-
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 -
American Family Physician Sep 2019Acute upper respiratory tract infections are extremely common in adults and children, but only a few safe and effective treatments are available. Patients typically...
Acute upper respiratory tract infections are extremely common in adults and children, but only a few safe and effective treatments are available. Patients typically present with nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, sore throat, cough, general malaise, and/or low-grade fever. Informing patients about the self-limited nature of the common cold can help manage expectations, limit antibiotic use, and avoid over-the-counter purchases that may not help. Treatments with proven effectiveness for cold symptoms in adults include over-the-counter analgesics, zinc, nasal decongestants with or without antihistamines, and ipratropium for cough. Lower-quality evidence suggests that Lactobacillus casei may be beneficial in older adults. The only established safe and effective treatments for children are acetylcysteine, honey (for children one year and older), nasal saline irrigation, intranasal ipratropium, and topical application of ointment containing camphor, menthol, and eucalyptus oils. Over-the-counter cold medications should not be used in children younger than four years. Counseling patients about the importance of good hand hygiene is the best way to prevent transmission of cold viruses.
Topics: Adult; Ascorbic Acid; Child; Common Cold; Echinacea; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Nonprescription Drugs; Patient Education as Topic
PubMed: 31478634
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Feb 2018Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this...
BACKGROUND
Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).
METHODS
Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.
RESULTS
The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.
CONCLUSION
This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Allergens; Biological Products; Complementary Therapies; Cytokines; Diagnosis, Differential; Drug Therapy, Combination; Endoscopy; Environmental Exposure; Epidemiologic Methods; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Microbiota; Nasal Decongestants; Occupational Diseases; Physical Examination; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Respiratory Mucosa; Rhinitis, Allergic; Risk Factors; Saline Solution; Skin Tests; Socioeconomic Factors
PubMed: 29438602
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22073 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), including the common cold and rhinosinusitis, are common afflictions that cause discomfort and debilitation and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), including the common cold and rhinosinusitis, are common afflictions that cause discomfort and debilitation and contribute significantly to workplace absenteeism. Treatment is generally by antipyretic and decongestant drugs and sometimes antibiotics, even though most infections are viral. Nasal irrigation with saline is often employed as an adjunct treatment for URTI symptoms despite a relative lack of evidence for benefit in this clinical setting. This review is an update of the Cochrane review by Kassel et al, which found that saline was probably effective in reducing the severity of some symptoms associated with acute URTIs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of saline nasal irrigation for treating the symptoms of acute URTIs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July week 5, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to August 2014), CINAHL (1982 to August 2014), AMED (1985 to August 2014) and LILACS (1982 to August 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical nasal saline treatment to other interventions in adults and children with clinically diagnosed acute URTIs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (DK, BM) independently assessed trial quality with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and extracted data. We analysed all data using the Cochrane Review Manager software. Due to the large variability of outcome measures only a small number of outcomes could be pooled for statistical analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five RCTs that randomised 544 children (three studies) and 205 adults (exclusively from two studies). They all compared saline irrigation to routine care or other nose sprays, rather than placebo. We included two new trials in this update, which did not contribute data of sufficient size or quality to materially change the original findings. Most trials were small and we judged them to be of low quality, contributing to an unclear risk of bias. Most outcome measures differed greatly between included studies and therefore could not be pooled. Most results showed no difference between nasal saline treatment and control. However, one larger trial, conducted with children, did show a significant reduction in nasal secretion score (mean difference (MD) -0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.48 to -0.14) and nasal breathing (obstruction) score (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.19) in the saline group. However, a MD of -0.33 on a four-point symptom scale may have minimal clinical significance. The trial also showed a significant reduction in the use of decongestant medication by the saline group. Minor nasal discomfort and/or irritation was the only side effect reported by a minority of participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nasal saline irrigation possibly has benefits for relieving the symptoms of acute URTIs. However, the included trials were generally too small and had a high risk of bias, reducing confidence in the evidence supporting this. Future trials should involve larger numbers of participants and report standardised and clinically meaningful outcome measures.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Child; Common Cold; Humans; Laryngitis; Nasal Lavage; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Sodium Chloride
PubMed: 25892369
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006821.pub3 -
American Family Physician Dec 2015Allergic rhinitis is a common and chronic immunoglobulin E-mediated respiratory illness that can affect quality of life and productivity, as well as exacerbate other...
Allergic rhinitis is a common and chronic immunoglobulin E-mediated respiratory illness that can affect quality of life and productivity, as well as exacerbate other conditions such as asthma. Treatment should be based on the patient's age and severity of symptoms. Patients should be educated about their condition and advised to avoid known allergens. Intranasal corticosteroids are the most effective treatment and should be first-line therapy for persistent symptoms affecting quality of life. More severe disease that does not respond to intranasal corticosteroids should be treated with second-line therapies, including antihistamines, decongestants, cromolyn, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and nonpharmacologic therapies such as nasal irrigation. Subcutaneous or sublingual immunotherapy should be considered if usual treatments do not adequately control symptoms and in patients with allergic asthma. Evidence does not support the use of mite-proof impermeable mattresses and pillow covers, breastfeeding, air filtration systems, or delayed exposure to solid foods in infancy or to pets in childhood.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Drug Therapy, Combination; Education, Medical, Continuing; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Immunotherapy; Nasal Decongestants; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 26760413
DOI: No ID Found -
Primary Care Sep 2013Upper respiratory infections (URIs) are infections of the mouth, nose, throat, larynx (voice box), and trachea (windpipe). This article outlines the epidemiology,... (Review)
Review
Upper respiratory infections (URIs) are infections of the mouth, nose, throat, larynx (voice box), and trachea (windpipe). This article outlines the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and management of URIs, including nasopharyngitis (common cold), sinusitis, pharyngitis, laryngitis, and laryngotracheitis.
