De Sutter An I M, Saraswat Avadhesh, van Driel Mieke L
Department of Family Medicine and Primary Health Care, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, UZ 1K3, Ghent, Belgium, B-9000.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 29;2015(11):CD009345. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009345.pub2.
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.
To assess the effects of antihistamines on the common cold.
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).
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.
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We collected adverse effects information from the included trials.
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.
普通感冒是一种上呼吸道感染,最常见的病因是鼻病毒。它影响所有年龄组的人群,尽管在大多数情况下它是自限性的,但普通感冒仍然会导致相当高的发病率。抗组胺药通常在柜台出售,用于缓解普通感冒患者的症状,然而,关于其疗效的证据并不多。
评估抗组胺药对普通感冒的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库(2015年第6期)、医学索引数据库(1948年至2015年7月第4周)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(2010年至2015年8月)、护理学与健康照护数据库(1981年至2015年8月)、拉丁美洲及加勒比地区健康科学数据库(1982年至2015年8月)和生物学文摘数据库(1985年至2015年8月)。
我们选择了使用抗组胺药作为普通感冒单一疗法的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们排除了任何联合治疗的研究或在疾病中有过敏成分的患者中使用抗组胺药的研究。
两位作者独立评估试验质量并提取数据。我们从纳入的试验中收集不良反应信息。
我们纳入了18项RCT,这些研究发表在17篇出版物中(一篇出版物报告了两项试验),共有4342名普通感冒患者(其中212名是儿童),包括自然发生的和实验诱导的。干预措施包括使用抗组胺药作为单一疗法与安慰剂进行比较。在成年人中,抗组胺药对总体症状严重程度有短期有益效果:在治疗的第1天或第2天,45%使用抗组胺药的患者有有益效果,而使用安慰剂的患者为38%(优势比(OR)0.74,95%置信区间(CI)0.60至0.92)。然而,在中期(3至4天)至长期(6至10天),抗组胺药与安慰剂之间没有差异。在评估鼻塞、流涕和打喷嚏等个体症状时,与安慰剂相比,镇静性抗组胺药有一些有益效果(例如第3天的流涕:在4或5分的严重程度量表上,平均差(MD)为-0.23,95%CI为-0.39至-0.06;第3天的打喷嚏:在4分的严重程度量表上,MD为-0.35,95%CI为-0.49至-0.20),但这种效果在临床上无显著意义。镇静等不良事件在使用镇静性抗组胺药时更常被报告,尽管差异无统计学意义。只有两项试验纳入了儿童,结果相互矛盾。大多数试验的偏倚风险较低,尽管有些试验缺乏足够的试验质量信息。
抗组胺药对总体症状严重程度有有限的短期(治疗第1天和第2天)有益效果,但在中期至长期没有。对鼻塞、流涕或打喷嚏没有临床显著效果。尽管镇静性抗组胺药的副作用更常见,但差异无统计学意义。没有证据表明抗组胺药对儿童有效。