Evan Wood, Thomas Kerr, Greg Rowell, Julio S G Montaner, Peter Phillips, P Todd Korthuis, David L Simel
Does this adult patient have early HIV infection?: The Rational Clinical Examination systematic review.
JAMA. 2014 Jul 16;312(3):278-85. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.5954.
Abstract/Text
IMPORTANCE: Timely identification of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in adults can contribute to reduced mortality and likelihood of further HIV transmission. During the first 6 months after infection, known as early HIV infection, patients often report a well-described constellation of symptoms and signs. However, the literature examining utility of the clinical examination in identifying early infection has not been systematically assessed.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of symptoms and signs in identifying early HIV infection among adults.
DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (1981-May, 2014) for articles investigating symptoms and signs of early HIV infection in adults and searched reference lists of retrieved articles.
STUDY SELECTION: We retained original studies that compared symptoms and signs among patients with early HIV infection in comparison to HIV-negative individuals.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted and used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs), and meta-analysis was used to calculate summary LRs.
RESULTS: Of 1356 studies, 16 studies included data that were eligible for meta-analysis and included a total of 24,745 patients and 1253 cases of early HIV infection. Symptoms that increased the likelihood of early HIV infection the most included genital ulcers (LR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.5-12), weight loss (LR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.1-7.2), vomiting (LR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.5-8.0), and swollen lymph nodes (LR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0). No symptoms had an LR that was 0.5 or lower, but the absence of recent fever (LR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84) slightly decreased the likelihood of early HIV infection. The presence of lymphadenopathy on physical examination was the most useful sign (LR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.0-5.2). No sign had an LR of 0.5 or less, but the absence of lymphadenopathy slightly decreased the likelihood of early HIV infection (LR, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.49-0.92). Using data from studies that considered combinations of findings (range of possible findings, 4-17), the summary LR for individuals with 0 findings was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.38-0.58).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The limited utility of the clinical examination to detect or rule out early HIV infection highlights the importance of routine testing for HIV infection among adults.
J M Gwaltney
Acute community-acquired sinusitis.
Clin Infect Dis. 1996 Dec;23(6):1209-23; quiz 1224-5.
Abstract/Text
J M Gwaltney, C D Phillips, R D Miller, D K Riker
Computed tomographic study of the common cold.
N Engl J Med. 1994 Jan 6;330(1):25-30. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199401063300105.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Colds are common, but the abnormalities they produce in the nasal passages and sinus cavities have not been well defined.
METHODS: We studied healthy adult volunteers with self-diagnosed colds of 48 to 96 hours' duration and obtained the following data: information on symptoms, computed tomographic (CT) studies of the nasal passages and sinuses, mucosal-transport times, measures of nasal-airway resistance, and viral-culture studies. Thirty-one subjects (mean age, 24 years) had complete evaluations, including CT scans, which were read without knowledge of the clinical data. An additional 79 subjects underwent the same evaluations, except the CT scans.
RESULTS: Of the 31 subjects with CT scans, 24 (77 percent) had occlusion of the ethmoid infundibulum; 27 (87 percent) had abnormalities of one or both maxillary-sinus cavities; 20 (65 percent) had abnormalities of the ethmoid sinuses; 10 (32 percent) had abnormalities of the frontal sinuses; and 12 (39 percent) had abnormalities of the sphenoid sinuses. Infraorbital air cells were present in 14 subjects (45 percent), and pneumatization of the middle turbinate (concha bullosa) was noted in 11 subjects (35 percent). Also common were engorged turbinates (in 7 subjects) and thickening of the walls of the nasal passages (in 13). After two weeks, the CT studies were repeated in 14 subjects, none of whom received antibiotics. In 11 of these subjects (79 percent) the abnormalities of the infundibula and sinuses had cleared or markedly improved. Nasal-airway resistance was abnormal in 29 (94 percent) and mucosal transport in 19 (61 percent) of the 31 subjects who had CT scans. Rhinovirus was detected in nasal secretions from 24 (27 percent) of 90 subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: The common cold is associated with frequent and variable anatomical involvement of the upper airways, including occlusion and abnormalities in the sinus cavities.
Richard M Rosenfeld
CLINICAL PRACTICE. Acute Sinusitis in Adults.
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 8;375(10):962-70. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp1601749.
