were nasal obstruction (62.7%) and common cold (25.7%). Conclusions In conclusion, the study revealed that the frequency of using nasal decongestants was common (45.1%) in the study. More efforts should be paid to improve public awareness regarding indications, duration of use, and method of using nasal decongestants to avoid rebound reactions that may affect patients' daily life activities.

Zinc for the prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections in adults: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefits and risks of zinc formulations compared with controls for prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in adults.

METHOD

Seventeen English and Chinese databases were searched in April/May 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and from April/May 2020 to August 2020 for SARS-CoV-2 RCTs. Cochrane rapid review methods were applied. Quality appraisals used the Risk of Bias 2.0 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight RCTs with 5446 participants were identified. None were specific to SARS-CoV-2. Compared with placebo, oral or intranasal zinc prevented 5 RTIs per 100 person-months (95% CI 1 to 8, numbers needed to treat (NNT)=20, moderate-certainty/quality). Sublingual zinc did not prevent clinical colds following human rhinovirus inoculations (relative risk, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21, moderate-certainty/quality). On average, symptoms resolved 2 days earlier with sublingual or intranasal zinc compared with placebo (95% CI 0.61 to 3.50, very low-certainty/quality) and 19 more adults per 100 were likely to remain symptomatic on day 7 without zinc (95% CI 2 to 38, NNT=5, low-certainty/quality). There were clinically significant reductions in day 3 symptom severity scores (mean difference, MD -1.20 points, 95% CI -0.66 to -1.74, low-certainty/quality), but not average daily symptom severity scores (standardised MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.13, low-certainty/quality). Non-serious adverse events (AEs) (eg, nausea, mouth/nasal irritation) were higher (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.69, NNHarm=7, moderate-certainty/quality). Compared with active controls, there were no differences in illness duration or AEs (low-certainty/quality). No serious AEs were reported in the 25 RCTs that monitored them (low-certainty/quality).

CONCLUSIONS

In adult populations unlikely to be zinc deficient, there was some evidence suggesting zinc might prevent RTIs symptoms and shorten duration. Non-serious AEs may limit tolerability for some. The comparative efficacy/effectiveness of different zinc formulations and doses were unclear. The GRADE-certainty/quality of the evidence was limited by a high risk of bias, small sample sizes and/or heterogeneity. Further research, including SARS-CoV-2 clinical trials is warranted.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020182044.

[Systemic and local antibiotic therapy for acute sinusitis]

The purpose of the study was to summarize data on modern antibiotic therapy for acute sinusitis, the role and place of topical antibacterial drugs, in particular Fluimucil-Antibiotic, in modern treatment strategies for this disease.

METHODS

Search in the PUBMED electronic database (articles and related abstracts) for the keywords «acute sinusitis", «antibiotics», «thiamphenicol glycinate acetylcysteine» «biofilm», «respiratory tract infection», «N-acetylcysteine».

RESULTS

The published research results indicate the high antibacterial activity of the Fluimucil-Antibiotic, in particular, for the topical drug use in the form of inhalations, applications, irrigation, and instillations. The published research results indicate a wide spectrum of antimicrobial action of Fluimucil-Antibiotic, its ability to destroy biofilms and prevent their formation, good pharmacokinetics, safety, which makes it possible to consider it as a potential treatment option for acute sinusitis in everyday practice.

In vitro safety and performance evaluation of a seawater solution enriched with copper, hyaluronic acid, and eucalyptus for nasal lavage

Background

The common cold is a viral infectious disease with symptoms such as runny nose, sore throat, and mainly, nasal congestion. State-of-the-art therapeutic approaches focus on alleviating the symptoms of this disease by non-invasive and simple-to-use methods. Nasal irrigation is one of the most accepted approaches to ease nasal congestion which, if left untreated, has a negative impact on the quality of life of patients.

Purpose

In this study, the safety and efficacy of a novel hypertonic seawater solution for nasal lavage enriched with hyaluronic acids, eucalyptus oil, copper, and manganese salts (Stérimar Stop & Protect Cold and Flu; SSPCF) have been investigated in vitro.

Methods

An in vitro 3D reconstituted human nasal epithelium tissue model, MucilAir™, has been used in this study to investigate the safety of SSPCF on nasal epithelium by measuring transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and interleukin-8 (IL-8) secretion. The efficacy of SSPCF was measured by mucociliary clearance (MCC), ATP release, Alcian blue and aquaporin (AQP3) stainings.

