Pain relief of sore throat with a new anti-inflammatory throat lozenge, ibuprofen 25 mg: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international phase III study

Treatment of Acute Sore Throat in Malaysia: A Consensus of Multidisciplinary Recommendations Using Modified Delphi Methodology

Introduction

Using antibiotics in the treatment of acute sore throats has been linked with antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and needs to be addressed. The consensus sought to improve diagnostic accuracy, decrease unwarranted antibiotic prescriptions and enhance patient outcomes.

Methods

A multidisciplinary panel of nine experts reviewed published literature and discussed current practices in managing sore throat. Ten evidence-based statements on sore throat and AMR, diagnostic accuracy and antibiotic prescribing, and symptomatic therapy were developed. A modified Delphi exercise was then carried out. A consensus was reached if at least 70% of the group agreed with the statement.

Results

All 10 statements for managing acute sore throat achieved consensus. The major concern of AMR caused by improper antibiotic prescribing, particularly in cases of viral sore throat, was recognized. This underscores the need for improved diagnostic tools, such as the McIsaac score, to reduce needless antibiotic prescriptions. To improve patient satisfaction, effective pain management using non-antibiotic alternatives such as paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and flurbiprofen throat lozenges was recommended. Pain and inflammation can be adequately managed with low-dose NSAIDs. The potential benefits of topical NSAIDs were acknowledged for their milder safety profile than oral formulations.

Conclusion

A consensus was achieved on the use of a clinical diagnostic tool, prudent use of antibiotics, and symptomatic therapy in acute sore throat management. The McIsaac score and point-of-care testing (POCT) for the presence of group A beta-hemolytic Streptococcus (GABHS) can aid in the decision-making process for antibiotic use, reducing needless prescriptions. The mainstay of therapy is symptomatic treatment, which includes the use of NSAIDs.

Group A β-hemolytic Streptococcal Pharyngitis: An Updated Review

BACKGROUND

Group A ß-hemolytic Streptococcus (GABHS) is the leading bacterial cause of acute pharyngitis in children and adolescents worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to familiarize clinicians with the clinical manifestations, evaluation, diagnosis, and management of GABHS pharyngitis.

METHODS

A search was conducted in December 2022 in PubMed Clinical Queries using the key term "group A β-hemolytic streptococcal pharyngitis". This review covers mainly literature published in the previous ten years.

RESULTS

Children with GABHS pharyngitis typically present with an abrupt onset of fever, intense pain in the throat, pain on swallowing, an inflamed pharynx, enlarged and erythematous tonsils, a red and swollen uvula, enlarged tender anterior cervical lymph nodes. As clinical manifestations may not be specific, even experienced clinicians may have difficulties diagnosing GABHS pharyngitis solely based on epidemiologic or clinical grounds alone. Patients suspected of having GABHS pharyngitis should be confirmed by microbiologic testing (e.g., culture, rapid antigen detection test, molecular point-of-care test) of a throat swab specimen prior to the initiation of antimicrobial therapy. Microbiologic testing is generally unnecessary in patients with pharyngitis whose clinical and epidemiologic findings do not suggest GABHS. Clinical score systems such as the Centor score and McIssac score have been developed to help clinicians decide which patients should undergo diagnostic testing and reduce the unnecessary use of antimicrobials. Antimicrobial therapy should be initiated without delay once the diagnosis is confirmed. Oral penicillin V and amoxicillin remain the drugs of choice. For patients who have a non-anaphylactic allergy to penicillin, oral cephalosporin is an acceptable alternative. For patients with a history of immediate, anaphylactic-type hypersensitivity to penicillin, oral clindamycin, clarithromycin, and azithromycin are acceptable alternatives.

CONCLUSION

Early diagnosis and antimicrobial treatment are recommended to prevent suppurative complications (e.g., cervical lymphadenitis, peritonsillar abscess) and non-suppurative complications (particularly rheumatic fever) as well as to reduce the severity of symptoms, to shorten the duration of the illness and to reduce disease transmission.

Does the use of antipyretics prolong illness? A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the effects of antipyretics in acute upper and lower respiratory tract infections

OBJECTIVE

Fever contributes to the inflammatory response; in some infections, antipyretics could prolong the illness. The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of antipyretic treatments on the evolution of acute upper and lower respiratory tract infections (RTI).

