Vaccines for the common cold

Vaccines for the common cold

BACKGROUND

The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8 ºC). Whilst the common cold is generally not harmful, it is a cause of economic burden due to school and work absenteeism. In the United States, economic loss due to the common cold is estimated at more than USD 40 billion per year, including an estimate of 70 million workdays missed by employees, 189 million school days missed by children, and 126 million workdays missed by parents caring for children with a cold. Additionally, data from Europe show that the total cost per episode may be up to EUR 1102. There is also a large expenditure due to inappropriate antimicrobial prescription. Vaccine development for the common cold has been difficult due to antigenic variability of the common cold viruses; even bacteria can act as infective agents. Uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people, thus we performed an update of this Cochrane Review, which was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (April 2022), MEDLINE (1948 to April 2022), Embase (1974 to April 2022), CINAHL (1981 to April 2022), and LILACS (1982 to April 2022). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies, and four websites for additional trials (April 2022). We did not impose any language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccine compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow to assess the initial search results. Four review authors independently performed title and abstract screening to identify potentially relevant studies. We retrieved the full-text articles for those studies deemed potentially relevant, and the review authors independently screened the full-text reports for inclusion in the review, recording reasons for exclusion of the excluded studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author when needed. Two review authors independently collected data on a data extraction form, resolving any disagreements by consensus or by involving a third review author. We double-checked data transferred into Review Manager 5 software. Three review authors independently assessed risk of bias using RoB 1 tool as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, and we did not assess publication bias. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the certainty of the evidence and to create a summary of findings table.  MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT conducted in 1965 with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy young men in a military facility, all of whom were included in the analyses, and compared the effect of three adenovirus vaccines (live, inactivated type 4, and inactivated type 4 and 7) against a placebo (injection of physiological saline or gelatin capsule). There were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccine group, and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group. Overall, we do not know if there is a difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, no difference in adverse events when comparing live vaccine preparation with placebo was reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low due to unclear risk of bias, indirectness because the population of this study was only young men, and imprecision because confidence intervals were wide and the number of events was low. The included study did not assess vaccine-related or all-cause mortality.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review was based on one study with very low-certainty evidence, which showed that there may be no difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Future trials on interventions for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition, and should measure such outcomes as common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality (all-cause and related to the vaccine).

Acupuncture for common cold: A systematic review and meta-analyze protocol

BACKGROUND

The common cold (CC) is the most common syndromes of infection in human beings, but there is currently no special treatment. For this reason, acupuncture is used to relieve the symptoms of the CC. Acupuncture is a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) therapy that has been used for over 2000 years to treat various diseases. However, few studies have provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for the CC. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture on CC periods and its symptoms.

METHODS

The following electronic databases will be searched for studies conducted through January 1, 2019: Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EBASE, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Springer, Wan-fang database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and other sources. All randomized controlled trials on acupuncture for common cold will be included. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, while RevMan V.5.3.5 software will be implemented for the assessment of bias risk, data synthesis, subgroup analysis, and meta-analyses if conditions are met. Continuous outcomes will be presented as mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD), while dichotomous data will be expressed as relative risk.

RESULTS

A high-quality synthesis of current evidence of acupuncture for CC will be stated from several aspect using subjective reports and objective measures of performance. The reduction rate of common cold symptoms after initial treatment, resolved cold symptoms, and reduced cold duration will be collected.

CONCLUSION

This protocol will present the evidence of whether acupuncture therapy is an effective intervention for CC.

Vaccines for the common cold

BACKGROUND

The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8º C). The widespread morbidity caused by the common cold worldwide is related to its ubiquitousness rather than its severity. The development of vaccines for the common cold has been difficult because of antigenic variability of the common cold virus and the indistinguishable multiple other viruses and even bacteria acting as infective agents. There is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and previously updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (September 2016), MEDLINE (1948 to September 2016), Embase (1974 to September 2016), CINAHL (1981 to September 2016), and LILACS (1982 to September 2016). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies and four websites for additional trials (February 2017). We included no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccines compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted trial data. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by consulting a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no additional RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT dating from the 1960s with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy participants, all of whom were included in analyses. This trial compared the effect of an adenovirus vaccine against placebo. No statistically significant difference in common cold incidence was found: there were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccines group and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; P = 0.90). No adverse events related to the live vaccine were reported. The quality of the evidence was low due to limitations in methodological quality and a wide 95% confidence interval.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane Review was based on one study with low-quality evidence. We found no conclusive results to support the use of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people compared with placebo. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Any future trials on medical treatments for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition. Outcome measures should include common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality related to the vaccine.

Efficacy and safety of Reduqing granules in the treatment of common cold with wind-heat syndrome: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, positive-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of Reduqing granules in patients with common cold with wind-heat syndrome (CCWHS).

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel, positive- controlled trial included 72 CCWHS patients was performed. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups, Reduqing (RDQ) group and Lianhuaqingwen (LHQW) group, in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in RDQ group received Reduqing granules and dummy Lianhuaqingwen capsules three times a day and patients in LHQW group received Lianhuaqingwen capsules and dummy Reduqing granules three times daily. The duration of treatment and follow-up were four days.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in total markedly effective rate and total effective rate between RDQ group and LHQW group after treatment. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) symptom score was significantly reduced after treatment in RDQ group, as well as in LHQW group. However, the difference of change in TCM symptom score between two groups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences between two groups in the median time to fever relief [RDQ group (4 ± 8) h vs LHQW group (4 ± 5) h] or the median time to fever clearance (RDQ group 47 h vs LHQW 36 h). No serious adverse events were reported during the study.

CONCLUSION

Compared with Lianhuaqingwen capsules, Reduqing granules achieved similar therapeutic effect in the treatment of CCWHS and no drug-related adverse events were reported during the study. Therefore, Reduqing granules might be effective and safe in the treatment of CCWHS.

The common cold: potential for future prevention or cure

The common cold is the most frequent, although generally mild, human disease. Human Rhinoviruses are the prevalent causative agents, but other viruses are also implicated. Being so common, viral colds, have significant implications on public health and quality of life, but may also be life-threatening for vulnerable groups of patients. Specific diagnosis and treatment of the common cold still remain unmet needs. Molecular diagnostic techniques allow specific detection of known pathogens as well as the identification of newly emerging viruses. Although a number of medications or natural treatments have been shown to have some effect, either on the number or on the severity of common colds, no single agent is considerably effective. Virus-specific management remains in most cases a challenging potential as many factors have to be taken into account, including the diversity of the viral genomes, the heterogeneity of affected individuals, as well as the complexity of this long standing host-virus relationship.