Antihistamines in the common cold: A common prescription for a common condition
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2012 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v28i1.10916 |
Resumo: | ANTIHISTAMINES IN THE COMMON COLD: A COMMON PRESCRIPTON FOR A COMMON CONDITION Goals: Antihistamines are popular among doctors for treatment of symptoms of the common cold. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of antihistamines as the sole treatment for symptoms of the common cold in children and adults. Data sources:Medline, evidence-based medicine internet sites, Index of Portuguese Medical Journals and references of selected articles. Review methods: Clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials (RCT), published between January 1980 and October 2010 were collected using the MeSH terms: antihistamine and common cold. The Strength Of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) scale of the American Academy of Family Physicians was used for assigning levels of evidence and the strength of recommendation. Results: Seventy articles were found and seven were selected for this review. These include two guidelines on the management of the common cold that do not recommend antihistamines as a sole treatment option and one Cochrane meta-analysis that found no clinical benefit from the use of antihistamines alone. The results of some studies included suggested an increased risk of sedative effects with the use of first generation antihistamines. The authors of this meta-analysis recommend discontinuing the practice of prescribing these drugs in the common cold (level of evidence 1). Four RCT found that different antihistamines were no more effective than placebo in reducing acute cough. Three studies showed no significant differences in side effects (level of evidence 1). Conclusions: The evidence shows that the use of antihistamines as monotherapy in symptomatic treatment of the common cold is ineffective in children and adults (SOR A). Many trials suggest an increased risk of sedative effects with this therapy (SOR B). Sedation may be confused with prostration that would suggest a worsening of the clinical situation. This may add an unnecessary cost to a common prescription. |
id |
RCAP_c86894dc2daf0f46dd4ee3660be6b4d4 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.rpmgf.pt:article/10916 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Antihistamines in the common cold: A common prescription for a common conditionAnti-histamínicos no resfriado comum: Uma prescrição igualmente comumAntihistamineCommon ColdAnti-histamínicosResfriado ComumANTIHISTAMINES IN THE COMMON COLD: A COMMON PRESCRIPTON FOR A COMMON CONDITION Goals: Antihistamines are popular among doctors for treatment of symptoms of the common cold. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of antihistamines as the sole treatment for symptoms of the common cold in children and adults. Data sources:Medline, evidence-based medicine internet sites, Index of Portuguese Medical Journals and references of selected articles. Review methods: Clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials (RCT), published between January 1980 and October 2010 were collected using the MeSH terms: antihistamine and common cold. The Strength Of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) scale of the American Academy of Family Physicians was used for assigning levels of evidence and the strength of recommendation. Results: Seventy articles were found and seven were selected for this review. These include two guidelines on the management of the common cold that do not recommend antihistamines as a sole treatment option and one Cochrane meta-analysis that found no clinical benefit from the use of antihistamines alone. The results of some studies included suggested an increased risk of sedative effects with the use of first generation antihistamines. The authors of this meta-analysis recommend discontinuing the practice of prescribing these drugs in the common cold (level of evidence 1). Four RCT found that different antihistamines were no more effective than placebo in reducing acute cough. Three studies showed no significant differences in side effects (level of evidence 1). Conclusions: The evidence shows that the use of antihistamines as monotherapy in symptomatic treatment of the common cold is ineffective in children and adults (SOR A). Many trials suggest an increased risk of sedative effects with this therapy (SOR B). Sedation may be confused with prostration that would suggest a worsening of the clinical situation. This may add an unnecessary cost to a common prescription.Objectivos: A literatura salienta a popularidade, entre a comunidade médica, da abordagem terapêutica com anti-histamínicos para o resfriado comum. O objectivo deste trabalho consiste em rever a evidência sobre a efectividade e a segurança dos anti-histamínicos em monoterapia no resfriado comum em pacientes pediátricos e adultos. Fontes de dados: Medline, sítios de medicina baseada na evidência, Índex de Revistas Médicas Portuguesas e referências bibliográficas dos artigos seleccionados. Métodos de revisão: Pesquisa de normas de orientação clínica (NOC), revisões sistemáticas e ensaios clínicos aleatorizados e controlados (ECAC), publicados entre Janeiro/1980 e Outubro/2010, utilizando os termos MeSH: antihistamines e common cold. Foi utilizada a escala Strength Of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) para atribuição dos níveis de evidência e forças de recomendação. Resultados: Foram encontrados 70 artigos, dos quais sete foram seleccionados: duas NOC para abordagem do resfriado comum que não incluem anti-histamínicos em monoterapia como opção terapêutica; uma meta-análise da Cochrane que não encontrou benefício clínico com o uso de anti-histamínicos em monoterapia e que sugere um risco acrescido de efeitos sedativos com os de 1.a geração. Os autores recomendam a descontinuação da prescrição destes fármacos no resfriado comum (nível de evidência 1); quatro ECAC de boa qualidade nos quais se verificou que a terapêutica com diferentes anti-histamínicos foi tão eficaz quanto o placebo