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

A Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Pseudoephedrine for the Temporary Relief of Nasal Congestion in Children With the Common Cold

This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pseudoephedrine hydrochloride 30-mg tablets in children aged 6 to 11 years for the temporary relief of nasal congestion due to the common cold. The primary efficacy end point was the weighted sum of the change from baseline in instantaneous nasal congestion severity score over the period from 1 to 8 hours following the first dose of study drug on day 1. Safety assessments included adverse events, sleepiness ratings, and vital signs. Pseudoephedrine was superior to placebo in reducing instantaneous nasal congestion severity in pediatric children over the first 8 hours after dosing on day 1 (least squares mean difference between treatment groups was 1.2; P = .029). Overall, secondary end points associated with nasal congestion were supportive on day 1, whereas secondary end points on day 2 were only numerically favorable. Somnolence was reported in a greater percentage of children on pseudoephedrine compared to placebo (71.9% vs 63.9%), while similar percentages of children in the same respective groups reported insomnia (34.4% and 38.9%) and nervousness (20.0% and 23.6%).Pseudoephedrine provides temporary relief of nasal congestion associated with the common cold in children 6 to <12 years of age at the current over-the-counter monograph dose. Multiple dosing of pseudoephedrine for up to 7 days, when given as needed for symptom relief, was generally safe in this population of children with the common cold.

Factors associated with efficacy of an ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine combination drug in pharmacy customers with common cold symptoms

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore factors affecting efficacy of treatment of common cold symptoms with an over-the-counter ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine combination product.

METHODS

Data from an anonymous survey among 1770 pharmacy customers purchasing the combination product for treatment of own common cold symptoms underwent post-hoc descriptive analysis. Scores of symptoms typically responsive to ibuprofen (headache, pharyngeal pain, joint pain and fever), typically responsive to pseudoephedrine (congested nose, congested sinus and runny nose), considered non-specific (sneezing, fatigue, dry cough, cough with expectoration) and comprising all 11 symptoms were analysed. Multiple regression analysis was applied to explore factors associated with greater reduction in symptom intensity or greater probability of experiencing a symptom reduction of at least 50%.

RESULTS

After intake of first dose of medication, typically ibuprofen-sensitive, pseudoephedrine-responsive, non-specific and total symptoms were reduced by 60.0%, 46.3%, 45.4% and 52.8%, respectively. A symptom reduction of at least 50% was reported by 73.6%, 55.1%, 50.9% and 61.6% of participants, respectively. A high baseline score was associated with greater reductions in symptom scores but smaller probability of achieving an improvement of at least 50%. Across both multiple regression approaches, two tablets at first dosing were more effective than one and (except for ibuprofen-sensitive symptoms) starting treatment later than day 2 of the cold was generally less effective.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy of an ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine combination in the treatment of common cold symptoms was dose-dependent and greatest when treatment started within the first 2 days after onset of symptoms.

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.

Effects of intranasal xylometazoline, alone or in combination with ipratropium, in patients with common cold

BACKGROUND

Common cold is one of the most prevalent conditions that family doctors encounter. One of the first symptoms to occur is nasal congestion, which can have a negative impact on daily life and prompts many patients to seek treatment for relief. Xylometazoline nasal spray (Otrivin*) is a topical decongestant that has been used successfully for many years and is generally recognized as an effective and safe therapy. However, most studies have investigated its clinical efficacy in healthy patients and few have included patients with common cold.

SCOPE

To review the published clinical efficacy and safety of xylometazoline alone and in combination in the management of nasal congestion in patients with common cold. Literature searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library were conducted to obtain published open or blinded, randomized, placebo- or active-controlled studies on the use of xylometazoline hydrochloride for the symptomatic relief of nasal congestion in patients with common cold. Searches included papers published in English only, up to September 2009.

FINDINGS

Despite the small number of studies identified in common cold (n = 4), as per search criteria defined, intranasal xylometazoline quickly and effectively relieved nasal congestion. When used alone, xylometazoline had a clinically relevant decongestant effect that was significantly superior for up to 10 hours compared with placebo. The superior decongestant effect with xylometazoline led to high patient satisfaction with treatment. When used in combination with ipratropium bromide, nasal congestion and rhinorrhoea were treated simultaneously, leading to significantly higher patient general impression scores compared with either agent used alone. Xylometazoline was well tolerated, with generally mild to moderate nasal-related side effects (e.g. epistaxis in 3.4% of patients, and blood-tinged mucus in 10-26% of patients) that were easily resolved; the most frequently reported non-nasal AEs were headache (3.4%) and period pain (10.3%); no cases of sedation were reported. As expected, no rhinitis medicamentosa or rebound congestion was noted with short-term use (<10 days). No clinically important differences in ciliary motility and mucociliary clearance were observed. Xylometazoline does not result in sympathomimetic systemic side effects seen with oral decongestants (e.g. pseudoephedrine, phenylephrine).

CONCLUSIONS

The few studies available in common cold suggest that intranasal xylometazoline provides fast and effective relief of nasal congestion and is well tolerated. When xylometazoline is used in combination with ipratropium, patients with common cold experience the additive benefit of nasal congestion and rhinorrhoea being treated simultaneously.