Results

SSPCF treatment respected nasal epithelium tissue integrity and enhanced barrier function without inducing a cytotoxic response. Secreted LDH and IL-8 levels were similar to untreated controls. MCC rate was increased 2.5-fold and ATP release decreased 87% upon SSPCF treatment, indicating improved decongestion activity. SSPCF treatment after hypotonic stress helped recover cellular organization, as shown by Alcian blue and AQP3 staining assays.

Conclusion

SSPCF appears as a safe and effective nasal irrigation formula that may alleviate the symptoms associated with common cold such as nasal congestion.

Rational prescribing of antibiotics in children under 5 years with upper respiratory tract infections in Kintampo Municipal Hospital in Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess the rational use of antibiotics in children with URTIs in the Kintampo Municipal Hospital in Ghana.

RESULTS

A total of 839 medicines were prescribed, 237 were antibiotics. The mean number of medicines prescribed per patient encounter was 3.1. The percentage of patient encounters with antibiotics was 28.2 and 0.4% for injections. The percentage of medicines prescribed by generic was 93.8% and from the essential medicines list was 94.9%. Ninety-two of patients received amoxicillin. Polypharmacy was common as prescriptions with five to six medicines per patient encounter was found. Some prescribers are not following the WHO/INRUD requirement of prescribing medicines in their generic and from the essential medicine list of the country.

Extended-Release Guaifenesin/Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride for Symptom Relief in Support of a Wait-and-See Approach for the Treatment of Acute Upper Respiratory Tract Infections: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Background

Despite the well-known fact that antibiotics (AB) are not effective against viruses, many patients ask for - and all too often doctors provide – AB for treating URTIs. Over-prescribing of AB is one of the key causes for the development of bacterial resistance, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls “one of the world's most pressing public health problems”. In addition to the CDC initiated “Get Smart About Antibiotics” campaign, focused on educating doctors the public about the importance of appropriate AB use, other programs tackling this problem include the development of new treatment paradigms. Data published at the Oregon Health & Science University demonstrated that a ‘wait-and-see’ approach, without an AB prescription for the treatment of acute childhood ear infections, was as quick, safe, and effective in resolving the infections as an AB prescription (Spiro DM, Tay KY, Arnold DH, Dziura JD, Baker MD, Shapiro ED. Wait-and-See Prescription for the Treatment of Acute Otitis Media. JAMA 2006; 296:1235-1241).

Objective

To try and reduce inappropriate prescribing practices, a wait and see or delayed approach requires patients to return for a prescription if their symptoms persist or worsen. The aim of this study was to determine whether treatment with Mucinex D (Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Parsippany, New Jersey) lowers the use of antibiotics in the treatment of URTIs when compared with placebo.

Methods

Patients aged 18 to 75 years with symptoms of acute URTIs were randomized to 1200 mg guaifenesin/120 mg pseudoephedrine hydrochloride extended-release, bilayer tablets or matching placebo for 7 consecutive days. Eligible patients met physician’s criteria for antibiotic therapy but were considered suitable for a wait and see approach (withholding antibiotics for ≥48 hours). Patients recorded symptom ratings via an interactive voice response system.

Results

One thousand one hundred eighty-nine patients enrolled; data are presented for the modified intent-to-treat population (n = 1179). At Day 8, significantly fewer patients receiving guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine versus placebo desired antibiotics (4.2% vs 8.0%). No adverse effects were reported due to patients not taking antibiotics. Significant reductions in URTI symptoms were observed for extended-release guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine versus placebo, from Day 1 throughout the study; however, the proportion of patients experiencing overall relief at the Day 4 evening assessment (primary end point) did not reach statistical significance. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 9.8% and 4.7% of patients receiving guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine and placebo, respectively.

Conclusions

The study found that a wait and see approach was associated with decreased antibiotic use. In addition, the use of a guaifenesin pseudoephedrine combination product provided an effective symptom control compared to a placebo and a well-tolerated first-line strategy for the management of URTIs. This study was not designed to assess the effects of guaifenesin or pseudoephedrine individually. Other limitations include the need for better clinical methods to assess the effectiveness of treatments for acute symptoms of patients with URTIs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01202279.

