Intranasal ipratropium bromide for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is one of the most common illnesses in humans and constitutes an economic burden both in terms of productivity and expenditure for treatment. There is no proven cure for the common cold and symptomatic relief is the mainstay of treatment. The use of intranasal ipratropium bromide (IB) has been addressed in several studies and might prove an effective treatment for the common cold. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of IB versus placebo or no treatment on severity of rhinorrhoea and nasal congestion in children and adults with the common cold. Subjective overall improvement was another primary outcome and side effects (for example, dry mucous membranes, epistaxis and systemic anticholinergic effects) were reported as a secondary outcome. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review we searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 3, MEDLINE (1950 to March week 4, 2013), MEDLINE in-process and other non-indexed citations (8 April 2013), EMBASE (1974 to April 2013), AMED (1985 to April 2013), Biosis (1974 to February 2011) and LILACS (1985 to April 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IB to placebo or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We used a standardised form to extract relevant data and we contacted trial authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials with a total of 2144 participants were included. Four studies (1959 participants) addressed subjective change in severity of rhinorrhoea. All studies were consistent in reporting statistically significant changes in favour of IB. Nasal congestion was reported in four studies and was found to have no significant change between the two groups. Two studies found a positive response in the IB group for the global assessment of overall improvement. Side effects were more frequent in the IB group, odds ratio (OR) 2.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 3.11). Commonly encountered side effects included nasal dryness, blood tinged mucus and epistaxis. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with the common cold, the existing evidence, which has some limitations, suggests that IB is likely to be effective in ameliorating rhinorrhoea. IB had no effect on nasal congestion and its use was associated with more side effects compared to placebo or no treatment although these appeared to be well tolerated and self limiting. There is a need for larger, high-quality trials to determine the effectiveness of IB in relieving common cold symptoms.

Intranasal ipratropium bromide for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is one of the most common illnesses in humans and constitutes an economic burden both in terms of productivity and expenditure for treatment. There is no proven cure for the common cold and symptomatic relief is the mainstay of treatment. The use of intranasal ipratropium bromide (IB) has been addressed in several studies and might prove an effective treatment for the common cold. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of IB versus placebo or no treatment on severity of rhinorrhoea and nasal congestion in children and adults with the common cold. Subjective overall improvement was another primary outcome and side effects were reported as a secondary outcome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2011, Issue 1) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1950 to January week 4, 2011), MEDLINE in-process and other non-indexed citations (February 2011), EMBASE (1974 to February 2011), AMED (1985 to February 2011), Biosis (1974 to February 2011) and LILACS (1985 to February 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IB to placebo or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We used a standardised form to extract relevant data and we contacted trial authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials with a total of 2144 participants were included. Four studies (1959 participants) addressed subjective change in severity of rhinorrhoea. All studies were consistent in reporting statistically significant changes in favour of IB. Nasal congestion was reported in four studies and was found to have no significant change between the two groups. Two studies found a positive response in the IB group for the global assessment of overall improvement. Side effects were more frequent in the IB group, odds ratio (OR) 2.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 3.11). Commonly encountered side effects included nasal dryness, blood tinged mucus and epistaxis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with the common cold, the existing evidence, which has some limitations, suggests that IB is likely to be effective in ameliorating rhinorrhoea. IB had no effect on nasal congestion and its use was associated with more side effects compared to placebo or no treatment although these appeared to be well-tolerated and self-limiting. There is a need for larger, high-quality trials to determine the effectiveness of IB in relieving common cold symptoms.

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis creates a catabolic stress state promoting a systemic inflammatory response and nutritional deterioration. Adequate supply of nutrients plays an important role in recovery. Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) has been standard practice for providing exogenous nutrients to patients with severe acute pancreatitis. However, recent data suggest that enteral nutrition (EN) is not only feasible, but safer and more effective.Therefore, we sought to update our systematic review to re-evaluate the level of evidence. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of TPN versus EN on mortality, morbidity and length of hospital stay in patients with acute pancreatitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by computerized searches of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Additional studies were identified by searching Scisearch, bibliographies of review articles and identified trials. The search was undertaken in August 2000 and updated in September 2002, October 2003, November 2004 and November 2008. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials comparing TPN to EN in patients with acute pancreatitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. A standardized form was used to extract relevant data. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials with a total of 348 participants were included. Comparing EN to TPN for acute pancreatitis, the relative risk (RR) for death was 0.50 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.91), for multiple organ failure (MOF) was 0.55 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.81), for systemic infection was 0.39 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.65), for operative interventions was 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.67), for local septic complications was 0.74 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.35), and for other local complications was 0.70 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.13). Mean length of hospital stay was reduced by 2.37 days in EN vs TPN groups (95% CI -7.18 to 2.44). Furthermore, a subgroup analysis for EN vs TPN in patients with severe acute pancreatitis showed a RR for death of 0.18 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.58) and a RR for MOF of 0.46 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.29). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition significantly reduced mortality, multiple organ failure, systemic infections, and the need for operative interventions compared to those who received TPN. In addition, there was a trend towards a reduction in length of hospital stay. These data suggest that EN should be considered the standard of care for patients with acute pancreatitis requiring nutritional support.