Efficacy of Actifed as a decongestant

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.

Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold

BACKGROUND

Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter (OTC) in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence of effectiveness is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations in reducing the duration and alleviating the symptoms of the common cold in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, OLDMEDLINE (1953 to 1965), MEDLINE (1966 to November Week 3, 2011) and EMBASE (1990 to December 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) 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

Two review authors independently extracted and summarised data on general recovery, nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, cough and side effects. We categorised the trials according to the active ingredients.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials (5117 participants) of common cold treatments. Fourteen trials studied antihistamine-decongestant combinations; two antihistamine-analgesic; six analgesic-decongestant; and five antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations. In 21 trials the control intervention was placebo and in six trials an active substance. Reporting of methods in most trials was poor and there were large differences in design, participants, interventions and outcomes. Pooling was only possible for a limited number of studies and outcomes.Antihistamine-decongestant: 12 trials. Eight trials report on global effectiveness, six could be pooled; n = 309 on active treatment, n = 312 placebo) the odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.50); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was four (95% CI 3 to 5.6). On the final evaluation day 41% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 66% on active treatment. Of the two trials that were not included in the pooling, one showed some global effect, the other showed no effect.Antihistamine-analgesic: three trials. Two reported on global effectiveness, data from one study was presented. (n = 290 on active treatment, n = 292 ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46) and the NNTB was 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). After six days of treatment 43% were cured in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group. The second study also showed an effect in favour of active treatment.Analgesic-decongestant: six trials. One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% benefited compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52).Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: Five trials. Four trials reported on global effectiveness, two could be pooled: global effect reported (less than one severity point on a four or five-point scale) with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%); the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67) and the NNTB was 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). Two other trials found no beneficial effect. Two other studies did not show any effect.Two studies with antihistamine-decongestant (113 children) could not be pooled. There was no significant effect of the active treatment.Adverse effects: the combination of antihistamine-decongestant had more adverse effects than the control intervention but the difference was not significant: 157/810 (19%) versus 60/477 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.21). Analgesic-decongestant combinations had significantly more adverse effects than control (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.37); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 14. None of the other two combinations caused significantly more adverse effects. Antihistamine-analgesic: 11/90 with combination suffered one or more adverse effects (12%) versus 9/91 (10%) with control (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.23). Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: in one study 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups but numbers were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

WITHDRAWN: Antihistamines for the common cold

BACKGROUND

Although antihistamines are prescribed in large quantities for the common cold, there is little evidence as to whether these drugs are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess in patients with a common cold the effects of antihistamines in alleviating nasal symptoms, or the shortening the duration of illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2002, issue 4), which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specilaized Register; MEDLINE (1966 to February 2003); and EMBASE (1987 to December 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on treatment of common cold with antihistamines, used either singly or in combination, in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and trial authors were contacted for further data. Trials were subdivided into monotherapy and combination therapy. Data on general recovery, nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and side-effects were extracted and summarized.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 papers describing 35 comparisons; 22 trials studied monotherapy, 13 trials a combination of antihistamines with other medication. A total of 8930 people suffering from the common cold were included. There were large differences in study designs, participants, interventions, and outcomes. There was no evidence of any clinically significant effect - in children or in adults - on general recovery of antihistamines in monotherapy. First generation - but not non-sedating - antihistamines have a small effect on rhinorrhea and sneezing. In trials with first generation antihistamines the incidence of side effects (especially sedation) is significantly higher with active treatment. Two trials, studying a combination of antihistamines with decongestives in small children, both failed to show any effect. Of the 11 trials on older children and adults, the majority show an effect on general recovery and on nasal symptom severity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antihistamines in monotherapy - in children as well as in adults - do not alleviate to a clinical extent nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea and sneezing, or subjective improvement of the common cold. First generation antihistamines also cause more side-effects than placebo, in particular they increase sedation in cold sufferers.Combinations of antihistamines with decongestives are not effective in small children. In older children and adults most trials show a beneficial effect on general recovery as well as on nasal symptoms. However, it is not clear whether these effects are clinically significant.

Antihistamines for the common cold

BACKGROUND

Although antihistamines are prescribed in large quantities for the common cold, there is little evidence to whether these drugs are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess in patients with a common cold the effects of antihistamines in alleviating nasal symptoms, or in shortening of illness duration.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialized Register and EMBASE up to December 2002; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and MEDLINE up to February 2003. We also followed up references in identified papers. We appealed for further articles at a major international conference on Acute Respiratory Infections (1997). We corresponded with experts and got in touch with pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on treatment of common cold with antihistamines, used either singly or in combination, in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two reviewers and authors were contacted for further data. Trials were subdivided into monotherapy and combination therapy. Data on general recovery, nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and side-effects were extracted and summarized in a systematic review.

MAIN RESULTS

We included thirty two papers describing 35 comparisons; 22 trials studied monotherapy, 13 trials a combination of antihistamines with other medication. A total of 8930 people suffering from the common cold were included. There were large differences in study designs, participants, interventions, and outcomes. There was no evidence of any clinically significant effect - in children or in adults - on general recovery of antihistamines in monotherapy. First generation - but not non-sedating - antihistamines have a small effect on rhinorrhea and sneezing. In trials with first generation antihistamines the incidence of side effects (especially sedation) is significantly higher with active treatment. Two trials, studying a combination of antihistamines with decongestives in small children, both failed to show any effect. Of the eleven trials on older children and adults, the majority show an effect on general recovery and on nasal symptom severity.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Antihistamines in monotherapy - in children as well as in adults - do not alleviate to a clinical extend nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea and sneezing, or subjective improvement of the common cold. First generation antihistamines also cause more side-effects than placebo, in particular they increase sedation in cold sufferers. Combinations of antihistamines with decongestives are not effective in small children. In older children and adults most trials show a beneficial effect on general recovery as well as on nasal symptoms. It is however not clear whether these effects are clinically significant.

Antihistamines. Guidelines and implications

Antihistamines may be used to maximum benefit for the allergic patient if the physician adheres to four guidelines. These guidelines are based upon 1) an appreciation of certain structural and pharmacologic differences among antihistamines, and 2) an understanding of their mechanism of action. Around the clock administration is advisable, the dosage should be titrated for the individual patient, substitutions to another antihistamine should be to a different class of antihistamine, and the efficacy of any single antihistamine usually will diminish with prolonged use, either on the basis of true tolerance or because of psychic factors. There is good theoretical evidence when alpha-adrenergic sympathomimetics, employed as decongestants in combination with antihistamines, should not be given to allergic patients. Two newer drugs, disodium cromoglycate and beclomethasone, may provide symptomatic relief for allergic rhinitis patients. They may benefit the patient who does not obtain full symptomatic relief from antihistamines.