METHOD

A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analysis was conducted. Our primary endpoint was the time to recovery from illness. Our prespecified secondary endpoints were quality of life, duration and number of fever episodes, repeated medical visits, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Out of the 1466 references found, 25 RCTs were included. There were two studies assessing mean fever clearance time, and five studies examining the duration of symptoms associated with the illness studied. No statistically significant differences were found when pooling the results of the different studies. The assessment of adverse events showed a significant difference disadvantaging non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No meta-analysis could be performed for our other secondary endpoints. The quality of the evidence is limited by the small number of studies included for our primary endpoint and by heterogeneity between the studies.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the use of antipyretics does not prolong or shorten illness duration in acute upper and lower RTI. The symptomatic efficacy of antipyretics must be weighed against their adverse effects, particularly when fever is well-tolerated.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in acute viral respiratory tract infections: An updated systematic review

In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in treating respiratory tract infections in adults and children. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. A total of 34 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies using the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. The evidence on ibuprofen, naproxen, aspirin, diclofenac, and other NSAIDs were rated for degree of uncertainty for each of the study outcomes and summarized using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our findings suggest that high-quality evidence supports the use of NSAIDs to reduce fever in both adults and children. However, the evidence was uncertain for the use of NSAIDs to reduce cough. Most studies showed that NSAIDs significantly relieved sore throat. The evidence for mortality and oxygenation is limited. Regarding the adverse events, gastrointestinal discomfort was more frequently reported in children. For adults, our overall certainty in effect estimates was low and the increase in gastrointestinal adverse events was not clinically significant. In conclusion, NSAIDs seem to be beneficial in the outpatient management of fever and sore throat in adults and children. Although the evidence does not support their use to decrease mortality nor improve oxygenation in inpatient settings, the use of NSAIDs did not increase the rate of death or the need for ventilation in patients with respiratory tract infections. Further studies with a robust methodology and larger sample sizes are recommended.

Comparative evaluation of intravenous dexketoprofen and paracetamol in the management of pain induced by sore throat

OBJECTIVES

Sore throat is one of the most prevalent causes of emergency visits. The chief purpose of this clinical report is to investigate the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) dexketoprofen and paracetamol drugs relative to each other in relieving the pain induced by sore throat in emergency visits.

METHODS

This prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled study was conducted at a tertiary-level emergency unit. The eligible population (n = 200) with confirmed pharyngitis diagnosis on the Tonsillo Pharyngitis Assessment and moderate to severe sore throat was randomly divided into two cohorts to be administered with 50 mg of dexketoprofen (n = 98) or 1000-mg paracetamol (n = 102). The study drugs dissolved in 150-mL saline were administered by rapid IV infusion. All the recruited patients were re-assessed by Sore Throat Pain Intensity Scale (STPIS), Difficulty Swallowing Scale (DSS) and Swollen Throat Scale (SwoTS) at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes. In addition, presence of sore throat was re-evaluated by Sore Throat Relief Scale (STRS) at these time points.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients completed the study. The median age in dexketoprofen and paracetamol cohort was 25 (18-57) and 29 (17-76), respectively. Dexketoprofen and paracetamol provided relief in sore throat pain, with Total Pain Relief scores (TOTPAR_0-120 min ) being 5.68 ± 2.06 mm in the former case and 6.03 ± 1.76 mm in the latter (P > .05). The IV administration of paracetamol and dexketoprofen decreased STPIS, DSS and SwoTS scores over time, while increasing STRS scores. The average value of STRS was measured as 4.41 ± 1.18 in the paracetamol cohort and 4.15 ± 1.23 in the dexketoprofen cohort during 0-120 minutes (P = .545).

CONCLUSION

In emergency department, IV dexketoprofen and paracetamol reduced sore throat pain equally, providing similar analgesic efficacy.

[How to reduce the antibacterial load in the treatment of acute tonsillitis and pharyngitis? Possible tactics and practical approaches]

