Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold

Non-prescription treatments for childhood infections: an Austrian, monocentric, cross-sectional questionnaire study

Background

Infectious diseases like the common cold, otitis media, or gastroenteritis frequently occur in childhood. In addition to prescription drugs, parents often use supplementary over-the-counter (OTC) products recommended by pharmacists and other non-medical professionals to relieve their children’s symptoms. However, the efficacy of such alternative treatments lacks conclusive evidence.

The objective of this study was to investigate the use of OTC products and related active ingredients in children, and the motivations behind this choice.

Methods

The present study included 215 children aged between 1 and 14 years with an acute respiratory tract infection, e.g., common cold, bronchitis, otitis media, tonsillitis, or gastroenteritis. During their visit to the pediatric practice, parents filled in a self-administered questionnaire about their child’s diagnosis, additional treatment options, and motivations to integrate supplementary medicinal products after their first visit for acute infection or follow-up examination. Children with chronic illnesses and patients visiting for a routine maternal and child health program check-up were excluded.

Results

The study included 111 (51.6%) males and 104 (48.4%) females. Median age was 3.00 (IQR 2.0 – 5.0) years. The most common reason for a visit was a respiratory tract infection (78.6%). Out of 215 parents, 182 (84.7%) resorted to non-prescription remedies to alleviate their child’s symptoms. Teas (45.1%), and home remedies (43.3%) were the most popular. At total 133 (74.3%) followed recommendations from friends and family regarding additional medications usage. Parents with previous experience with complementary medicine tended to prefer this approach to treat their children (p.adjust = 0.08).

Conclusion

The use of non-prescription medicine is increasing as well as the range of related information sources. Evidence-based recommendations in this field might improve pediatric care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-022-03220-6.

Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold

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.

Treatment of the most common respiratory infections in children

Acute respiratory infections are the most common group of infective diseases in the pediatric population. Although the improvement of health care and vaccination program has led to a significant reduction in the incidence of certain respiratory infections, the combination of a high prevalence in vulnerable pediatric categories and uncritical prescription of antibiotics, due to the inability to adequately distinguish between viruses and bacterial etiology, still represents a significant challenge for the public health system. In order to promote rational antibiotic therapy with an overall improvement of both diagnostic and therapeutic principles, acute respiratory diseases have been the subject of consideration in numerous publications and national guidelines. Nonspecific clinical manifestations with pathogen heterogeneity and both anatomical and physiological characteristics of the child's respiratory system during growth and development have created the need for individualized therapy. Since the guidelines emphasize the undoubtful and crucial benefits of symptomatic therapy (e.g. analgesics in acute otitis media, supplemental oxygen in lower respiratory tract infections with hypoxemia), the use of antibiotics and corticosteroids is indicated in selected cases with a severe clinical picture. The choice of antibiotic depends on the clinical condition, presumed causative agent, and local epidemiologic circumstances. Respiratory support (oxygen therapy and/or artificial ventilation) is reserved for inpatient treatment of cases with a particularly severe clinical picture and associated complications.