-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2014About 10% of people present to primary healthcare services with sore throat each year. The causative organisms of sore throat may be bacteria (most commonly... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
About 10% of people present to primary healthcare services with sore throat each year. The causative organisms of sore throat may be bacteria (most commonly Streptococcus) or viruses (typically rhinovirus), although it is difficult to distinguish bacterial from viral infections clinically.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions to reduce symptoms of acute infective sore throat? We searched Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2013 (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 6 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: antibiotics, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and paracetamol.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Pharyngitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24589314
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2011About 10% of people present to primary healthcare services with sore throat each year. The causative organisms of sore throat may be bacteria (most commonly... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
About 10% of people present to primary healthcare services with sore throat each year. The causative organisms of sore throat may be bacteria (most commonly Streptococcus) or viruses (typically rhinovirus), although it is difficult to distinguish bacterial from viral infections clinically.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to reduce symptoms of acute infective sore throat? What are the effects of interventions to prevent complications of acute infective sore throat? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 2010 (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 8 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: antibiotics, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, and probiotics.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Pharyngitis; Streptococcus
PubMed: 21477389
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2007About 10-30% of people present to primary healthcare services with sore throat each year. The causative organisms of sore throat may be bacteria (most commonly... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
About 10-30% of people present to primary healthcare services with sore throat each year. The causative organisms of sore throat may be bacteria (most commonly Streptococcus) or viruses (typically rhinovirus), although it is difficult to distinguish bacterial from viral infections clinically.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to reduce symptoms of acute infective sore throat? What are the effects of interventions to prevent complications of acute infective sore throat? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to May 2006 (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 eight 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: antibiotics, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, and probiotics.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Incidence; Pharyngitis; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus
PubMed: 19450346
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Rhinovirus (RV) infections are a major cause of asthma exacerbations. Unlike other respiratory viruses, RV causes minimal cytotoxic effects on airway epithelial cells... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rhinovirus (RV) infections are a major cause of asthma exacerbations. Unlike other respiratory viruses, RV causes minimal cytotoxic effects on airway epithelial cells and cytokines play a critical role in its pathogenesis. However, previous findings on RV-induced cytokine responses were largely inconsistent. Thus, this study sought to identify the cytokine/chemokine profiles induced by RV infection and their correlations with airway inflammatory responses and/or respiratory symptoms using systematic review, and to determine whether a quantitative difference exists in cytokine levels between asthmatic and healthy individuals meta-analysis.
METHODS
Relevant articles were obtained from PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases. Studies that compared RV-induced cytokine responses between asthmatic and healthy individuals were included in the systematic review, and their findings were categorized based on the study designs, which were primary bronchial epithelial cells (PBECs), peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), and human experimental studies. Data on cytokine levels were also extracted and analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS
Thirty-four articles were included in the systematic review, with 18 of these further subjected to meta-analysis. Several studies reported the correlations between the levels of cytokines, such as IL-8, IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, and respiratory symptoms. Evidence suggests that IL-25 and IL-33 may be the cytokines that promote type 2 inflammation in asthmatics after RV infection. Besides that, a meta-analysis revealed that PBECs from children with atopic asthma produced significantly lower levels of IFN-β [Effect size (ES): -0.84, = 0.030] and IFN-λ (ES: -1.00, = 0.002), and PBECs from adult atopic asthmatics produced significantly lower levels of IFN-β (ES: -0.68, = 0.009), compared to healthy subjects after RV infection. A trend towards a deficient production of IFN-γ (ES: -0.56, = 0.060) in PBMCs from adult atopic asthmatics was observed. In lower airways, asthmatics also had significantly lower baseline IL-15 (ES: -0.69, = 0.020) levels.
CONCLUSION
Overall, RV-induced asthma exacerbations are potentially caused by an imbalance between Th1 and Th2 cytokines, which may be contributed by defective innate immune responses at cellular levels. Exogenous IFNs delivery may be beneficial as a prophylactic approach for RV-induced asthma exacerbations.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=184119, identifier CRD42020184119.
Topics: Adult; Asthma; Child; Cytokines; Enterovirus Infections; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Leukocytes, Mononuclear; Picornaviridae Infections; Rhinovirus
PubMed: 35242128
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.782936 -
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 2016Respiratory tract infections (RTI) are the most common infections transmitted between Hajj pilgrims. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the prevalence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Respiratory tract infections (RTI) are the most common infections transmitted between Hajj pilgrims. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the prevalence of virus carriage potentially responsible for RTI among pilgrims before and after participating in the Hajj. A systematic search for relevant literature was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. 31 studies were identified. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS) were never isolated in Hajj pilgrims. The viruses most commonly isolated from symptomatic patients during the Hajj by PCR were rhinovirus (5.9-48.8% prevalence), followed by influenza virus (4.5-13.9%) and non-MERS coronaviruses (2.7-13.2%) with most infections due to coronavirus 229E; other viruses were less frequently isolated. Several viruses including influenza A, rhinovirus, and non-MERS coronaviruses had low carriage rates among arriving pilgrims and a statistically significant increase in their carriage rate was observed, following participation in the Hajj. Further research is needed to assess the role of viruses in the pathogenesis of respiratory symptoms and their potential role in the severity of the symptoms.