Acute tonsillopharyngitis is one of the most frequent reasons for visiting a doctor and prescribing inappropriate antibiotic therapy (ABT). There are several reasons for this - from the difficulties of etiological diagnosis and the development of relapses and possible severe complications to the personal attitude of doctors and patients to the choice of treatment. At the same time, the issue of antibiotic resistance and other aspects associated with the prescription of ABT is one of the most important problems of modern healthcare worldwide. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate the best practical approaches to the choice of treatment tactics for acute tonsillitis (AT) in the treatment of children and adults, with an emphasis on reducing the load of ABT. The review examines the indications and disadvantages of clinical and laboratory diagnosis of AT. There are no highly sensitive clinical and laboratory instruments that differentiate viral and bacterial AT. Exudativeis AT in children is not an underlying symptom of streptococcal etiology. Despite the limitations, the modified Centor/McIsaac score ≥3 (taking into account age and the presence of respiratory symptoms) should be used as an indication for ABT in conjunction with a rapid streptotest and subsequent bacteriological culture for S. pyogenes if the screening test is negative. Additional examinations (determination of leukocytosis, CRP and procalcitonin test) are not required for most patients. ABT should not be given to low-risk patients for the treatment and prevention of rheumatic fever and acute glomerulonephritis. Prevention of purulent complications (paratonsillitis and retropharyngeal abscess, acute otitis media, cervical lymphadenitis, mastoiditis, or acute sinusitis) is not a specific indication for ABT in AT and is not required in most patients. The strategy of «delayed antibiotic prescriptions» with monitoring the patient's condition for 2-3 days is appropriate and highly effective in doubtful cases. The drugs of choice for treatment of AT are amoxicillin and oral forms of I and II generation cephalosporins. Macrolides are not indicated as first-line treatment for AT. The course of ABT for streptococcal AT is 10 days, which reduces the risk of recurrent episode. Topical drugs can be the only means of etiopathogenetic treatment with viral AT, or additional for bacterial AT. Their use not only relieves sore throat, but also shortens the duration of the disease, and also improves the patients prognosis. Benzalkonium chloride + tyrothricin + benzocaine (Dorithyrcin) may be a rational drug of choice for topical therapy due to the available clinical evidence. There is a significant reserve for reducing the load of ABT during AT. Further clinical trials are needed to assess the efficacy of short courses of ABT in the treatment of AT in high-income countries and provide a basis for strong recommendations for topical drug use. This can reduce the frequency of ABT prescribing and increase the level of interaction between specialists and patients.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Ambroxol Hard-Boiled Lozenges in Patients with Acute Pharyngitis

Introduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new hard-boiled lozenge formulation containing ambroxol 20 mg versus placebo for the relief of sore throat in patients with acute pharyngitis.

Methods

This was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group multicenter trial conducted between June and September 2018 in South Africa. Patients with a diagnosis of acute pharyngitis, onset ≤ 72 h, and sore throat pain of at least moderate intensity were randomized to receive either ambroxol 20 mg or placebo hard-boiled lozenges. The primary efficacy endpoint was the normalized time-weighted sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) from baseline over 3 h following administration of the first lozenge (SPID_norm,0–3h). Secondary efficacy endpoints included SPID 24 h after the first lozenge intake (SPID_norm,0–24h) and patient assessment of efficacy at 3 and 24 h after the first lozenge.

Results

Of 422 patients from 11 centers, 390 were randomized to one of the two treatment groups (n = 196, ambroxol; n = 194, placebo) and 388 were analyzed (modified intention-to-treat). The mean ± standard deviation SPID_norm,0–3h values were −0.386 (0.259) and −0.366 (0.243) in the ambroxol and placebo groups, respectively, and the adjusted mean ± standard error SPID_norm0–3h difference between ambroxol and placebo was −0.020 (0.025) (p = 0.443). Comparable results between treatment groups were also found for SPID_norm,0–24h and patient assessment of efficacy at 3 and 24 h after the first lozenge. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was similar between treatment groups (11.7% for ambroxol versus 9.3% for placebo).

Conclusion

Although marked pain relief was observed over the first 3 h of treatment, superiority of ambroxol 20 mg hard-boiled lozenges versus placebo was not demonstrated in this study.

Trial Registration

NCT03583658.

Funding

Sanofi-Aventis Group.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s41030-019-00100-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ectoine lozenges in the treatment of acute viral pharyngitis: a prospective, active-controlled clinical study

PURPOSE

Acute pharyngitis is an uncomfortable disorder mostly caused by viruses and for which antibiotics are unwarranted. This study compared lozenges containing ectoine, a natural extremolyte, with hyaluronic acid lozenges and hypertonic saline gargle for symptomatic treatment of acute viral pharyngitis.

METHODS

This prospective, controlled clinical study, recruited 90 patients with moderate-to-severe pharyngitis symptoms who chose to use either ectoine (n = 35), hyaluronic acid (n = 35), or saline gargle (n = 20). Patients applied their 7-day treatment from the inclusion visit (V1) until the end-of-study visit (V2). Patients' pharyngitis symptoms, general health, general treatment effectiveness and tolerability, and patient compliance were assessed by investigators and patients.