Abstract/Text
Anthony W Chow, Michael S Benninger, Itzhak Brook, Jan L Brozek, Ellie J C Goldstein, Lauri A Hicks, George A Pankey, Mitchel Seleznick, Gregory Volturo, Ellen R Wald, Thomas M File, Infectious Diseases Society of America
IDSA clinical practice guideline for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in children and adults.
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Apr;54(8):e72-e112. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir1043. Epub 2012 Mar 20.
Abstract/Text
Evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and initial management of suspected acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in adults and children were prepared by a multidisciplinary expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America comprising clinicians and investigators representing internal medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, otolaryngology, public health, epidemiology, and adult and pediatric infectious disease specialties. Recommendations for diagnosis, laboratory investigation, and empiric antimicrobial and adjunctive therapy were developed.
Saskia F van Vugt, Theo J M Verheij, Pim A de Jong, Chris C Butler, Kerenza Hood, Samuel Coenen, Herman Goossens, Paul Little, Berna D L Broekhuizen, GRACE Project Group
Diagnosing pneumonia in patients with acute cough: clinical judgment compared to chest radiography.
Eur Respir J. 2013 Oct;42(4):1076-82. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00111012. Epub 2013 Jan 24.
Abstract/Text
Pneumonia is often diagnosed and treated empirically. We set out to determine the diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgment based on signs and symptoms to detect radiographic pneumonia in patients presenting with acute cough in primary care. In 2810 European patients with acute cough, general practitioners (GPs) recorded whether they considered pneumonia to be present ("yes" or "no") immediately after history and physical examination. Chest radiography was performed within 1 week by local radiologists blind to other patient characteristics. 140 patients had radiographic pneumonia (5%), of whom 41 (29%) had been diagnosed as such. 31 (1%) patients had a clinical diagnosis that was not confirmed by radiography (n=2670). In clinically suspected pneumonia, 57% of subjects were subsequently diagnosed with radiographic pneumonia. Negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity and specificity of GPs' clinical judgment were 96%, 29% and 99%, respectively. Compared to patients with a clinical diagnosis of pneumonia, less severe symptoms were found in radiographic pneumonia cases not suspected clinically (p<0.05). The predictive values of GPs' clinical judgment, particularly the high NPVs, are helpful in routine care. Nonetheless, the majority of diagnoses of radiographic pneumonias was not suspected on clinical grounds. There is a need to further support the detection of clinically relevant pneumonia in primary care.
V Snow, C Mottur-Pilson, R Gonzales, American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, Centers for Disease Control, Infectious Diseases Society of America
Principles of appropriate antibiotic use for treatment of acute bronchitis in adults.
Ann Intern Med. 2001 Mar 20;134(6):518-20.
Abstract/Text
Jean-Paul Humair, Sylvie Antonini Revaz, Patrick Bovier, Hans Stalder
Management of acute pharyngitis in adults: reliability of rapid streptococcal tests and clinical findings.
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Mar 27;166(6):640-4. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.6.640.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: How to use clinical score, the rapid streptococcal antigen test (RSAT), and culture results is uncertain for efficient management of acute pharyngitis in adults.
METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 372 adult patients with pharyngitis treated at a Swiss university-based primary care clinic. In eligible patients with 2 to 4 clinical symptoms and signs (temperature >or=38 degrees C, tonsillar exudate, tender cervical adenopathy, and no cough or rhinitis), we performed an RSAT and obtained a throat culture. We measured sensitivity and specificity of RSAT with culture as a gold standard and compared appropriate antibiotic use with cost per patient appropriately treated for the following 5 strategies: symptomatic treatment, systematic RSAT, selective RSAT, empirical antibiotic treatment, and systematic culture.
RESULTS: RSAT had high sensitivity (91%) and specificity (95%) for the diagnosis of streptococcal pharyngitis. Systematic throat culture resulted in the highest antibiotic use, in 38% of patients with streptococcal pharyngitis. Systematic RSAT led to nearly optimal treatment (94%) and antibiotic prescription (37%), with minimal antibiotic overuse (3%) and underuse (3%). Empirical antibiotic treatment in patients with 3 or 4 clinical symptoms or signs resulted in a lower rate of appropriate therapy (59%) but higher rates of antibiotic use (60%), overuse (32%), and underuse (9%). Systematic RSAT was more cost-effective than strategies based on empirical treatment or culture: 15.00 dollars, 26.00 dollars, and 32.00 dollars, respectively, per patient appropriately treated.