Dexpanthenol: An Overview of its Contribution to Symptom Relief in Acute Rhinitis Treated with Decongestant Nasal Sprays

Nasal blockage is the most bothersome symptom of acute rhinitis. Nasal decongestant sprays containing alpha-sympathomimetics, such as oxymetazoline and xylometazoline, have a rapid onset of action. However, this effect decreases with repeated application and, furthermore, the ciliary function of the nasal mucosa is practically paralyzed. Dexpanthenol promotes cell proliferation and protects the epithelium. Combining these two agents has demonstrated beneficial synergetic effects on the symptoms of acute rhinitis. In a post hoc analysis of a large-scale double-blind, active-controlled study including 152 patients, we could demonstrate that the benefit of added dexpanthenol appears as early as on the third day of the combined application of xylometazoline and dexpanthenol in terms of complete or near-to-complete freedom from symptoms. After 5 days, 47% of the patients were cured under the combined treatment compared with only 1% under xylometazoline monotherapy. These data show that the addition of dexpanthenol to an alpha-sympathomimetic nasal spray not only improves its tolerability but also further increases its effectiveness and leads to expedited cure.

FUNDING

Klosterfrau Healthcare Group.

Evidence and evidence gaps in therapies of nasal obstruction and rhinosinusitis

Therapeutic decisions in otorhinolaryngology are based on clinical experience, surgical skills, and scientific evidence. Recently, evidence-based therapies have gained increased attention and importance due to their potential to improve the individual patient's treatment and their potential at the same time to reduce treatment costs. In clinical practice, it is almost impossible to stay ahead of the increasing mass of literature and on the other hand critically assess the presented data. A solid scientific and statistical knowledge as well as a significant amount of spare time are required to detect systematic bias and other errors in study designs, also with respect to assessing whether or not a study should be part of an individual therapeutic decision. Meta-analyses, reviews, and clinical guidelines are, therefore, of increasing importance for evidence-based therapy in clinical practice. This review is an update of the availability of external evidence for the treatment of nasal obstruction and rhinosinusitis. It becomes evident that both groups of diseases differ significantly in the availability of external evidence. Furthermore, it becomes obvious that surgical treatment options are normally based on evidence of significantly lower quality than medical treatment options.

Nasal decongestants in monotherapy for the common cold

BACKGROUND

Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, and short- and long-term safety, of nasal decongestants used in monotherapy to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6, June 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016), Embase (2010 to 15 July 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 July 2016), LILACS (1982 to July 2016), Web of Science (1955 to July 2016) and clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating the effectiveness and adverse effects of nasal decongestants compared with placebo for treating the common cold in adults and children. We excluded quasi-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted and summarised data on subjective measures of nasal congestion, overall patient well-being score, objective measures of nasal airway resistance, adverse effects and general recovery. One review author acted as arbiter in cases of disagreement. We categorised trials as single and multi-dose and analysed data both separately and together. We also analysed studies using an oral or topical nasal decongestant separately and together.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials with 1838 participants. Fourteen studies included adult participants only (aged 18 years and over). In six studies the intervention was a single dose and in nine studies multiple doses were used. Nine studies used pseudoephedrine and three studies used oxymetazoline. Other decongestants included phenylpropanolamine, norephedrine and xylometazoline. Phenylpropanolamine (or norephedrine) is no longer available on the market therefore we did not include the results of these studies in the meta-analyses. Eleven studies used oral decongestants; four studies used topical decongestants.Participants were included after contracting the common cold. The duration of symptoms differed among studies; in 10 studies participants had symptoms for less than three days, in three studies symptoms were present for less than five days, one study counted the number of colds over one year, and one study experimentally induced the common cold. In the single-dose studies, the effectiveness of a nasal decongestant was measured on the same day, whereas the follow-up in multi-dose studies ranged between one and 10 days.Most studies were conducted in university settings (N = eight), six at a specific university common cold centre. Three studies were conducted at a university in collaboration with a hospital and two in a hospital only setting. In two studies the setting was unclear.There were large differences in the reporting of outcomes and the reporting of methods in most studies was limited. Therefore, we judged most studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Pooling was possible for a limited number of studies only; measures of effect are expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). A positive SMD represents an improvement in congestion. There is no defined minimal clinically important difference for measures of subjective improvement in nasal congestion, therefore we used the SMDs as a guide to assess whether an effect was small (0.2 to 0.49), moderate (0.5 to 0.79) or large (≥ 0.8).Single-dose decongestant versus placebo: 10 studies compared a single dose of nasal decongestant with placebo and their effectiveness was tested between 15 minutes and 10 hours after dosing. Seven of 10 studies reported subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion; none reported overall patient well-being. However, pooling was not possible due to the large diversity in the measurement and reporting of symptoms of congestion. Two studies recorded adverse events. Both studies used an oral decongestant and each of them showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group versus the placebo group.Multi-dose decongestant versus placebo: nine studies compared multiple doses of nasal decongestants with placebo, but only five reported on the primary outcome, subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion. Only one study used a topical decongestant; none reported overall patient well-being. Subjective measures of congestion were significantly better for the treatment group compared with placebo approximately three hours after the last dose (SMD 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.92; P = 0.02; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, the SMD of 0.49 only indicates a small clinical effect. Pooling was based on two studies, one oral and one topical, therefore we were unable to assess the effects of oral and topical decongestants separately. Seven studies reported adverse events (six oral and one topical decongestant); meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group (125 per 1000) compared to the placebo group (126 per 1000). The odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the treatment group was 0.98 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; P = 0.90; GRADE: low-quality evidence). The results remained the same when we only considered studies using an oral decongestant (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39; P = 0.80; GRADE: low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of single-dose nasal decongestants due to the limited evidence available. For multiple doses of nasal decongestants, the current evidence suggests that these may have a small positive effect on subjective measures of nasal congestion in adults with the common cold. However, the clinical relevance of this small effect is unknown and there is insufficient good-quality evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Due to the small number of studies that used a topical nasal decongestant, we were also unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of oral versus topical decongestants. Nasal decongestants do not seem to increase the risk of adverse events in adults in the short term. The effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants in children and the clinical relevance of their small effect in adults is yet to be determined.