WITHDRAWN: Nasal decongestants for the common cold

BACKGROUND

The common cold is a major and recurrent cause of morbidity, on average affecting children and adults two or more times each year. Nasal congestion is its commonest symptom and many therapies are marketed for its relief. There is no meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials on the effects of nasal decongestants in the common cold.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of nasal decongestants at reducing the symptom of nasal congestion in adults and children with the common cold and to identify possible adverse effects associated with their use.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In this updated review in 2006, the following databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2006, issue 3); MEDLINE (January 1996 to September 2006); OLDMEDLINE (1951 to 1965); EMBASE (1980 to Week 36, 2006). We contacted known principal investigators and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo controlled trials of single-active oral and topical nasal decongestants in adults and children suffering from common cold.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (DT, GJL) independently extracted data. All outcomes variables were continuous. Subjective outcomes were normalised to a common scale and a weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated. A standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated for the objective outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies in adults, but none in children, fitted all inclusion criteria. There was a small but statistically significant 6% decrease in subjective symptoms after a single dose of decongestant compared with placebo. This was supported by a significant decrease in nasal airways resistance. With repeated doses, nasal decongestants produce a very small statistical benefit of 4% over three to five days, again supported by a decrease in nasal airways resistance. Two studies provided safety data for this meta-analysis, showing a relatively small number of adverse events and only a small increased risk of insomnia with pseudoephedrine compared to placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single oral dose of nasal decongestant in the common cold is modestly effective for the short term relief of congestion in adults, and these drugs also provide benefit in some individuals after regular use over three to five days. Adverse events in adults are rare and mild. There is insufficient data on the use of these medications in children and therefore they are not recommended for use in children younger than 12 years of age with the common cold.

The Nasal Decongestant Effect of Xylometazoline in the Common Cold

Background

Xylometazoline is a nasal decongestant spray that constricts nasal blood vessels and increases nasal airflow, enabling patients with a blocked nose to breathe more easily. The purpose of this study was to characterize objectively and subjectively the decongestant and additional effects of xylometazoline in the common cold.

Methods

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study was performed. Patients with a common cold (n = 61) were treated with xylometazoline 0.1% (n = 29) or placebo (saline solution; n = 32; 1 spray three times a day for up to 10 days). The primary objective was to determine the decongestant effect (nasal conductance); the secondary objectives were to determine the peak subjective effect (visual analog scale), duration of relief of nasal congestion, total and individual cold symptoms and general well-being (patients’ daily diary), and adverse events (AEs).

Results

The decongestant effect of xylometazoline was significantly greater than placebo, as shown by the nasal conductance at 1 hour (384.23 versus 226.42 cm3/s; p ≤ 0.0001) and peak subjective effect (VAS, 20.7 mm versus 31.5 mm; p = 0.0298). Nasal conductance was significantly superior for up to 10 hours (p = 0.0009) and there was a trend in favor of xylometazoline for up to 12 hours (not statistically significant). Xylometazoline significantly improved total and some individual common cold symptoms scores (p < 0.05), leading to significantly greater patient general evaluation and satisfaction with treatment (p < 0.05). Nineteen AEs were reported: 8 with xylometazoline (all mild-moderate) and 11 with placebo (1 severe).

Conclusion

Xylometazoline is an effective and well-tolerated decongestant nasal spray that significantly relieved nasal congestion compared with placebo in the common cold and provided long-lasting relief with just 1 spray, helping patients to breathe more easily for a longer period of time.

Nasal decongestants for the common cold

BACKGROUND

The common cold is a major and recurrent cause of morbidity, on average affecting children and adults two or more times each year. Nasal congestion is its commonest symptom and many therapies are marketed for its relief. There is no meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials on the effects of nasal decongestants in the common cold.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of nasal decongestants at reducing the symptom of nasal congestion in adults and children with the common cold and to identify possible adverse effects associated with their use.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In this updated review in 2006, the following databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1996 to September 2006); OLDMEDLINE (1951 to 1965); EMBASE (1980 to Week 36, 2006). We contacted known principal investigators and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo controlled trials of single-active oral and topical nasal decongestants in adults and children suffering from common cold.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (DT and GJL) independently extracted data. All outcomes variables were continuous. Subjective outcomes were normalised to a common scale and a weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated. A standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated for the objective outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies in adults, but none in children, fitted all inclusion criteria. There was a small but statistically significant 6% decrease in subjective symptoms after a single dose of decongestant compared with placebo. This was supported by a significant decrease in nasal airways resistance. With repeated doses, nasal decongestants produce a very small statistical benefit of 4% over three to five days, again supported by a decrease in nasal airways resistance. Two studies provided safety data for this meta-analysis, showing a relatively small number of adverse events and only a small increased risk of insomnia with pseudoephedrine compared to placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single oral dose of nasal decongestant in the common cold is modestly effective for the short term relief of congestion in adults, and these drugs also provide benefit in some individuals after regular use over three to five days. Adverse events in adults are rare and mild. There is insufficient data on the use of these medications in children and therefore they are not recommended for use in children younger than 12 years of age with the common cold.