CONCLUSIONS: The RSAT we used is a valid test for diagnosis of pharyngitis in adults. A clinical approach combining this RSAT and clinical findings efficiently reduces inappropriate antibiotic prescription in adult patients with acute pharyngitis. Empirical therapy in patients with 3 or 4 clinical symptoms or signs results in antibiotic overuse.
M H Ebell, M A Smith, H C Barry, K Ives, M Carey
The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have strep throat?
JAMA. 2000 Dec 13;284(22):2912-8.
Abstract/Text
CONTEXT: Sore throat is a common complaint, and identifying patients with group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal pharyngitis (strep throat) is an important task for clinicians. Previous reviews have not systematically reviewed and synthesized the evidence.
OBJECTIVE: To review the precision and accuracy of the clinical examination in diagnosing strep throat.
DATA SOURCE: MEDLINE search for articles about diagnosis of strep throat using history-taking and physical examination.
STUDY SELECTION: Large blinded, prospective studies (having > or =300 patients with sore throat) reporting history and physical examination data and using throat culture as the reference standard were included. Of 917 articles identified by the search, 9 met all inclusion criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of authors independently reviewed each article and used consensus to resolve discrepancies.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The most useful findings for evaluating the likelihood of strep throat are presence of tonsillar exudate, pharyngeal exudate, or exposure to strep throat infection in the previous 2 weeks (positive likelihood ratios, 3.4, 2.1, and 1.9, respectively) and the absence of tender anterior cervical nodes, tonsillar enlargement, or exudate (negative likelihood ratios, 0.60, 0.63, and 0.74, respectively). No individual element of history-taking or physical examination is accurate enough by itself to rule in or rule out strep throat. Three validated clinical prediction rules are described for adult and pediatric populations.
CONCLUSIONS: While no single element of history-taking or physical examination is sufficiently accurate to exclude or diagnose strep throat, a well-validated clinical prediction rule can be useful and can help physicians make more informed use of rapid antigen tests and throat cultures.
Robert M Centor, Ralph Samlowski
Avoiding sore throat morbidity and mortality: when is it not "just a sore throat?".
Am Fam Physician. 2011 Jan 1;83(1):26, 28.
Abstract/Text
Tim Kenealy, Bruce Arroll
Antibiotics for the common cold and acute purulent rhinitis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 4;2013(6):CD000247. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000247.pub3. Epub 2013 Jun 4.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: It has long been believed that antibiotics have no role in the treatment of common colds yet they are often prescribed in the belief that they may prevent secondary bacterial infections.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of antibiotics compared with placebo for reducing general and specific nasopharyngeal symptoms of acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) (common colds).To determine if antibiotics have any influence on the outcomes for acute purulent rhinitis and acute clear rhinitis lasting less than 10 days before the intervention.To determine whether there are significant adverse outcomes associated with antibiotic therapy for participants with a clinical diagnosis of acute URTI or acute purulent rhinitis.
SEARCH METHODS: For this 2013 update we searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 1, MEDLINE (March 2005 to February week 2, 2013), EMBASE (January 2010 to February 2013), CINAHL (2005 to February 2013), LILACS (2005 to February 2013) and Biosis Previews (2005 to February 2013).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antibiotic therapy against placebo in people with symptoms of acute upper respiratory tract infection for less than seven days, or acute purulent rhinitis less than 10 days in duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS: This updated review included 11 studies. Six studies contributed to one or more analyses related to the common cold, with up to 1047 participants. Five studies contributed to one or more analyses relating to purulent rhinitis, with up to 791 participants. One study contributed only to data on adverse events and one met the inclusion criteria but reported only summary statistics without providing any numerical data that could be included in the meta-analyses. Interpretation of the combined data is limited because some studies included only children, or only adults, or only males; a wide range of antibiotics were used and outcomes were measured in different ways. There was a moderate risk of bias because of unreported methods details or because an unknown number of participants were likely to have chest or sinus infections.Participants receiving antibiotics for the common cold did no better in terms of lack of cure or persistence of symptoms than those on placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.51, (random-effects)), based on a pooled analysis of six trials with a total of 1047 participants. The RR of adverse effects in the antibiotic group was 1.8, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.21, (random-effects). Adult participants had a significantly greater risk of adverse effects with antibiotics than with placebo (RR 2.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.18) (random-effects) while there was no greater risk in children (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.63).The pooled RR for persisting acute purulent rhinitis with antibiotics compared to placebo was 0.73 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.13) (random-effects), based on four studies with 723 participants. There was an increase in adverse effects in the studies of antibiotics for acute purulent rhinitis (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.94).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of benefit from antibiotics for the common cold or for persisting acute purulent rhinitis in children or adults. There is evidence that antibiotics cause significant adverse effects in adults when given for the common cold and in all ages when given for acute purulent rhinitis. Routine use of antibiotics for these conditions is not recommended.