Topics: Analgesics; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Laryngitis; Nasal Decongestants; Pharyngitis; Primary Health Care; Respiratory Tract Infections; Risk Factors; Sinusitis; United States
PubMed: 23958368
DOI: 10.1016/j.pop.2013.06.004 -
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 -
American Family Physician Jul 2012The common cold, or upper respiratory tract infection, is one of the leading reasons for physician visits. Generally caused by viruses, the common cold is treated... (Review)
Review
The common cold, or upper respiratory tract infection, is one of the leading reasons for physician visits. Generally caused by viruses, the common cold is treated symptomatically. Antibiotics are not effective in children or adults. In children, there is a potential for harm and no benefits with over-the-counter cough and cold medications; therefore, they should not be used in children younger than four years. Other commonly used medications, such as inhaled corticosteroids, oral prednisolone, and Echinacea, also are ineffective in children. Products that improve symptoms in children include vapor rub, zinc sulfate, Pelargonium sidoides (geranium) extract, and buckwheat honey. Prophylactic probiotics, zinc sulfate, nasal saline irrigation, and the herbal preparation Chizukit reduce the incidence of colds in children. For adults, antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, codeine, nasal saline irrigation, Echinacea angustifolia preparations, and steam inhalation are ineffective at relieving cold symptoms. Pseudoephedrine, phenylephrine, inhaled ipratropium, and zinc (acetate or gluconate) modestly reduce the severity and duration of symptoms for adults. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and some herbal preparations, including Echinacea purpurea, improve symptoms in adults. Prophylactic use of garlic may decrease the frequency of colds in adults, but has no effect on duration of symptoms. Hand hygiene reduces the spread of viruses that cause cold illnesses. Prophylactic vitamin C modestly reduces cold symptom duration in adults and children.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antitussive Agents; Child; Cholinergic Antagonists; Common Cold; Complementary Therapies; Expectorants; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Nasal Lavage; Nonprescription Drugs
PubMed: 22962927
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo or other active controls (excluding antibiotics) in reducing the duration of symptoms and alleviating symptoms (general feeling of illness, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and cough) in children and adults with the common cold.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, Embase, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Web of Science to 10 June 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics), or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We categorised the included trials according to the active ingredients.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 30 studies (6304 participants) including 31 treatment comparisons. The control intervention was placebo in 26 trials and an active substance (paracetamol, chlorphenindione + phenylpropanolamine + belladonna, diphenhydramine) in six trials (two trials had placebo as well as active treatment arms). Reporting of methods was generally poor, and there were large differences in study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Most of the included trials involved adult participants. Children were included in nine trials. Three trials included very young children (from six months to five years), and five trials included children aged 2 to 16. One trial included adults and children aged 12 years or older. The trials took place in different settings: university clinics, paediatric departments, family medicine departments, and general practice surgeries. Antihistamine-decongestant: 14 trials (1298 participants). Eight trials reported on global effectiveness, of which six studies were pooled (281 participants on active treatment and 284 participants on placebo). The odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.48; moderate certainty evidence); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3.9 (95% CI 3.03 to 5.2). On the final evaluation day (follow-up: 3 to 10 days), 55% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 70% on active treatment. Of the two trials not pooled, one showed some global effect, whilst the other showed no effect. Adverse effects: the antihistamine-decongestant group experienced more adverse effects than the control group: 128/419 (31%) versus 100/423 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.78 to 3.21; moderate certainty of evidence). Antihistamine-analgesic: four trials (1608 participants). Two trials reported on global effectiveness; data from one trial were presented (290 participants on active treatment and 292 participants on ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46; moderate certainty evidence); NNTB 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). Forty-three per cent of participants in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group were cured after six days of treatment. The second trial also showed an effect in favour of the active treatment. Adverse effects: there were not significantly more adverse effects in the active treatment group compared to placebo (drowsiness, hypersomnia, sleepiness 10/152 versus 4/120; OR 1.64 (95 % CI 0.48 to 5.59; low certainty evidence). Analgesic-decongestant: seven trials (2575 participants). One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% of participants in the analgesic-decongestant group reported a benefit compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR of treatment failure 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; moderate certainty evidence; NNTB 4.7). Adverse effects: the decongestant-analgesic group experienced significantly more adverse effects than the control group (199/1122 versus 75/675; OR 1.62 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23; high certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH 17). Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: six trials (1014 participants). Five trials reported on global effectiveness, of which two studies in adults could be pooled: global effect reported with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%) was equivalent to a difference of less than one point on a four- or five-point scale; the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67; low certainty evidence); NNTB 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). One trial in children aged 2 to 12 years, and two trials in adults found no beneficial effect. Adverse effects: in one trial 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with the active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found a lack of data on the effectiveness of antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations for the common cold. Based on these scarce data, the effect on individual symptoms is probably too small to be clinically relevant. The current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about adverse effects associated with the use of over-the-counter nasal preparations containing phenylpropanolamine.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics; Child; Child, Preschool; Common Cold; Cough; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; United States
PubMed: 35060618
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004976.pub4