Topics: Coronaviridae; Humans; Influenza A virus; Prevalence; RNA Virus Infections; Respiratory Tract Infections; Rhinovirus; Saudi Arabia; Travel
PubMed: 26781223
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2015.12.008 -
Journal of Theoretical Biology Jul 2022The many respiratory viruses that cause influenza-like illness (ILI) are reported and tracked as one entity, defined by the CDC as a group of symptoms that include a...
The many respiratory viruses that cause influenza-like illness (ILI) are reported and tracked as one entity, defined by the CDC as a group of symptoms that include a fever of 100 degrees Fahrenheit, a cough, and/or a sore throat. In the United States alone, ILI impacts 9-49 million people every year. While tracking ILI as a single clinical syndrome is informative in many respects, the underlying viruses differ in parameters and outbreak properties. Most existing models treat either a single respiratory virus or ILI as a whole. However, there is a need for models capable of comparing several individual viruses that cause respiratory illness, including ILI. To address this need, here we present a flexible model and simulations of epidemics for influenza, RSV, rhinovirus, seasonal coronavirus, adenovirus, and SARS/MERS, parameterized by a systematic literature review and accompanied by a global sensitivity analysis. We find that for these biological causes of ILI, their parameter values, timing, prevalence, and proportional contributions differ substantially. These results demonstrate that distinguishing the viruses that cause ILI will be an important aspect of future work on diagnostics, mitigation, modeling, and preparation for future pandemics.
Topics: Epidemics; Humans; Influenza, Human; Rhinovirus; Virus Diseases; Viruses
PubMed: 35490763
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2022.111145 -
Frontiers in Allergy 2023Unlike acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) which is mostly viral in etiology, the role of viruses in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) remains unclear. Viruses may play a role in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Unlike acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) which is mostly viral in etiology, the role of viruses in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) remains unclear. Viruses may play a role in initiation, exacerbations or perpetuate chronic inflammatory responses in the sinonasal mucosa. Research needs to characterize whether viruses are part of the normal sinonasal microbiome, colonizers or pathogenic.
METHODS
Systematic review of the English literature was conducted. Following databases were searched with an initial search conducted in November 2021 and then updated through June 2023: Ovid Medline (1946 to present), Ovid Embase (1988 to present), Scopus (2004 to present) and Web of Science (1975 to present). MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms included: viruses, virus diseases, sinusitis, and rhinovirus. Keywords: virus, viral infection*, sinusitis, rhinovirus, chronic rhinosinusitis, CRS, respiratory virus, respiratory infection*, and exacerbat*. A supplementary search was conducted through September 2023: Ovid Medline (1946 to present), Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily. Keywords used were: virus, viral infection*, sinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, CRS, respiratory virus, respiratory infection*, and exacerbat*.
RESULTS
Thirty studies on viruses in CRS met inclusion criteria for full review. These included 17 studies on prevalence of virus in CRS, 5 examining probable causes of host susceptibility to viral infections in CRS, and 8 studies examining pathological pathways in viral association of CRS. The prevalence of viruses in nasal specimens of CRS subjects was higher as compared to controls in most studies, though a few studies showed otherwise. Rhinovirus was the most common virus detected. Studies showed that viruses may be associated with persistent hyper-responsiveness in the sinonasal mucosa, susceptibility to bacterial infections, upregulation of genes involved in the immune response and airway remodeling as well as CRS exacerbations. Presence of viruses was also associated with worse symptom severity scores in CRS subjects.
CONCLUSION
Most data show higher presence of viruses in nasal and serum samples of CRS subjects as compared to controls but their exact role in CRS pathophysiology in unclear. Large studies with longitudinal sampling at all disease phases (i.e., prior to disease initiation, during disease initiation, during disease persistence, and during exacerbations) using standardized sampling techniques are needed to definitively elucidate the role of virus in CRS.
PubMed: 38116043
DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2023.1237068 -
Allergy & Rhinology (Providence, R.I.) 2021Anosmia and hyposmia have many etiologies, including trauma, chronic sinusitis, neoplasms, and respiratory viral infections such as rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2. We aimed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Anosmia and hyposmia have many etiologies, including trauma, chronic sinusitis, neoplasms, and respiratory viral infections such as rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to systematically review the literature on the diagnostic evaluation of anosmia/hyposmia.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published since January 1990 using terms combined with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). We included articles evaluating diagnostic modalities for anosmia, written in the English language, used original data, and had two or more patients.