Self-Care for Common Colds by Primary Care Patients: A European Multicenter Survey on the Prevalence and Patterns of Practices-The COCO Study

Background. Patients use self-care to relieve symptoms of common colds, yet little is known about the prevalence and patterns across Europe. Methods/Design. In a cross-sectional study 27 primary care practices from 14 countries distributed 120 questionnaires to consecutive patients (≥18 years, any reason for consultation). A 27-item questionnaire asked for patients' self-care for their last common cold. Results. 3,074 patients from 27 European sites participated. Their mean age was 46.7 years, and 62.5% were females. 99% of the participants used ≥1 self-care practice. In total, 527 different practices were reported; the age-standardized mean was 11.5 (±SD 6.0) per participant. The most frequent self-care categories were foodstuffs (95%), extras at home (81%), preparations for intestinal absorption (81%), and intranasal applications (53%). Patterns were similar across all sites, while the number of practices varied between and within countries. The most frequent single practices were water (43%), honey (42%), paracetamol (38%), oranges/orange juice (38%), and staying in bed (38%). Participants used 9 times more nonpharmaceutical items than pharmaceutical items. The majority (69%) combined self-care with and without proof of evidence, while ≤1% used only evidence-based items. Discussion. This first cross-national study on self-care for common colds showed a similar pattern across sites but quantitative differences.

Self-Care Practices for Common Colds by Primary Care Patients: Study Protocol of a European Multicenter Survey-The COCO Study

Background. Self-care for common colds is frequent, yet little is known about the spectrum, regional differences, and potential risks of self-care practices in patients from various European regions. Methods/Design. We describe the study protocol for a cross-sectional survey in 27 primary care centers from 14 European countries. At all sites, 120 consecutive adult patients, who visit their general practitioner for any reason, filled in a self-administered 27-item questionnaire. This addresses patients' self-care practices for common colds. Separately, the subjective level of discomfort when having a common cold, knowing about the diseases' self-limited nature, and medical and sociodemographic data are requested. Additionally, physicians are surveyed on their use of and recommendations for self-care practices. We are interested in investigating which self-care practices for common colds are used, whether the number of self-care practices used is influenced by knowledge about the self-limited nature of the disease, and the subjective level of discomfort when having a cold and to identify potential adverse interactions with chronic physician-prescribed medications. Further factors that will be considered are, for example, demographic characteristics, chronic conditions, and sources of information for self-care practices. All descriptive and analytical statistics will be performed on the pooled dataset and stratified by country and site. Discussion. To our knowledge, COCO is the first European survey on the use of self-care practices for common colds. The study will provide new insight into patients' and general practitioners' self-care measures for common colds across Europe.

