-
The New England Journal of Medicine Jan 2015A 35-year-old woman has a history of nasal congestion on most days of the year, dating back to her late teens. She has chronic nasal drainage, which is clear and thick.... (Review)
Review
A 35-year-old woman has a history of nasal congestion on most days of the year, dating back to her late teens. She has chronic nasal drainage, which is clear and thick. Her congestion is worst in the late summer and early fall and again in the early spring; at these times, she also has sneezing, nasal itching, and cough. Five years ago, she had an episode of shortness of breath with wheezing on a day when her nasal symptoms were severe, but this episode resolved spontaneously and has not recurred. Her eyes do not bother her. Over-the-counter oral antihistamines help her symptoms a little, as do nasal decongestants, which she uses occasionally. Her 6-year-old son has similar symptoms. How should this case be managed?
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Asthma; Desensitization, Immunologic; Female; Glucocorticoids; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic; Sublingual Immunotherapy
PubMed: 25629743
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcp1412282 -
Primary Care Mar 2014Rhinitis is caused by a variety of allergic and nonallergic mechanisms. Mild disease can usually be managed with avoidance measures alone. Allergen removal can also... (Review)
Review
Rhinitis is caused by a variety of allergic and nonallergic mechanisms. Mild disease can usually be managed with avoidance measures alone. Allergen removal can also improve the severity of allergic rhinitis and can reduce the need for medications. Allergic rhinitis is represented by sneezing, nasal congestion, nasal pruritus, and rhinorrhea. Oral antihistamines should be used to treat patients with mild or occasional seasonal allergic rhinitis. Because of the variance in causes of nonallergic rhinitis, treatments also vary. Irrigation and debridement are the standard treatment of atrophic rhinitis. For gustatory rhinitis, pretreatment with ipratropium bromide can be used.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Diagnosis, Differential; Drug Therapy, Combination; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal
PubMed: 24439879
DOI: 10.1016/j.pop.2013.10.005 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Sep 2020Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is characterized by IgE hyperproduction and eosinophilic inflammation. The anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab, has... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is characterized by IgE hyperproduction and eosinophilic inflammation. The anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab, has demonstrated efficacy in patients with CRSwNP and comorbid asthma previously.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to determine omalizumab safety and efficacy in CRSwNP in phase 3 trials (POLYP 1 and POLYP 2).
METHODS
Adults with CRSwNP with inadequate response to intranasal corticosteroids were randomized (1:1) to omalizumab or placebo and intranasal mometasone for 24 weeks. Coprimary end points included change from baseline to week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) and Nasal Congestion Score. Secondary end points included change from baseline to week 24 in Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, sense of smell, postnasal drip, runny nose, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Patients in POLYP 1 (n = 138) and POLYP 2 (n = 127) exhibited severe CRSwNP and substantial quality of life impairment evidenced by a mean NPS higher than 6 and SNOT-22 score of approximately 60. Both studies met both the coprimary end points. SNOT-22 score, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test score, sense of smell, postnasal drip, and runny nose were also significantly improved for omalizumab versus placebo. In POLYP 1 and POLYP 2, the mean changes from baseline at week 24 for omalizumab versus placebo were as follows: NPS, -1.08 versus 0.06 (P < .0001) and -0.90 versus -0.31 (P = .0140); Nasal Congestion Score, -0.89 versus -0.35 (P = .0004) and -0.70 versus -0.20 (P = .0017); and SNOT-22 score, -24.7 versus -8.6 (P < .0001) and -21.6 versus -6.6 (P < .0001). Adverse events were similar between groups.
CONCLUSION
Omalizumab significantly improved endoscopic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes in severe CRSwNP with inadequate response to intranasal corticosteroids, and it was well tolerated.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Chronic Disease; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mometasone Furoate; Nasal Polyps; Omalizumab; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32524991
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.05.032 -
Cureus Nov 2023Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The... (Review)
Review
Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The pathophysiology involves inflammation, swelling, and mucus production in the nasal mucosa. Multiple treatments are available, including oral phenylephrine, an over-the-counter or prescription option. However, the effectiveness and safety of phenylephrine have been subjects of debate. This systematic review aims to provide an updated perspective on the efficacy of oral phenylephrine versus placebo in addressing nasal congestion in adults. We conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review involving searches on PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined to identify high-quality studies. The focus was on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies published in English between 1998 and 2023, involving adult populations. The interventions compared oral phenylephrine with placebo or standard care, with outcomes centering on changes in nasal congestion symptoms and nasal airway resistance. We identified four articles that met the criteria. These studies exhibited varied designs and populations. The findings consistently indicated that phenylephrine was not more effective than a placebo in relieving nasal congestion. This systematic review demonstrates that oral phenylephrine did not offer substantial relief from nasal congestion compared to a placebo in adults. The studies featured diverse designs, yet the prevailing conclusion was that phenylephrine's efficacy was limited. Safety assessments showed no life-threatening adverse events, with common side effects including headaches and mild discomfort. In summary, this systematic review indicates that oral phenylephrine is not significantly more effective than a placebo in alleviating nasal congestion in adults. Clinicians should explore alternative treatment options, considering the review's limitations. Additional research may be needed to clarify the role of oral phenylephrine in managing nasal congestion.
PubMed: 38125218
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49074 -
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