-
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Jan 2023Facial persistent erythema is recognized as difficult feature to treat in rosacea. Topical Oxymetazoline cream 1% has been used to treat persistent facial erythema in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Facial persistent erythema is recognized as difficult feature to treat in rosacea. Topical Oxymetazoline cream 1% has been used to treat persistent facial erythema in rosacea patients for some years.
OBJECTIVE
To quantitatively synthesize the benefits and harms of Oxymetazoline cream 1% in real-world clinical management of treatment response and adverse events.
METHODS
The clinical researches before June 1, 2022 published on online databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library were meta-analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 2298 participants were included, and the improvement rate of two-grade Clinician Erythema Assessment score (CEA) and Subject Self-Assessment for rosacea facial redness score (SSA) in Oxymetazoline group was 38% (95%CI 28-48) and 25% (95%CI 22-27), respectively, at the 4th week of the dosing. The comprehensive rate of treatment-related TEAEs in Oxymetazoline group was 7% (95%CI 5-8). The rate of stinging/burning was 15% (95%CI 10-19), pruritus was 15% (95%CI 9-22), dryness was 23% (95%CI 18-28), and scaling was 17% (95%CI 12-22) in analysis of dermal tolerability. And topical Oxymetazoline cream 1.0% presented a very low rebound rate of erythema (1%, 95%CI 0-2).
CONCLUSIONS
These real-world data on Oxymetazoline cream 1% in rosacea-associated erythema may help making clinic decision and informing treatment expectations, and more clinic trials on longer-term dosing or the combination treatment with oral medication and energy-based therapy are worth exploring.
Topics: Humans; Oxymetazoline; Treatment Outcome; Skin Cream; Erythema; Rosacea; Emollients
PubMed: 36237138
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.15467 -
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Apr 2022Post-acne erythema (PAE) is a common sequela of acne inflammation, and it refers to telangiectasia and erythematous lesions remaining after the acne treatment. Although... (Review)
Review
Post-acne erythema (PAE) is a common sequela of acne inflammation, and it refers to telangiectasia and erythematous lesions remaining after the acne treatment. Although some PAE lesions may improve over time, persisting PAE might be esthetically undesirable for patients. The efficacy of various treatment options for PAE has been investigated in many studies but there exists no gold standard treatment modality. In this study, we aimed to give a systematic literature review on various treatment options for PAE, the advantage of each modality, and compare their efficacy, safety, and feasibility. By using the selected keywords, we carried out a systematic search for articles published from the inception to 28 April 2021 in PubMed/Medline and Embase databases. Of the 5796 initially retrieved articles, 18 of them were fully eligible to be enrolled in our study. In this study, we found that light and laser-based devices were the most frequently used treatments for PAE. Generally, pulsed-dye lasers were the most commonly used laser devices for PAE. Neodymium:yttrium aluminum-garnet lasers were the second most commonly used modalities in treating PAE. Topical treatments such as oxymetazoline, tranexamic acid, and brimonidine tartrate are promising treatments in reducing PAE lesions. In our study, no severe side effects were found. In conclusion, both laser devices and topical agents seem to be effective for PAE lesions; however, further randomized clinical trials are needed in this field.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Brimonidine Tartrate; Erythema; Humans; Lasers, Dye; Lasers, Solid-State; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35076997
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.14804 -
International Journal of Pediatric... Feb 2022Topical intranasal decongestants are essential in nasal surgery to improve operative field. There are concerns regarding safety in paediatric population. Data on safety...
OBJECTIVES
Topical intranasal decongestants are essential in nasal surgery to improve operative field. There are concerns regarding safety in paediatric population. Data on safety and safe dosage are limited. This systematic review evaluated the literature on safety and dosage of intranasal decongestant in paediatric population.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library for relevant articles. Quality assessment was done on included articles.
RESULTS
A total of 10 articles were included: five case reports; three observational studies; and two randomised control trials. Decongestants evaluated were phenylephrine, oxymetazoline, epinephrine, xylometazoline, and cocaine. In total, 209 patients were included. Side effects reported included bradycardia, tachycardia and hypertension. These were mostly self-limiting and of no clinical compromise to the patients. A total of 4/209 (1.9%) of patients required treatment for these reported effects. No mortality was reported in the included studies.
CONCLUSION
In the paediatric population, the literature suggests that when delivered in a pre-specified, controlled dosage, the haemodynamic effects of phenylephrine, oxymetazoline, xylometazoline are minimal and of no clinical significance. There is scope for further studies to establish safe dosage in the paediatric population given the paucity of current literature.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Administration, Topical; Child; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Nasal Surgical Procedures; Oxymetazoline; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 34942425
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2021.111010 -
The Journal of Laryngology and Otology Jan 2022This study aimed to summarise the evidence for efficacy of combination treatment of intranasal corticosteroid spray with oxymetazoline hydrochloride nasal spray for...
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to summarise the evidence for efficacy of combination treatment of intranasal corticosteroid spray with oxymetazoline hydrochloride nasal spray for chronic rhinitis.
METHOD
Nine databases were systematically searched from study inception in September 2016 to 1 June 2020. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed.
RESULTS
A total of 130 studies were screened, and 4 randomised controlled trials comprising 838 patients met inclusion criteria. The study found superior improvement of nasal congestion from onset of treatment to completion in intranasal corticosteroid spray and oxymetazoline hydrochloride groups compared with control groups. Intranasal corticosteroid spray and oxymetazoline hydrochloride use resulted in higher nasal volume (standard error of mean 1, 15.8 + 1.1 ml; p < .03) compared with either placebo (12.1 + 0.9 ml) or oxymetazoline hydrochloride (12.4 + 0.8 ml) alone (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSION
Intranasal corticosteroid spray and oxymetazoline hydrochloride combination treatment may be superior in reducing rhinitis symptoms compared with either intranasal corticosteroid spray or oxymetazoline hydrochloride alone, without inducing rhinitis medicamentosa.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Chronic Disease; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Oxymetazoline; Rhinitis
PubMed: 34702392
DOI: 10.1017/S0022215121003364 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Jul 2019Rosacea is a common chronic facial dermatosis. Classification of rosacea has evolved from subtyping to phenotyping.