Patient presentation and physician management of upper respiratory tract infections: a retrospective review of over 5 million primary clinic consultations in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

Upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) has a significant healthcare burden worldwide. Considerable resources are consumed through health care consultations and prescribed treatment, despite evidence for little or no effect on recovery. Patterns of consultations and care including use of symptomatic medications and antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections are poorly described.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of computerized clinical data on patients presenting to all public primary care clinics in Hong Kong with symptoms of respiratory tract infections. International Classification of Primary care (ICPC)codes used to identify patients included otitis media (H71), streptococcal pharyngitis (R72), acute URTI (R74), acute sinusitis (R75), acute tonsillitis (R76), acute laryngitis (R77), and influenza (R80). Sociodemographic variables such as gender, age, chronic illness status, attendance date, type and duration of drug prescribed were also collected.

RESULTS

Of the 5,529,755 primary care consultations for respiratory symptoms from 2005 to 2010, 98% resulted in a prescription. Prescription patterns of symptomatic medication were largely similar across the 5 years. In 2010 the mean number of drugs prescribed per consultation was 3.2, of which the commonly prescribed medication were sedating antihistamines (79.9%), analgesia (58.9%), throat lozenges (40.4%) and expectorant cough syrup (33.8%). During the study period, there was an overall decline in antibiotic prescription (8.1% to 5.1%). However, in consultations where the given diagnosis was otitis media (H71), streptococcal pharyngitis (R72), acute sinusitis (R75) or acute laryngitis (R76), over 90% resulted in antibiotic prescription.

CONCLUSION

There was a decline in overall antibiotic prescription over the study period. However, the use of antibiotics was high in some conditions e.g. otitis media and acute laryngitis a. Multiple symptomatic medications were given for upper respiratory tract infections. Further research is needed to develop clinical and patients directed interventions to reduce the number of prescriptions of symptomatic medications and antibiotics that could reduce costs for health care services and iatrogenic risk to patients.

A Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs versus Acetaminophen in Symptom Relief for the Common Cold: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial Studies

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen are widely used for common cold symptom relief. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen and NSAIDs in common cold symptom relief using meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL, KMbase, KoreaMed, National Assembly Library, and Riss4u for studies released through June 2012. Two authors independently extracted the data. To assess the risk of bias, the Cochrane Collaborations risk of bias tool was used. The Review Manager ver. 5.1 (RevMan) was used for statistics.

RESULTS

We identified 5 studies. The relative benefit for participants with pain relief was 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.05) and I(2) = 0%. The existence of the heterogeneity between studies was not important in this study, thus subgroup analysis was not implemented. The relative benefit for participants with rhinorrhea was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.35) and I(2) = 0%, which also indicates the existence of heterogeneity was not important. The relative risk of adverse events was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.40), I(2) = 0%. There was no apparent asymmetry in the funnel plot.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference between NSAIDs and acetaminophen in common cold symptom relief.

Complementary and integrative treatments: upper respiratory infection

The combination of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, sore throat, cough, and malaise is the symptomatic profile that constitutes an uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infection (URI), also known as the common cold. Because no known cure exists for a URI, numerous products are available, each marketed with the promise of alleviating the associated symptoms and/or shortening the duration of illness. The evidence supporting these claims is variable and is the focus of this article, with an emphasis on complementary and integrative therapies.

Effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus LGG® and Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis BB-12® on health-related quality of life in college students affected by upper respiratory infections

College students are susceptible to upper respiratory infections (URI) due to inadequate sleep, stress and close living quarters. Certain probiotic strains modulate immune function and may improve health-related quality of life (HRQL) during URI. The present study recruited apparently healthy college students and assessed the effect of probiotics on HRQL outcomes (i.e. self-reported duration, symptom severity and functional impairment of URI) in those who developed URI. Missed school and work days due to URI were also considered. Subjects (n 231) were apparently healthy college students living on campus in residence halls at the Framingham State University (Framingham, MA, USA), and were randomised to receive placebo (n 117) or probiotic-containing powder (daily dose of minimum 1 billion colony-forming units of each Lactobacillus rhamnosus LGG® (LGG®) and Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis BB-12® (BB-12®); n 114) for 12 weeks. Subjects completed The Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey-21 to assess HRQL during URI. The final analyses included 198 subjects (placebo, n 97 and probiotics, n 101). The median duration of URI was significantly shorter by 2 d and median severity score was significantly lower by 34% with probiotics v. placebo (P,0·001), indicating a higher HRQL during URI. Number of missed work days was not different between groups (P=0·429); however, the probiotics group missed significantly fewer school days (mean difference = 0·2 d) compared to the placebo group (P=0·002). LGG® and BB-12® may be beneficial among college students with URI for mitigating decrements in HRQL. More research is warranted regarding mechanisms of action associated with these findings and the cost-benefit of prophylactic supplementation.