RESULTS
A total of 2065 unique titles were returned upon the initial search. Of these, 226 abstracts were examined, yielding 27 full-text articles meeting inclusion criteria (Level of evidence ranging from 1 to 4; most level 2). The studies included a total of 13,577 patients. The most utilized diagnostic tools were orthonasal smell tests (such as the Sniffin' Sticks and the UPSIT, along with validated abridged smell tests). Though various imaging modalities (including MRI and CT) were frequently mentioned in the workup of olfactory dysfunction, routine imaging was not used to primarily diagnose smell loss.
CONCLUSION
The literature includes several studies on validity and reliability for various smell tests in diagnosing anosmia. Along with a thorough history and physical, validated orthonasal smell tests should be part of the workup of the patient with suspected olfactory dysfunction. The most widely studied modality was MRI, but criteria for the timing and sequence of imaging modalities was heterogenous.
PubMed: 34285823
DOI: 10.1177/21526567211026568 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015The common cold is a frequent illness, which, although benign and self limiting, results in many consultations to primary care and considerable loss of school or work... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The common cold is a frequent illness, which, although benign and self limiting, results in many consultations to primary care and considerable loss of school or work days. Current symptomatic treatments have limited benefit. Corticosteroids are an effective treatment in other upper respiratory tract infections and their anti-inflammatory effects may also be beneficial in the common cold. This updated review has included one additional study.
OBJECTIVES
To compare corticosteroids versus usual care for the common cold on measures of symptom resolution and improvement in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 4), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (2015, Issue 2), NHS Health Economics Database (2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1948 to May week 3, 2015) and EMBASE (January 2010 to May 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials comparing corticosteroids to placebo or to standard clinical management.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We were unable to perform meta-analysis and instead present a narrative description of the available evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three trials (353 participants). Two trials compared intranasal corticosteroids to placebo and one trial compared intranasal corticosteroids to usual care; no trials studied oral corticosteroids. In the two placebo-controlled trials, no benefit of intranasal corticosteroids was demonstrated for duration or severity of symptoms. The risk of bias overall was low or unclear in these two trials. In a trial of 54 participants, the mean number of symptomatic days was 10.3 in the placebo group, compared to 10.7 in those using intranasal corticosteroids (P value = 0.72). A second trial of 199 participants reported no significant differences in the duration of symptoms. The single-blind trial in children aged two to 14 years, who were also receiving oral antibiotics, had inadequate reporting of outcome measures regarding symptom resolution. The overall risk of bias was high for this trial. Mean symptom severity scores were significantly lower in the group receiving intranasal steroids in addition to oral amoxicillin. One placebo-controlled trial reported the presence of rhinovirus in nasal aspirates and found no differences. Only one of the three trials reported on adverse events; no differences were found. Two trials reported secondary bacterial infections (one case of sinusitis, one case of acute otitis media; both in the corticosteroid groups). A lack of comparable outcome measures meant that we were unable to combine the data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence does not support the use of intranasal corticosteroids for symptomatic relief from the common cold. However, there were only three trials, one of which was very poor quality, and there was limited statistical power overall. Further large, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adults and children are required to answer this question.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Androstadienes; Beclomethasone; Child; Child, Preschool; Common Cold; Female; Fluticasone; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26461493
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008116.pub3 -
Microbial Pathogenesis Dec 2017Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease. On the other hand, viral infections of the airway are associated with the acute... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease. On the other hand, viral infections of the airway are associated with the acute exacerbations of COPD. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the prevalence rate of viral infections in acute exacerbations of COPD patients.
METHODS
PubMed database was systematically searched for population-based prevalence studies (1930-2017). Fixed and random effects models were used for estimation of summary effect-sizes. Between-study heterogeneity and publication bias were also calculated. "Viral infections" and "COPD patients with exacerbations" were the two critical inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were selected out of 26078 articles for the present review. The overall estimation of the prevalence of viral infection was 0.374 (95% C.I: 0.359-0.388). Also, the evident heterogeneity of viral infection was observed among the studies (Cochran Q test, p value < 0.001 and I-squared = 97.5%). The highest and lowest prevalence rate was related to rhinovirus and echovirus, respectively. Also, the results of this study showed that the prevalence of viral infection in exacerbated COPD patients has fluctuation during the years with a slight increase and decrease.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this systematic review demonstrated that respiratory viral infections have an important role in the acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). In addition, determining the exact geographic epidemiology of these viruses is very important to manage the treatment of these infections.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Disease Progression; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Prevalence; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Respiratory Tract Infections; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 29038056
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.10.021