An I M De Sutter, Avadhesh Saraswat, Mieke L van Driel
Antihistamines for the common cold.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 29;2015(11):CD009345. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009345.pub2. Epub 2015 Nov 29.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The common cold is an upper respiratory tract infection, most commonly caused by a rhinovirus. It affects people of all age groups and although in most cases it is self limiting, the common cold still causes significant morbidity. Antihistamines are commonly offered over the counter to relieve symptoms for patients affected by the common cold, however there is not much evidence of their efficacy.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antihistamines on the common cold.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1948 to July week 4, 2015), EMBASE (2010 to August 2015), CINAHL (1981 to August 2015), LILACS (1982 to August 2015) and Biosis Previews (1985 to August 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using antihistamines as monotherapy for the common cold. We excluded any studies with combination therapy or using antihistamines in patients with an allergic component in their illness.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We collected adverse effects information from the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs, which were reported in 17 publications (one publication reports on two trials) with 4342 participants (of which 212 were children) suffering from the common cold, both naturally occurring and experimentally induced. The interventions consisted of an antihistamine as monotherapy compared with placebo. In adults there was a short-term beneficial effect of antihistamines on severity of overall symptoms: on day one or two of treatment 45% had a beneficial effect with antihistamines versus 38% with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.92). However, there was no difference between antihistamines and placebo in the mid term (three to four days) to long term (six to 10 days). When evaluating individual symptoms such as nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea and sneezing, there was some beneficial effect of the sedating antihistamines compared to placebo (e.g. rhinorrhoea on day three: mean difference (MD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06 on a four- or five-point severity scale; sneezing on day three: MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.20 on a four-point severity scale), but this effect is clinically non-significant. Adverse events such as sedation were more commonly reported with sedating antihistamines although the differences were not statistically significant. Only two trials included children and the results were conflicting. The majority of the trials had a low risk of bias although some lacked sufficient trial quality information.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antihistamines have a limited short-term (days one and two of treatment) beneficial effect on severity of overall symptoms but not in the mid to long term. There is no clinically significant effect on nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea or sneezing. Although side effects are more common with sedating antihistamines, the difference is not statistically significant. There is no evidence of effectiveness of antihistamines in children.
Gail Hayward, Matthew J Thompson, Rafael Perera, Chris B Del Mar, Paul P Glasziou, Carl J Heneghan
Corticosteroids for the common cold.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;(8):CD008116. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008116.pub2. Epub 2012 Aug 15.
Abstract/Text
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.
Susan M Smith, Knut Schroeder, Tom Fahey
Over-the-counter (OTC) medications for acute cough in children and adults in community settings.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 24;2014(11):CD001831. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001831.pub5. Epub 2014 Nov 24.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Acute cough due to upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) is a common symptom. Non-prescription, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines are frequently recommended as a first-line treatment, but there is little evidence as to whether these drugs are effective.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral OTC cough preparations for acute cough in children and adults in community settings.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March week 3 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2014), CINAHL (January 2010 to March 2014), LILACS (January 2010 to March 2014), Web of Science (January 2010 to March 2014) and the UK Department of Health National Research Register (March 2010).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral OTC cough preparations with placebo in children and adults suffering from acute cough in community settings. We considered all cough outcomes; secondary outcomes of interest were adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened potentially relevant citations, extracted data and assessed study quality. We performed quantitative analysis where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS: Due to the small numbers of trials in each category, the limited quantitative data available and the marked differences between trials in terms of participants, interventions and outcome measurement, we felt that pooling of the results was inappropriate.We included 29 trials (19 in adults, 10 in children) involving 4835 people (3799 adults and 1036 children). All studies were placebo-controlled RCTs. However, assessment of the risk of bias of the included studies was limited by poor reporting, particularly for the earlier studies.In the adult studies, six trials compared antitussives with placebo and had variable results. Three trials compared the expectorant guaifenesin with placebo; one indicated significant benefit, whereas the other two did not. One trial found that a mucolytic reduced cough frequency and symptom scores. Two studies examined antihistamine-decongestant combinations and found conflicting results. Four studies compared other combinations of drugs with placebo and indicated some benefit in reducing cough symptoms. Three trials found that antihistamines were no more effective than placebo in relieving cough symptoms.In the child studies, antitussives (data from three studies), antihistamines (data from three studies), antihistamine-decongestants (two studies) and antitussive/bronchodilator combinations (one study) were no more effective than placebo. No studies using expectorants met our inclusion criteria. The results of one trial favoured active treatment with mucolytics over placebo. One trial tested two paediatric cough syrups and both preparations showed a 'satisfactory response' in 46% and 56% of children compared to 21% of children in the placebo group. One new trial indicated that three types of honey were more effective than placebo over a three-day period.Twenty-one studies reported adverse effects. There was a wide range across studies, with higher numbers of adverse effects in participants taking preparations containing antihistamines and dextromethorphan.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review have to be interpreted with caution because the number of studies in each category of cough preparations was small. Availability, dosing and duration of use of over-the-counter cough medicines vary significantly in different countries. Many studies were poorly reported making assessment of risk of bias difficult and studies were also very different from each other, making evaluation of overall efficacy difficult. There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough. This should be taken into account when considering prescribing antihistamines and centrally active antitussive agents in children; drugs that are known to have the potential to cause serious harm.