Lessons learned from a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study with a iota-carrageenan nasal spray as medical device in children with acute symptoms of common cold

Background

Common cold is caused by a variety of respiratory viruses. The prevalence in children is high, and it potentially contributes to significant morbidity. Iota-carragenan, a polymer derived from red seaweed, has reduced viral load in nasal secretions and alleviated symptoms in adults with common cold.

Methods

We have assessed the antiviral and therapeutic activity of a nasal spray containing iota-carrageenan in children with acute symptoms of common cold. A cohort of 153 children between 1–18 years (mean age 5 years), displaying acute symptoms of common cold were randomly assigned to treatment with a nasal spray containing iota-carrageenan (0.12%) as verum or 0.9% sodium chloride solution as placebo for seven days. Symptoms of common cold were recorded and the viral load of respiratory viruses in nasal secretions was determined at two consecutive visits.

Results

The results of the present study showed no significant difference between the iota carrageenan and the placebo group on the mean of TSS between study days 2–7. Secondary endpoints, such as reduced time to clearance of disease (7.6 vs 9.4 days; p = 0.038), reduction of viral load (p = 0.026), and lower incidence of secondary infections with other respiratory viruses (p = 0.046) indicated beneficial effects of iota-carrageenan in this population. The treatment was safe and well tolerated, with less side effects observed in the verum group compared to placebo.

Conclusion

In this study iota-carrageenan did not alleviate symptoms in children with acute symptoms of common cold, but significantly reduced viral load in nasal secretions that may have important implications for future studies.

Trial registration

ISRCTN52519535, http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN52519535/

Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold

BACKGROUND

Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter (OTC) in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence of effectiveness is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations in reducing the duration and alleviating the symptoms of the common cold in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, OLDMEDLINE (1953 to 1965), MEDLINE (1966 to November Week 3, 2011) and EMBASE (1990 to December 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics) or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and summarised data on general recovery, nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, cough and side effects. We categorised the trials according to the active ingredients.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials (5117 participants) of common cold treatments. Fourteen trials studied antihistamine-decongestant combinations; two antihistamine-analgesic; six analgesic-decongestant; and five antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations. In 21 trials the control intervention was placebo and in six trials an active substance. Reporting of methods in most trials was poor and there were large differences in design, participants, interventions and outcomes. Pooling was only possible for a limited number of studies and outcomes.Antihistamine-decongestant: 12 trials. Eight trials report on global effectiveness, six could be pooled; n = 309 on active treatment, n = 312 placebo) the odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.50); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was four (95% CI 3 to 5.6). On the final evaluation day 41% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 66% on active treatment. Of the two trials that were not included in the pooling, one showed some global effect, the other showed no effect.Antihistamine-analgesic: three trials. Two reported on global effectiveness, data from one study was presented. (n = 290 on active treatment, n = 292 ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46) and the NNTB was 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). After six days of treatment 43% were cured in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group. The second study also showed an effect in favour of active treatment.Analgesic-decongestant: six trials. One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% benefited compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52).Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: Five trials. Four trials reported on global effectiveness, two could be pooled: global effect reported (less than one severity point on a four or five-point scale) with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%); the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67) and the NNTB was 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). Two other trials found no beneficial effect. Two other studies did not show any effect.Two studies with antihistamine-decongestant (113 children) could not be pooled. There was no significant effect of the active treatment.Adverse effects: the combination of antihistamine-decongestant had more adverse effects than the control intervention but the difference was not significant: 157/810 (19%) versus 60/477 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.21). Analgesic-decongestant combinations had significantly more adverse effects than control (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.37); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 14. None of the other two combinations caused significantly more adverse effects. Antihistamine-analgesic: 11/90 with combination suffered one or more adverse effects (12%) versus 9/91 (10%) with control (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.23). Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: in one study 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups but numbers were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children.

Decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation for acute sinusitis in children

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis. We considered the following four interventions: 1) decongestants versus placebo or no medication, 2) antihistamines versus placebo or no medication, 3) decongestant and antihistamine combination versus placebo or no medication, 4) nasal irrigation versus no irrigation. The primary outcomes of the review were symptom resolution (improvement in symptom score from enrolment to day 5) and overall symptom burden (as measured by average symptom scores while on therapy).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2010), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (1950 to May Week 1, 2010) and EMBASE (1950 to January 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs which evaluated children less than 18 years of age with acute sinusitis, defined as 10 to 30 days of rhinorrhea, congestion or daytime cough. We excluded trials of children with chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed each study for inclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 402 studies found through the electronic searches and handsearching, none met all the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to determine whether the use of antihistamines, decongestants or nasal irrigation is efficacious in children with acute sinusitis. Further research is needed to determine whether these interventions are beneficial in the treatment of children with acute sinusitis.

Treatment of congestion in upper respiratory diseases

Congestion, as a symptom of upper respiratory tract diseases including seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis, is principally caused by mucosal inflammation. Though effective pharmacotherapy options exist, no agent is universally efficacious; therapeutic decisions must account for individual patient preferences. Oral H₁-antihistamines, though effective for the common symptoms of allergic rhinitis, have modest decongestant action, as do leukotriene receptor antagonists. Intranasal antihistamines appear to improve congestion better than oral forms. Topical decongestants reduce congestion associated with allergic rhinitis, but local adverse effects make them unsuitable for long-term use. Oral decongestants show some efficacy against congestion in allergic rhinitis and the common cold, and can be combined with oral antihistamines. Intranasal corticosteroids have broad anti-inflammatory activities, are the most potent long-term pharmacologic treatment of congestion associated with allergic rhinitis, and show some congestion relief in rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis. Immunotherapy and surgery may be used in some cases refractory to pharmacotherapy. Steps in congestion management include (1) diagnosis of the cause(s), (2) patient education and monitoring, (3) avoidance of environmental triggers where possible, (4) pharmacotherapy, and (5) immunotherapy (for patients with allergic rhinitis) or surgery for patients whose condition is otherwise uncontrolled.

Examining the evidence for the use of vitamin C in the prophylaxis and treatment of the common cold

Purpose: To present a critical evaluation of the current evidence concerning the therapeutic value of vitamin C for the prophylaxis and treatment of the common cold.

Data sources: Cochrane, PubMed, Natural Standard, and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine databases were searched to identify and acquire primary research reports, literature reviews, and secondary analyses related to the clinical objective. Published clinical trials, literature reviews, meta‐analyses, and systematic reviews were evaluated for evidence‐based practice implications.

Conclusions: Vitamin C is frequently used for the treatment and prophylaxis of the common cold; however, no published recommendations were found in a review of the nurse practitioner literature that specifically address the efficacy of vitamin C for the common cold. Our literature review revealed that vitamin C is not effective at preventing the common cold in the general adult population; however, it is effective at preventing colds when consumed regularly by athletes training in subarctic conditions. We also found that regular vitamin C consumption may reduce the duration of cold symptoms in both adults and children, but it does not decrease the severity of cold symptoms.

Implications for practice: NPs should counsel their patients that regular vitamin C consumption may decrease the duration of cold symptoms, but does not affect symptom severity or act as a prophylaxis.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the common cold