RESULTS

The sum score for three primary symptoms (pain on swallowing, urge to cough, and hoarseness) decreased by 79.5% (ectoine), 72.2% (hyaluronic acid), and 44.8% (saline gargle). Both lozenges were significantly superior to saline gargle (P < 0.05). Regarding general health improvement, ectoine was significantly superior to saline gargle (72.5% vs. 45.2%, P < 0.05), but hyaluronic acid (63.3%) was not. At V2, 65.7% of patients receiving ectoine reported "very good" general health vs. 48.6% of those receiving hyaluronic acid and 20.0% using saline gargle. Ectoine was significantly superior (P < 0.05) to both hyaluronic acid and saline gargle in terms of tolerability and patient compliance. No patients taking ectoine reported unpleasant sensations while applying their treatment, whereas almost half of patients using hyaluronic acid lozenges and saline gargle did.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with ectoine lozenges significantly relieves moderate-to-severe symptoms of acute viral pharyngitis and is more effective and tolerable than treatments with hyaluronic acid lozenges and hypertonic saline gargle.

Efficacy and safety of a triple active sore throat lozenge in the treatment of patients with acute pharyngitis: Results of a multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trial (DoriPha)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of the fixed combination of 0.5 mg tyrothricin, 1.0 mg benzalkonium chloride, and 1.5 mg benzocaine (study drug marketed as Dorithricin® ) in repeat dosing for 3 days to match placebo lozenges in the treatment of acute pharyngitis in adults.

METHODS

Patients (pts, aged ≥18 years) with acute pharyngitis, ie, non-streptococcal sore throat and moderate-to-severe pain (intensity NRS ≥ 7; VAS ≥ 50) were assigned to study drug (n = 160) or matching placebo (n = 161). Efficacy was assessed by investigator for 2 hours post initial dose (p.i.d.), and 3 days later (Visit 2). Primary efficacy endpoint was the complete resolution of throat pain and difficulty in swallowing at Visit 2 (3 days p.i.d.). Safety and local tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

Seventy-two hours (p.i.d.), complete resolution of throat pain and difficulty in swallowing were achieved by 44.6% patients on study drug compared with 27.2% patients on placebo (difference 17.4% (CI [5.8%; 29.7%]; 64% improvement [GEE, P = 0.0022]). Until 2 hours p.i.d., reduction in symptoms was better with study drug (P < 0.005). Treatment satisfaction was higher with study drug (patients'/investigators' assessment (78.9%/78.9% vs 55.0%/55.6% for placebo) and was well tolerated, overall safety profile was comparable to placebo.

CONCLUSION

The strength of this randomised controlled trial lies in the endpoint of complete remission after 3 days p.i.d., especially in the light of other trials addressing acute pharyngitis. The results of this study show a significant benefit of the study drug over placebo in the treatment of acute pharyngitis. Local treatment with the fixed combination (0.5 mg tyrothricin, 1.0 mg benzalkonium chloride, and 1.5 mg benzocaine) provides a rapid analgesic effect and is effective in relieving both severe throat pain as well as difficulty in swallowing associated with acute pharyngitis leading to a 64% improved complete remission within 72 hours. The triple active combination is a suitable treatment option for patients in the self-management of acute pharyngitis and sore throat.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03323528.

Meaningful relief with flurbiprofen 8.75 mg spray in patients with sore throat due to upper respiratory tract infection

AIM

Evaluate the efficacy of flurbiprofen 8.75 mg spray for sore throat relief.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Randomized, double-blind study in adults with sore throat due to upper respiratory tract infection who took flurbiprofen (n = 249) or placebo spray (n = 256). Pain relief was assessed using the Sore Throat Relief Rating Scale.

RESULTS

Flurbiprofen spray provided significantly greater relief versus placebo from 20 min to 6 h (p < 0.0001; maximum difference: 75 min). Sore throat severity was reduced ≥-2.2 on the Sore Throat Scale from 75 min to 6 h, indicating meaningful relief. Significantly more patients taking flurbiprofen spray reported ≥30 min of 'at least moderate' relief versus placebo over 6 h (p < 0.0001). Most adverse events were mild.

CONCLUSION

Flurbiprofen spray provides rapid, long-lasting and clinically meaningful relief from sore throat (ANZCTR: ACTRN12612000457842).