Efficacité de Dérinox® chez des patients souffrant d’une rhinite virale évaluée par un PNIF (Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow)

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.

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.

OBJECTIVES

To compare corticosteroids versus usual care for the common cold on clinical response rates in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2012, Issue 5 which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) 2012, Issue 4 and the NHS Health Economics Database 2012, Issue 5; MEDLINE (1948 to May week 2, 2012) and EMBASE (January 2010 to May 2012).

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 analysed results using narrative description of the available evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials (253 participants). Both compared intranasal corticosteroids to placebo; no trials studied oral corticosteroids. No benefit of intranasal corticosteroids was demonstrated for duration or severity of symptoms. In one trial of 54 participants, the number of symptomatic days was 10.3 in the placebo group, compared to 10.7 in those using intranasal corticosteroids (P = 0.72). A second trial of 199 participants reported no significant differences in duration of symptoms. There were no differences reported in terms of: adverse events; complications (one case of sinusitis, one case of acute otitis media, both in corticosteroid groups); presence of rhinovirus in nasal aspirates; or treatment for secondary infections. Neither trial reported our primary outcome measure of percentage of participants with resolution at different time points. A lack of comparable outcome measures meant 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 two trials and limited statistical power. Further large randomised placebo-controlled trials in adults and children are required to answer this question.

[Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow: learning curve for the measurement method and reproducibility]

OBJECTIVES

A prospective study on the learning curve and reproducibility of PNIF measurement with 18 different operators.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Five hundred twenty-eight patients in two groups were prospectively enrolled in this study from September 2003 to April 2004. The learning curve of the technique was monitored after five patients had been measured. Reproducibility was evaluated with all patients after two consecutive measurements.

RESULTS

The technique was acquired by all operators after the fifth patient. The mean PNIF measurements in controls and patients were 86.02+/-36.96 l/min and 89.59+/-41.97 l/min, respectively. Reproducibility (PNIF2-PNIF1=5.51+/-24.93 l/min) was obtained for all operators, whatever the number of measurements taken.

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms the good reproducibility and the easy training in PNIF measurement.