Antibiotics for acute bronchitis

Current state of research on the clinical benefits of herbal medicines for non-life-threatening ailments

Herbal medicines are becoming increasingly popular among patients because they are well tolerated and do not exert severe side effects. Nevertheless, they receive little consideration in therapeutic settings. The present article reviews the current state of research on the clinical benefits of herbal medicines on five indication groups, psychosomatic disorders, gynecological complaints, gastrointestinal disorders, urinary and upper respiratory tract infections. The study search was based on the database PubMed and concentrated on herbal medicines legally approved in Europe. After applying defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 141 articles were selected: 59 for psychosomatic disorders (100% randomized controlled trials; RCTs), 20 for gynecological complaints (56% RCTs), 19 for gastrointestinal disorders (68% RCTs), 16 for urinary tract infections (UTI, 63% RCTs) and 24 for upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) (79% RCTs). For the majority of the studies, therapeutic benefits were evaluated by patient reported outcome measures (PROs). For psychosomatic disorders, gynecological complaints and URTI more than 80% of the study outcomes were positive, whereas the clinical benefit of herbal medicines for the treatment of UTI and gastrointestinal disorders was lower with 55%. The critical appraisal of the articles shows that there is a lack of high-quality studies and, with regard to gastrointestinal disorders, the clinical benefits of herbal medicines as a stand-alone form of therapy are unclear. According to the current state of knowledge, scientific evidence has still to be improved to allow integration of herbal medicines into guidelines and standard treatment regimens for the indications reviewed here. In addition to clinical data, real world data and outcome measures can add significant value to pave the way for herbal medicines into future therapeutic applications.

Effects of EPs 7630 on the duration of inability to work in acute bronchitis - a meta-analysis

Background

Acute bronchitis (AB) has an enormous economic impact through lost working time. We investigated whether treatment with Pelargonium extract EPs 7630 may reduce the time of inability to work.

Methods

A meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with adult patients suffering from AB was performed. The average number of days of inability to work and the proportion of patients who were still unable to work after one week's treatment were assessed.

Results

Four clinical trials with a total of 1,011 evaluable patients who received the marketed dosage of EPs 7630 (n=505) or placebo (n=506) for seven days were included in the meta-analysis. At baseline, 845/1,011 patients (83.6%) were unable to work. In the four trials, the proportion decreased to between 19 and 14% for EPs 7630 and to between 41 and 55% for placebo (meta-analysis risk ratio and 95% confidence interval: 0.35; 0.26-0.45; p<0.001). For the number of sick days, a weighted mean difference of 1.73 days (1.17-2.29 days; p<0.001) favoring EPs 7630 was observed.

Conclusions

For adults suffering from AB, this meta-analysis demonstrates that seven days' treatment with Pelargonium sidoides extract EPs 7630 significantly reduces the average number of sick days and significantly increases the proportion of patients who are able to return to work.

A Bottom-Up Approach Addressing Patient Care and Differential Diagnosis Amidst the Covid-19 Response

Patient care often refers to the broad spectrum of care, prevention, and treatment that a provider delivers, while the point of a differential diagnosis is to make a distinction between 2 or more conditions that share similar signs or symptoms. A broad differential should be considered for every single patient who is currently ill (eg, all patients with respiratory illnesses); without it, there will likely be an increase of misdiagnosis, unnecessary patient suffering, and an influx of patients to the emergency department. The COVID-19 response has forced many of these basic medical values aside, like providing differential diagnosis or practicing bedside manner through social interaction, while physicians struggle to continue care for patients. As a result, newly formed hospital and clinical policies may have dangerously traded everyday diagnosis and treatment of patients for the pandemic and quarantine recommendations. This type of assumptive medicine is based on a singular differential that can be detrimental to patients, who are more likely affected with more common illnesses, like bronchitis or pneumonia—or perhaps, even more threatening illnesses, like a pulmonary embolism, COPD exacerbation, congestive heart failure and even lung cancer. Although these new policies and reactions to COVID-19 are proactive, these actions could be at the cost of providing quality patient care for people who have not contracted COVID-19.