Schoop Roland, Klein Peter, Suter Andy, Johnston Sebastian L
A. Vogel Bioforce AG, Roggwil, Switzerland.
Clin Ther. 2006 Feb;28(2):174-83. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.02.001.
The therapeutic effectiveness of Echinacea in the treatment and the prevention of colds has been debated. Studies of naturally occurring colds are hampered by variability in time from onset of symptoms to treatment and by heterogeneity in trial design. Experimental infection studies allow for the standardization of time to initiation of treatment, virus type and dose, and immune competence of volunteers.
To determine whether the negative results obtained in previous studies of Echinacea were a consequence of efficacy or of inadequate sample size, we performed a meta-analysis of experimental rhinovirus infection studies on the efficacy of Echinacea extracts to prevent symptomatic development of an experimentally induced cold.
We carried out a systematic search of English- and German-language literature using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CAplus, BIOSIS, CABA, AGRICOLA, TOXCENTER, SCISEARCH, NAHL, and NAPRALERT, databases and the search terms Echinacea, black Sampson, coneflower, and Roter Sonnenbut. Matching documents were then searched for > or = 1 of the following terms: rhinovirus, RV, inoculation, Inokulation, induced, induziert, artificial, and artifiziell. Suitable studies were identified and pooled for analysis. The primary end point was the development of symptomatic clinical colds, as defined by the authors of the original studies. Results were reported as differences in the proportion of subjects with symptomatic episodes of a common cold, expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. The secondary outcome was the difference in total symptom severity scores between treatment groups (assessed daily by integrating the severity scores of 8 individual cold-related symptoms that were rated on a scale from 0 [absent] to 4 [very severe]).
A total of 234 articles were identified through the literature search; 231 were excluded from the analysis because they related to studies of spontaneous common colds. Three suitable studies were selected for pooling of data. Based on the analysis, the likelihood of experiencing a clinical cold was 55% higher with placebo than with Echinacea (OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.02-2.36]; P<0.043). The absolute difference in total symptom scores between groups was -1.96 (95% CI, -4.83 to 0.90; P=NS).
This meta-analysis suggests that standardized extracts of Echinacea were effective in the prevention of symptoms of the common cold after clinical inoculation, compared with placebo. Further prospective, appropriately powered clinical studies are required to confirm this finding.
紫锥菊在治疗和预防感冒方面的疗效一直存在争议。对自然发生感冒的研究受到从症状出现到治疗的时间变异性以及试验设计异质性的阻碍。实验性感染研究允许对治疗开始时间、病毒类型和剂量以及志愿者的免疫能力进行标准化。
为了确定在先前紫锥菊研究中获得的阴性结果是疗效的结果还是样本量不足的结果,我们对紫锥菊提取物预防实验性诱导感冒症状发展的疗效的鼻病毒感染实验研究进行了荟萃分析。
我们使用MEDLINE、EMBASE、CAplus、BIOSIS、CABA、AGRICOLA、TOXCENTER、SCISEARCH、NAHL和NAPRALERT数据库以及搜索词紫锥菊、黑参、松果菊和红太阳菊,对英文和德文文献进行了系统搜索。然后在匹配的文献中搜索以下术语中的一个或多个:鼻病毒、RV、接种、Inokulation、诱导、induzier、人工、和artifiziell。确定并汇总合适的研究进行分析。主要终点是原始研究作者定义的有症状临床感冒的发生情况。结果报告为患普通感冒有症状发作的受试者比例的差异,以比值比(OR)和95%可信区间表示。次要结果是治疗组之间总症状严重程度评分的差异(通过整合8个与感冒相关的个体症状的严重程度评分来每日评估,这些症状的评分范围为0[无]至4[非常严重])。
通过文献搜索共识别出234篇文章;231篇被排除在分析之外,因为它们与自发性普通感冒的研究有关。选择了三项合适的研究进行数据汇总。基于分析,服用安慰剂的人患临床感冒的可能性比服用紫锥菊的人高55%(OR,1.55[95%CI,1.02 - 2.36];P<0.043)。两组之间总症状评分的绝对差异为-1.96(95%CI,-4.83至0.90;P=无显著性差异)。
这项荟萃分析表明,与安慰剂相比,紫锥菊的标准化提取物在临床接种后预防普通感冒症状方面是有效的。需要进一步进行前瞻性、有足够样本量的临床研究来证实这一发现。