Mark A Malesker, Priscilla Callahan-Lyon, Belinda Ireland, Richard S Irwin, CHEST Expert Cough Panel
Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Treatment for Acute Cough Associated With the Common Cold: CHEST Expert Panel Report.
Chest. 2017 Nov;152(5):1021-1037. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.08.009. Epub 2017 Aug 22.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Acute cough associated with the common cold (CACC) causes significant impairment in quality of life. Effective treatment approaches are needed for CACC. We conducted a systematic review on the management of CACC to update the recommendations and suggestions of the CHEST 2006 guideline on this topic.
METHODS: This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) asked the question: Is there evidence of clinically relevant treatment effects for pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic therapies in reducing the duration/severity of acute CACC? Studies of adults and pediatric patients with CACC were included and assessed for relevance and quality. Based on the systematic review, guideline suggestions were developed and voted on using the American College of Chest Physicians organization methodology.
RESULTS: Six systematic reviews and four primary studies identified from updated literature searches for each of the reviews or from hand searching were included and reported data on 6,496 participants with CACC who received one or more of a variety of interventions. The studies used an assortment of descriptors and assessments to identify CACC.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supporting the management of CACC is overall of low quality. This document provides treatment suggestions based on the best currently available evidence and identifies gaps in our knowledge and areas for future research.
Copyright © 2017 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.
Olabisi Oduwole, Ekong E Udoh, Angela Oyo-Ita, Martin M Meremikwu
Honey for acute cough in children.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 10;4:CD007094. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007094.pub5. Epub 2018 Apr 10.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their parents. Honey has been used to alleviate cough symptoms. This is an update of reviews previously published in 2014, 2012, and 2010.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (2014 to 8 February 2018), Embase (2014 to 8 February 2018), CINAHL (2014 to 8 February 2018), EBSCO (2014 to 8 February 2018), Web of Science (2014 to 8 February 2018), and LILACS (2014 to 8 February 2018). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 12 February 2018. The 2014 review included searches of AMED and CAB Abstracts, but these were not searched for this update due to lack of institutional access.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing honey alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus no treatment, placebo, honey-based cough syrup, or other over-the-counter cough medications for children aged 12 months to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomised controlled trials involving 899 children; we added three studies (331 children) in this update.We assessed two studies as at high risk of performance and detection bias; three studies as at unclear risk of attrition bias; and three studies as at unclear risk of other bias.Studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, salbutamol, bromelin (an enzyme from the Bromeliaceae (pineapple) family), no treatment, and placebo. Five studies used 7-point Likert scales to measure symptomatic relief of cough; one used an unclear 5-point scale. In all studies, low score indicated better cough symptom relief.Using a 7-point Likert scale, honey probably reduces cough frequency better than no treatment or placebo (no treatment: mean difference (MD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence; placebo: MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.02 to -0.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Honey may have a similar effect as dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; I² = 87%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Honey may be better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence).Giving honey for up to three days is probably more effective in relieving cough symptoms compared with placebo or salbutamol. Beyond three days honey probably had no advantage over salbutamol or placebo in reducing cough severity, bothersome cough, and impact of cough on sleep for parents and children (moderate-certainty evidence). With a 5-point cough scale, there was probably little or no difference between the effects of honey and bromelin mixed with honey in reducing cough frequency and severity.Adverse events included nervousness, insomnia, and hyperactivity, experienced by seven children (9.3%) treated with honey and two children (2.7%) treated with dextromethorphan (risk ratio (RR) 2.94, 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence). When honey was compared with placebo, 34 children (12%) in the honey group and 13 (11%) in the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Four children who received salbutamol had rashes compared to one child in the honey group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 1 study; 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the no-treatment group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey probably relieves cough symptoms to a greater extent than no treatment, diphenhydramine, and placebo, but may make little or no difference compared to dextromethorphan. Honey probably reduces cough duration better than placebo and salbutamol. There was no strong evidence for or against using honey. Most of the children received treatment for one night, which is a limitation to the results of this review. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between the honey and control arms.
