Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections

Update on Intranasal Medications in Rhinosinusitis

This review describes beneficial effects and adverse events of various intranasal medications in treating rhinosinusitis. Application of intranasal steroids has been described in treating all subtypes of adult rhinosinusitis, but reports are limited in pediatrics and mostly in acute pediatric subgroups resulted in benefits While saline irrigation is effective for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps and in pediatric acute rhinosinusitis, there is no evidence yet for saline drips and sprays. Application of intranasal antifungals and nasal irrigation with surfactant brings more harm than benefits. There is no evidence supporting the use of intranasal antibiotics. We also review influence of devices, methods, and patient head position on nasal and paranasal sinus drug delivery.

Designing and evaluating a health education session on respiratory infections addressed to caregivers of children under three years of age attending day-care centres in Porto, Portugal: A community-based intervention

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory infections (ARI) are common in children, increasing the pressure on clinicians to prescribe antibiotics and affecting public health Objectives: This study aimed to design a health education session (HES) for caregivers of children, and to evaluate its effects on caregivers' needs, as well as on their knowledge and attitudes concerning ARI.

METHODS

A generalized model of developing, implementing and evaluating a community-based intervention was followed, including caregivers of children under three years of age. Caregivers were randomly distributed into an intervention group (IG) (n = 41) and a control group (CG) (n = 51) and the HES was administered to the IG. The caregivers' needs as well as knowledge of and attitudes to ARI were evaluated in both groups, before (M0) and two months after the HES (M1).

RESULTS

At M0 the caregivers from both groups had 'some or great need' about all HES domains; at M1 the caregivers in the IG expressed 'no or low need', whereas the CG maintained 'some or great need' about all HES domains (0.011 ≤ P ≤ .047). Concerning caregivers' knowledge of and attitudes to ARI, at M1 there was a higher frequency of caregivers with right answers in the IG than in the CG (IG =7.5 ± 1 versus CG =6.0 ± 2; P = .000). Those differences occurred in domain (e) nasal clearance techniques, revealing a higher percentage of caregivers who used correctly nasal irrigation (P = .000), nasal aspirators (0.000 ≤P ≤ .001) and nebulization (P = .000) in IG.

CONCLUSION

The HES met the caregivers' needs regarding ARI and increased their knowledge and attitudes towards ARI, especially regarding nasal clearance techniques.

Nasal Irrigation: An Imprecisely Defined Medical Procedure

Nasal irrigation (NI) is an old practice of upper respiratory tract care that likely originated in the Ayurvedic medical tradition. It is used alone or in association with other therapies in several conditions—including chronic rhinosinusitis and allergic rhinitis—and to treat and prevent upper respiratory tract infections, especially in children. However, despite it being largely prescribed in everyday clinical practice, NI is not included or is only briefly mentioned by experts in the guidelines for treatment of upper respiratory tract diseases. In this review, present knowledge about NI and its relevance in clinical practice is discussed to assist physicians in understanding the available evidence and the potential use of this medical intervention. Analysis of the literature showed that NI seems to be effective in the treatment of several acute and chronic sinonasal conditions. However, although in recent years several new studies have been performed, most of the studies that have evaluated NI have relevant methodologic problems. Only multicenter studies enrolling a great number of subjects can solve the problem of the real relevance of NI, and these studies are urgently needed. Methods for performing NI have to be standardized to determine which solutions, devices and durations of treatment are adequate to obtain favorable results. This seems particularly important for children that suffer a great number of sinonasal problems and might benefit significantly from an inexpensive and simple preventive and therapeutic measure such as NI.

Nasal Irrigation as Treatment in Sinonasal Symptoms Relief: A Review of Its Efficacy and Clinical Applications

Nasal irrigations have been used for centuries without any scientific data to determine its efficacy. Despite their widespread use, much confusion exist about the mechanism of action, preparation, indications and therapeutic advantage of nasal irrigations. Anecdotal evidence and poorly controlled studies add to the confusion. Recent evidence provides strong scientific justification of the benefits and advantages of using nasal irrigations in sinonasal symptoms relief. The present review of the evidence based literature highlights its efficacy and clinical applications.

Cough, Cold, and Congestion

The common cold is a benign, self-limited, acute viral infection with associated symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, cough, and malaise. It is the most frequent acute illness in the industrialized world. Adults typically have two to three episodes of illness yearly while children can have up to five. The common cold is typically caused by viruses (including rhinovirus, RSV, coronavirus, and others), and often, no infecting organism is detected. Treatment is usually targeted at symptomatic relief. The differential diagnosis for cough, cold, and congestion is broad: ranging from non-emergent causes such as rhinitis to life-threatening illnesses such as pulmonary embolism. Careful assessment is necessary as misidentification can lead to inappropriate discharge of potentially lethal conditions.

Evidence and evidence gaps in therapies of nasal obstruction and rhinosinusitis

Therapeutic decisions in otorhinolaryngology are based on clinical experience, surgical skills, and scientific evidence. Recently, evidence-based therapies have gained increased attention and importance due to their potential to improve the individual patient's treatment and their potential at the same time to reduce treatment costs. In clinical practice, it is almost impossible to stay ahead of the increasing mass of literature and on the other hand critically assess the presented data. A solid scientific and statistical knowledge as well as a significant amount of spare time are required to detect systematic bias and other errors in study designs, also with respect to assessing whether or not a study should be part of an individual therapeutic decision. Meta-analyses, reviews, and clinical guidelines are, therefore, of increasing importance for evidence-based therapy in clinical practice. This review is an update of the availability of external evidence for the treatment of nasal obstruction and rhinosinusitis. It becomes evident that both groups of diseases differ significantly in the availability of external evidence. Furthermore, it becomes obvious that surgical treatment options are normally based on evidence of significantly lower quality than medical treatment options.

Nasal decongestants in monotherapy for the common cold

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.

Self-Care for Common Colds by Primary Care Patients: A European Multicenter Survey on the Prevalence and Patterns of Practices-The COCO Study

Background. Patients use self-care to relieve symptoms of common colds, yet little is known about the prevalence and patterns across Europe. Methods/Design. In a cross-sectional study 27 primary care practices from 14 countries distributed 120 questionnaires to consecutive patients (≥18 years, any reason for consultation). A 27-item questionnaire asked for patients' self-care for their last common cold. Results. 3,074 patients from 27 European sites participated. Their mean age was 46.7 years, and 62.5% were females. 99% of the participants used ≥1 self-care practice. In total, 527 different practices were reported; the age-standardized mean was 11.5 (±SD 6.0) per participant. The most frequent self-care categories were foodstuffs (95%), extras at home (81%), preparations for intestinal absorption (81%), and intranasal applications (53%). Patterns were similar across all sites, while the number of practices varied between and within countries. The most frequent single practices were water (43%), honey (42%), paracetamol (38%), oranges/orange juice (38%), and staying in bed (38%). Participants used 9 times more nonpharmaceutical items than pharmaceutical items. The majority (69%) combined self-care with and without proof of evidence, while ≤1% used only evidence-based items. Discussion. This first cross-national study on self-care for common colds showed a similar pattern across sites but quantitative differences.

Corticosteroids for the common cold

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.