BACKGROUND
Rosacea is a common chronic facial dermatosis. Classification of rosacea has evolved from subtyping to phenotyping.
OBJECTIVES
To update our systematic review on interventions for rosacea.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index and ongoing trials registers (March 2018) for randomized controlled trials. Study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment and analyses were carried out independently by two authors. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
We included 152 studies (46 were new), comprising 20 944 participants. Topical interventions included brimonidine, oxymetazoline, metronidazole, azelaic acid, ivermectin and other topical treatments. Systemic interventions included oral antibiotics, combinations with topical treatments or other systemic treatments. Several studies evaluated laser or light-based treatment. We present the most current evidence for rosacea management based on a phenotype-led approach.
CONCLUSIONS
For reducing temporarily persistent erythema there was high-certainty evidence for topical brimonidine and moderate certainty for topical oxymetazoline; for erythema and mainly telangiectasia there was low-to-moderate-certainty evidence for laser and intense pulsed light therapy. For reducing papules/pustules there was high-certainty evidence for topical azelaic acid and topical ivermectin; moderate-to-high-certainty evidence for doxycycline 40 mg modified release (MR) and isotretinoin; and moderate-certainty evidence for topical metronidazole, and topical minocycline and oral minocycline being equally effective as doxycycline 40 mg MR. There was low-certainty evidence for tetracycline and low-dose minocycline. For ocular rosacea, there was moderate-certainty evidence that oral omega-3 fatty acids were effective and low-certainty evidence for ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion and doxycycline.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Brimonidine Tartrate; Combined Modality Therapy; Dermatologic Agents; Dermatology; Drug Therapy, Combination; Evidence-Based Medicine; Facial Dermatoses; Humans; Intense Pulsed Light Therapy; Low-Level Light Therapy; Oxymetazoline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rosacea; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30585305
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.17590 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Child; Common Cold; Humans; Imidazoles; Nasal Decongestants; Oxymetazoline; Phenylpropanolamine; Pseudoephedrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27748955
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009612.pub2 -
Rhinology Dec 2013In the literature various methods are described to reduce bleeding in endoscopic sinus surgery. Scientific evidence and results were gathered and analysed to determine... (Review)
Review
In the literature various methods are described to reduce bleeding in endoscopic sinus surgery. Scientific evidence and results were gathered and analysed to determine the effectiveness of the various methods used. A total of 20 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two retrospective articles studied the differences between local and general anaesthesia. Three articles analysed the use of local methods to control bleeding. The majority of the articles analysed the use of different systemic drugs to control intraoperative bleeding. Certain procedures, such as the reverse Trendelenburg position, the use of high doses of epinephrine, the infiltration of phenylephrine and lidocaine into the pterygopalatine fossa, the preoperative use of prednisone, and the control of the heart rate (with dexmedetomidine or remifentanil), appear to reduce the intraoperative blood loss and/or improve the visualisation of the surgical field. However, the evidence supporting these conclusions is poor. The benefits of other procedures, such as the preoperative use of β-blockers, antihypertensive agents, and surgical pledgets with oxymetazoline, phenylephrine, or cocaine, for bleeding control are not evidenced in the literature. In addition, the literature does not present any evidence on the benefits of local anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia or the use of propofol compared to inhaled analgesics in terms of intraoperative bleeding or complication rates.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Endoscopy; Hemostasis, Surgical; Humans; Paranasal Sinuses
PubMed: 24260761
DOI: 10.4193/Rhino12.048 -
The Laryngoscope Feb 2011The objective of this study is to systematically review the literature and examine the safety for the use of topical vasoconstrictors in endoscopic sinus surgery. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to systematically review the literature and examine the safety for the use of topical vasoconstrictors in endoscopic sinus surgery.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review clinical trials.
METHOD
A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and National Guideline Clearinghouse, and references in the selected articles.
RESULTS
The search criteria captured 42 manuscripts with relevant titles. A systematic review on the topical use of phenylephrine was found; however, no other systematic review, meta-analyses, or clinical guidelines were identified. Six randomized clinical trials or comparative studies, as well as multiple case reports and review articles were also identified. The literature supports the safety of oxymetazoline and epinephrine when used judiciously in carefully selected patients undergoing endoscopic sinonasal surgery; however, topical phenylephrine is not recommended because of its risk profile.
CONCLUSION
In sinus or nasal surgery, topical vasoconstrictors should be used in a manner that minimizes the risk of cardiovascular morbidity.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Clinical Trials as Topic; Endoscopy; Humans; Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures; Paranasal Sinuses; Phenylephrine; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 21271600
DOI: 10.1002/lary.21286 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2008Each year, children suffer up to 5 colds and adults have 2-3 infections, leading to time off school or work, and considerable discomfort. Most symptoms resolve within a... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Each year, children suffer up to 5 colds and adults have 2-3 infections, leading to time off school or work, and considerable discomfort. Most symptoms resolve within a week, but coughs often persist for longer.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for common cold? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to May 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: analgesics or anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, antihistamines, decongestants (norephedrine, oxymetazoline, or pseudoephedrine), decongestants plus antihistamine, echinacea, steam inhalation, vitamin C, and zinc (intranasal gel or lozenges).
Topics: Acute Disease; Common Cold; Cough; Echinacea; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Phenylpropanolamine
PubMed: 19450292
DOI: No ID Found