Hibatullah Abuelgasim, Charlotte Albury, Joseph Lee
Effectiveness of honey for symptomatic relief in upper respiratory tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021 Apr;26(2):57-64. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111336. Epub 2020 Aug 18.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Antibiotic over prescription for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) in primary care exacerbates antimicrobial resistance. There is a need for effective alternatives to antibiotic prescribing. Honey is a lay remedy for URTIs, and has an emerging evidence base for its use. Honey has antimicrobial properties, and guidelines recommended honey for acute cough in children.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for symptomatic relief in URTIs.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, AMED, Cab abstracts, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and CINAHL with a combination of keywords and MeSH terms.
RESULTS: We identified 1345 unique records, and 14 studies were included. Overall risk of bias was moderate. Compared with usual care, honey improved combined symptom score (three studies, mean difference -3.96, 95% CI -5.42 to -2.51, I2=0%), cough frequency (eight studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.21, I2=0%) and cough severity (five studies, SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.25, I2=20%). We combined two studies comparing honey with placebo for relieving combined symptoms (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.18, I2=91%).
CONCLUSIONS: Honey was superior to usual care for the improvement of symptoms of upper respiratory tract infections. It provides a widely available and cheap alternative to antibiotics. Honey could help efforts to slow the spread of antimicrobial resistance, but further high quality, placebo controlled trials are needed.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO: Study ID, CRD42017067582 on PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Harri Hemilä, Elizabeth Chalker
Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;1:CD000980. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4. Epub 2013 Jan 31.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) for preventing and treating the common cold has been a subject of controversy for 70 years.
OBJECTIVES: To find out whether vitamin C reduces the incidence, the duration or severity of the common cold when used either as a continuous regular supplementation every day or as a therapy at the onset of cold symptoms.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL 2012, Issue 11, MEDLINE (1966 to November week 3, 2012), EMBASE (1990 to November 2012), CINAHL (January 2010 to November 2012), LILACS (January 2010 to November 2012) and Web of Science (January 2010 to November 2012). We also searched the U.S. National Institutes of Health trials register and WHO ICTRP on 29 November 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We excluded trials which used less than 0.2 g per day of vitamin C and trials without a placebo comparison. We restricted our review to placebo-controlled trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed 'incidence' of colds during regular supplementation as the proportion of participants experiencing one or more colds during the study period. 'Duration' was the mean number of days of illness of cold episodes.
MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine trial comparisons involving 11,306 participants contributed to the meta-analysis on the risk ratio (RR) of developing a cold whilst taking vitamin C regularly over the study period. In the general community trials involving 10,708 participants, the pooled RR was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.00). Five trials involving a total of 598 marathon runners, skiers and soldiers on subarctic exercises yielded a pooled RR of 0.48 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.64).Thirty-one comparisons examined the effect of regular vitamin C on common cold duration (9745 episodes). In adults the duration of colds was reduced by 8% (3% to 12%) and in children by 14% (7% to 21%). In children, 1 to 2 g/day vitamin C shortened colds by 18%. The severity of colds was also reduced by regular vitamin C administration.Seven comparisons examined the effect of therapeutic vitamin C (3249 episodes). No consistent effect of vitamin C was seen on the duration or severity of colds in the therapeutic trials.The majority of included trials were randomised, double-blind trials. The exclusion of trials that were either not randomised or not double-blind had no effect on the conclusions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The failure of vitamin C supplementation to reduce the incidence of colds in the general population indicates that routine vitamin C supplementation is not justified, yet vitamin C may be useful for people exposed to brief periods of severe physical exercise. Regular supplementation trials have shown that vitamin C reduces the duration of colds, but this was not replicated in the few therapeutic trials that have been carried out. Nevertheless, given the consistent effect of vitamin C on the duration and severity of colds in the regular supplementation studies, and the low cost and safety, it may be worthwhile for common cold patients to test on an individual basis whether therapeutic vitamin C is beneficial for them. Further therapeutic RCTs are warranted.