na redução da tosse aguda e, em três dos quais não se apresentaram diferenças significativas nos efeitos laterais (nível de evidência 1). Conclusões: A evidência disponível indica que o uso de anti-histamínicos em monoterapia na terapêutica sintomática do resfriado comum não é efectivo em crianças e adultos (SOR A). Diversos estudos sugerem um risco acrescido de efeitos sedativos com esta terapêutica (SOR B). Esta sedação é frequentemente confundida com uma prostração que sugeriria um agravamento do quadro, algo a acrescentar a um custo desnecessário associado a esta prescrição que apenas é evidentemente comum.Associação Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar2012-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v28i1.10916https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v28i1.10916Portuguese Journal of Family Medicine and General Practice; Vol. 28 No. 1 (2012): Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; 43-8Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; Vol. 28 Núm. 1 (2012): Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; 43-8Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; Vol. 28 N.º 1 (2012): Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; 43-82182-51812182-517310.32385/rpmgf.v28i1reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPporhttps://rpmgf.pt/ojs/index.php/rpmgf/article/view/10916https://rpmgf.pt/ojs/index.php/rpmgf/article/view/10916/10651Santos, José Agostinhoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-09-17T11:59:30Zoai:ojs.rpmgf.pt:article/10916Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openairemluisa.alvim@gmail.comopendoar:71602024-09-17T11:59:30Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Antihistamines in the common cold: A common prescription for a common condition Anti-histamínicos no resfriado comum: Uma prescrição igualmente comum |
title |
Antihistamines in the common cold: A common prescription for a common condition |
spellingShingle |
Antihistamines in the common cold: A common prescription for a common condition Santos, José Agostinho Antihistamine Common Cold Anti-histamínicos Resfriado Comum |
title_short |
Antihistamines in the common cold: A common prescription for a common condition |
title_full |
Antihistamines in the common cold: A common prescription for a common condition |
title_fullStr |
Antihistamines in the common cold: A common prescription for a common condition |
title_full_unstemmed |
Antihistamines in the common cold: A common prescription for a common condition |
title_sort |
Antihistamines in the common cold: A common prescription for a common condition |
author |
Santos, José Agostinho |
author_facet |
Santos, José Agostinho |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Santos, José Agostinho |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Antihistamine Common Cold Anti-histamínicos Resfriado Comum |
topic |
Antihistamine Common Cold Anti-histamínicos Resfriado Comum |
description |
ANTIHISTAMINES IN THE COMMON COLD: A COMMON PRESCRIPTON FOR A COMMON CONDITION Goals: Antihistamines are popular among doctors for treatment of symptoms of the common cold. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of antihistamines as the sole treatment for symptoms of the common cold in children and adults. Data sources:Medline, evidence-based medicine internet sites, Index of Portuguese Medical Journals and references of selected articles. Review methods: Clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials (RCT), published between January 1980 and October 2010 were collected using the MeSH terms: antihistamine and common cold. The Strength Of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) scale of the American Academy of Family Physicians was used for assigning levels of evidence and the strength of recommendation. Results: Seventy articles were found and seven were selected for this review. These include two guidelines on the management of the common cold that do not recommend antihistamines as a sole treatment option and one Cochrane meta-analysis that found no clinical benefit from the use of antihistamines alone. The results of some studies included suggested an increased risk of sedative effects with the use of first generation antihistamines. The authors of this meta-analysis recommend discontinuing the practice of prescribing these drugs in the common cold (level of evidence 1). Four RCT found that different antihistamines were no more effective than placebo in reducing acute cough. Three studies showed no significant differences in side effects (level of evidence 1). Conclusions: The evidence shows that the use of antihistamines as monotherapy in symptomatic treatment of the common cold is ineffective in children and adults (SOR A). Many trials suggest an increased risk of sedative effects with this therapy (SOR B). Sedation may be confused with prostration that would suggest a worsening of the clinical situation. This may add an unnecessary cost to a common prescription. |
publishDate |
2012 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2012-01-01 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v28i1.10916 https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v28i1.10916 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v28i1.10916 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://rpmgf.pt/ojs/index.php/rpmgf/article/view/10916 https://rpmgf.pt/ojs/index.php/rpmgf/article/view/10916/10651 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Associação Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Portuguese Journal of Family Medicine and General Practice; Vol. 28 No. 1 (2012): Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; 43-8 Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; Vol. 28 Núm. 1 (2012): Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; 43-8 Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; Vol. 28 N.º 1 (2012): Revista Portuguesa de Medicina Geral e Familiar; 43-8 2182-5181 2182-5173 10.32385/rpmgf.v28i1 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
mluisa.alvim@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1817547192656723968 |