BACKGROUND

Although non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely used for the treatment of pain and fever associated with the common cold, there is no systematic review to assess the effects of NSAIDs in patients with the common cold.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of NSAIDs versus placebo and other treatments on the signs and symptoms of the common cold. To determine any adverse effects of NSAIDs in patients treated with NSAIDs for the common cold.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 1) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialized Register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2009); EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2009); CINAHL (January 1982 to March 2009); ProQuest Digital Dissertations (January 1938 to March 2009); KoreaMed (January 1958 to March 2009) and KMbase (January 1949 to March 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying treatment of the common cold with NSAIDs in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors extracted data (SYK, YSM, YJC, YWH). We subdivided trials into placebo-controlled RCTs and NSAIDs versus NSAIDs RCTs. We extracted and summarized data on global efficacies: analgesic effects such as reduction of headache and myalgia; non-analgesic effects such as reduction of nasal symptoms, cough, sputum and sneezing; and side effects.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes nine RCTs, describing 37 comparisons: six were NSAIDs versus placebo, and three were NSAIDs versus NSAIDs. A total of 1064 patients with the common cold were included. In a pooled analysis, NSAIDs did not significantly reduce the total symptom score, or duration of colds.However, for outcomes related to the analgesic effects of NSAIDs (headache, ear pain, and muscle and joint pain) NSAIDs produced significant benefits, and malaise showed a borderline benefit, although throat irritation was not improved. Chills showed mixed results. For respiratory symptoms, cough and nasal discharge scores were not improved, but the sneezing score significantly improved. We found no evidence of increased frequency of adverse effects in the NSAID treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The authors recommend NSAIDs for relieving discomfort or pain caused by the common cold. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of NSAIDs in relieving respiratory symptoms such as cough and nasal discharge.

Garlic for the common cold

BACKGROUND

Garlic is alleged to have antimicrobial and antiviral properties that relieve the common cold, among other beneficial effects. There is widespread usage of garlic supplements. The common cold is associated with significant morbidity and economic consequences. On average, children have six to eight colds per year, and adults have two to four.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether garlic (allium sativum) is effective for either the prevention or treatment of the common cold, when compared to placebo, no treatment or other treatments.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 1), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register; OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); MEDLINE (January 1966 to March Week 3, 2009); EMBASE (1974 to March 2009); and AMED (1985 to March 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of common cold prevention and treatment comparing garlic with placebo, no treatment or standard treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed and selected trials from searches, assessed and rated study quality, and extracted relevant data.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the five trials identified as potentially relevant from our searches, only one trial met the inclusion criteria. This trial randomly assigned 146 volunteer participants to either a garlic supplement (with 180 mg of allicin content) or a placebo (once daily) for 12 weeks. The trial reported 65 occurrences of the common cold in the placebo group compared with 24 in the garlic intervention group (P < 0.001). The number of days of illness was lower in the garlic group compared with the placebo group (111 versus 366). The number of days to recovery was similar in both groups (4.63 versus 5.63). Because only one trial met the inclusion criteria, limited conclusions can be drawn. The trial relied on self-reported episodes of the common cold, but was of reasonable quality in terms of randomisation and allocation concealment. Adverse effects included rash and odour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient clinical trial evidence regarding the effects of garlic in preventing or treating the common cold. A single trial suggested that garlic may prevent occurrences of the common cold, but more studies are needed to validate this finding. Claims of effectiveness appear to rely largely on poor quality evidence.

Upper respiratory tract infections (including otitis media)

Upper respiratory tract infections (including otitis media) are the most common illnesses affecting children. Most illnesses are mild and resolve completely without specific treatment, but the frequency of infection and association with fever and constitutional symptoms creates significant distress for the child and the family. By understanding the evidence available from high-quality studies, the clinician can advise the families on appropriate action. The goal of this article is to support clinicians in answering the following questions: (1) What happened to children with these conditions when no additional treatment was provided? (2) Which interventions have been assessed in well-designed studies? (3) Which interventions have been shown to improve outcomes? (4) How large is the overall benefit?

Clinical trial of 3 days of treatment with oral pseudoephedrine for the common cold in the southern hemisphere

BACKGROUND

Single-dose studies indicate that pseudoephedrine (PSE) provides moderate relief for congestion in coryza, but there is a lack of repeated-dose studies.

METHODS

Two hundred sixteen subjects participated in this double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial over 3 days. Measurements included posterior rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry, and subjective measures of congestion using a categorical scale and visual analog scale (VAS). Treatment was with one 60-mg PSE tablet four times daily or matching placebo.

RESULTS

After the first dose, PSE relative to placebo consistently showed small improvements for all objective assessments of nasal congestion. The prespecified primary efficacy outcome (day 1 nasal airway resistance area under the curve) was not significantly different between groups. PSE produced a 5.5% (p = 0.031) increase in total nasal volume for 0.5-3 hours after dosing. A pooled analysis of days 1 and 3 data showed a VAS score decrease of 7.0% (p = 0.072) for the 0.5- to 3-hour period on PSE.

CONCLUSION

PSE showed small but nonsignificant improvements in objective assessments of nasal congestion relative to placebo after a single dose.