Kazunari Satomura, Tetsuhisa Kitamura, Takashi Kawamura, Takuro Shimbo, Motoi Watanabe, Mitsuhiro Kamei, Yoshihisa Takano, Akiko Tamakoshi, Great Cold Investigators-I
Prevention of upper respiratory tract infections by gargling: a randomized trial.
Am J Prev Med. 2005 Nov;29(4):302-7. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.06.013.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Gargling to wash the throat is commonly performed in Japan, and people believe that such hygienic routine, especially with gargle medicine, prevents upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). Its effectiveness, however, has not been established by clinical trials.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial carried out in 2002-2003 winter season and analyzed in 2003 and 2004.
PARTICIPANTS: Healthy volunteers (387) aged 18 to 65 years.
INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to water gargling, povidone-iodine gargling, and usual care (control). Subjects in the two gargling groups were requested to gargle with water or diluted povidone-iodine at least three times a day. Participants were followed for 60 days.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was first URTI incidence. Severity of URTI symptoms among incident cases was also evaluated. Both outcomes were assessed with a self-administered symptom record. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis.
RESULTS: A total of 130 participants contracted URTIs. The incidence rate of first URTI was 0.26 episodes/30 person-days among control subjects. The rate decreased to 0.17 episodes/30 person-days in the water gargling group, and 0.24 episodes/30 person-days in the povidone-iodine gargling group. Respective incidence rate ratios against controls were 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.41-0.99) and 0.89 (95% CI=0.60-1.33). A Cox regression (proportional hazard model) revealed the efficacy of water gargling (hazard ratio=0.60, 95% CI=0.39-0.95). Even when a URTI occurred, water gargling tended to attenuate bronchial symptoms (p=0.055).
CONCLUSIONS: Simple water gargling was effective to prevent URTIs among healthy people. This virtually cost-free modality would appreciably benefit the general population.
C B Del Mar, P P Glasziou, A B Spinks
Antibiotics for sore throat.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD000023. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000023.pub3. Epub 2006 Oct 18.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a very common reason for people to present for medical care. Although it remits spontaneously, primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for it.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2006) and EMBASE (January 1990 to December 2005).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or suppurative or non-suppurative complications of sore throat.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Potential studies were screened independently by two authors for inclusion, with differences in opinion resolved by discussion. Data were then independently extracted from studies selected by inclusion by two authors. Researchers from three studies were contacted for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS: There were 27 studies with 2835 cases of sore throat. 1. Non-suppurative complications: There was a trend for antibiotics to protect against acute glomerulonephritis, but there were insufficient cases to be sure. Several studies found antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever by more than two thirds (relative risk (RR) 0.22; 95% CI 0.02 to 2.08). 2. Suppurative complications: Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58); of acute sinusitis (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76); and of quinsy (peritonsillar abscess) compared to those taking placebo (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47). 3.
SYMPTOMS: Throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics by about one half. The greatest difference was seen at about 3 to 4 days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). By one week about 90% of treated and untreated patients were symptom-free. The overall number need to treat to prevent one sore throat at day 3 was just under six (95% CI 4.9 to 7.0); at week 1 it was 21 (95% CI 13.2 to 47.9). 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction: Analysis by: age; blind versus unblinded; or use of antipyretics, found no significant differences. Analysis of results of throat swabs showed that antibiotics were more effective against symptoms at day 3, RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.71) if the swabs were positive for Streptococcus, compared to RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.97) if negative. Similarly at week 1, RRs 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for positive, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.07) for negative swabs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can only be achieved by treating many with antibiotics, most of whom will derive no benefit. In emerging economies (where rates of acute rheumatic fever are high, for example), the number needed to treat may be much lower for antibiotics to be considered effective. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by about sixteen hours overall.
厚生労働省 厚生労働省健康局結核感染症課：抗微生物薬適正使用の手引き 第二版、2019.
Geoffrey Kp Spurling, Chris B Del Mar, Liz Dooley, Ruth Foxlee, Rebecca Farley
Delayed antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Sep 7;9(9):CD004417. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004417.pub5. Epub 2017 Sep 7.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost, and antibacterial resistance. One proposed strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing is to provide prescriptions, but to advise delay in antibiotic use with the expectation that symptoms will resolve first. This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2007, and updated in 2010 and 2013.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects on clinical outcomes, antibiotic use, antibiotic resistance, and patient satisfaction of advising a delayed prescription of antibiotics in respiratory tract infections.
SEARCH METHODS: For this 2017 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2017), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialised Register; Ovid MEDLINE (2013 to 25 May 2017); Ovid Embase (2013 to 2017 Week 21); EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1984 to 25 May 2017); Web of Science (2013 to 25 May 2017); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (1 September 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 September 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials involving participants of all ages defined as having an RTI, where delayed antibiotics were compared to immediate antibiotics or no antibiotics. We defined a delayed antibiotic as advice to delay the filling of an antibiotic prescription by at least 48 hours. We considered all RTIs regardless of whether antibiotics were recommended or not.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Three review authors independently extracted and collated data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information.
MAIN RESULTS: For this 2017 update we added one new trial involving 405 participants with uncomplicated acute respiratory infection. Overall, this review included 11 studies with a total of 3555 participants. These 11 studies involved acute respiratory infections including acute otitis media (three studies), streptococcal pharyngitis (three studies), cough (two studies), sore throat (one study), common cold (one study), and a variety of RTIs (one study). Five studies involved only children, two only adults, and four included both adults and children. Six studies were conducted in a primary care setting, three in paediatric clinics, and two in emergency departments.Studies were well reported, and appeared to be of moderate quality. Randomisation was not adequately described in two trials. Four trials blinded the outcomes assessor, and three included blinding of participants and doctors. We conducted meta-analysis for antibiotic use and patient satisfaction.We found no differences among delayed, immediate, and no prescribed antibiotics for clinical outcomes in the three studies that recruited participants with cough. For the outcome of fever with sore throat, three of the five studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and two found no difference. For the outcome of pain related to sore throat, two studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and three found no difference. One study compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotic for sore throat, and found no difference in clinical outcomes.Three studies included participants with acute otitis media. Of the two studies with an immediate antibiotic arm, one study found no difference for fever, and the other study favoured immediate antibiotics for pain and malaise severity on Day 3. One study including participants with acute otitis media compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotics and found no difference for pain and fever on Day 3.Two studies recruited participants with common cold. Neither study found differences for clinical outcomes between delayed and immediate antibiotic groups. One study favoured delayed antibiotics over no antibiotics for pain, fever, and cough duration (moderate quality evidence for all clinical outcomes - GRADE assessment).There were either no differences for adverse effects or results favoured delayed antibiotics over immediate antibiotics (low quality evidence - to GRADE assessment) with no significant differences in complication rates. Delayed antibiotics resulted in a significant reduction in antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics prescription (odds ratio (OR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.05). However, a delayed antibiotic was more likely to result in reported antibiotic use than no antibiotics (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.59 to 4.08) (moderate quality evidence - GRADE assessment).Patient satisfaction favoured delayed over no antibiotics (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.06). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between delayed antibiotics and immediate antibiotics (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10) (moderate quality evidence - GRADE assessment).None of the included studies evaluated antibiotic resistance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For many clinical outcomes, there were no differences between prescribing strategies. Symptoms for acute otitis media and sore throat were modestly improved by immediate antibiotics compared with delayed antibiotics. There were no differences in complication rates. Delaying prescribing did not result in significantly different levels of patient satisfaction compared with immediate provision of antibiotics (86% versus 91%) (moderate quality evidence). However, delay was favoured over no antibiotics (87% versus 82%). Delayed antibiotics achieved lower rates of antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics (31% versus 93%) (moderate quality evidence). The strategy of no antibiotics further reduced antibiotic use compared to delaying prescription for antibiotics (14% versus 28%). Delayed antibiotics for people with acute respiratory infection reduced antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics, but was not shown to be different to no antibiotics in terms of symptom control and disease complications. Where clinicians feel it is safe not to prescribe antibiotics immediately for people with respiratory infections, no antibiotics with advice to return if symptoms do not resolve is likely to result in the least antibiotic use while maintaining similar patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes to delaying prescription of antibiotics. Where clinicians are not confident in using a no antibiotic strategy, a delayed antibiotics strategy may be an acceptable compromise in place of immediate prescribing to significantly reduce unnecessary antibiotic use for RTIs, and thereby reduce antibiotic resistance, while maintaining patient safety and satisfaction levels.Editorial note: As a living systematic review, this review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
