Management for the children with otitis media with effusion in the tertiary hospital. Effectiveness of an antihistamine-decongestant combination for young children with the common cold: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. The effectiveness of the nonsedating antihistamine loratadine plus pseudoephedrine in the symptomatic management of the common cold. Lack of efficacy of a decongestant-antihistamine combination for otitis media with effusion ("secretory" otitis media) in children. Results of a double-blind, randomized trial. Is acetaminophen as effective as an antihistamine-decongestant-acetaminophen combination in relieving symptoms of acute nasopharyngitis in children? A randomised, controlled trial. Is an antihistamine-decongestant combination effective in temporarily relieving symptoms of the common cold in preschool children? A comparative trial of slow-release aminophylline, salbutamol and a half dose combination in the prevention of childhood asthma. A controlled trial of the use of single versus combined-drug therapy in the treatment of acute episodes of asthma. The comparative effects of povidone-iodine and normal saline mouthwashes on oral mucositis in patients after high-dose chemotherapy and APBSCT--results of a randomized multicentre study. Efficacy and safety of a recombinant anti-immunoglobulin E antibody (omalizumab) in severe allergic asthma. The anti-IgE antibody omalizumab reduces exacerbations and steroid requirement in allergic asthmatics. Prevention and therapy of serous otitis media by oral decongestant: a double-blind study in pediatric practice. A prospective, double-blind phase II study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a topical histamine gel for the prophylaxis of oral mucositis in patients post hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Efficacy and safety of modified Mai-Men-Dong-Tang for treatment of allergic asthma. Randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 3 commonly used mouthwashes to treat chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Efficacy of aminophylline in the treatment of acute asthma exacerbation in children.
Recently, new evidence-based recommendations have been introduced for diagnosing and managing otitis media with effusion (OME) in children. However, there are some difficulties to follow the general guidelines in the tertiary hospitals. The purpose is to evaluate the efficiency of antibiotics or antihistamines for treatment of children with OME in the tertiary hospital with a randomized prospective clinical study.
                Eighty-four children with OME who had been diagnosed in the tertiary hospital were randomized to receive 5 different medications for 2 weeks. We prescribed antibiotics (amoxicillin-clavulanate syrup) in Group I (n=16), antibiotics/steroids (prednisolone) in Group II (n=18), antibiotics/antihistamines (ebastine) in Group III (n=15), antibiotics/steroids/antihistamines in Group IV (n=17), and mucolytics (ivy leaf extract) in Group V (n=17) for control. We followed-up children every 2 weeks and evaluated the state of OME at 3 months.
                Thirty six (42.9%) of 84 children were resolved within average 6.9 weeks after the treatments. Thirty-six (42.9%) were treated with ventilation tube insertion and 12 patients (14.3%) were observed. There was no difference in the resolution rates of OME among the five different protocols (P>0.05). There was no difference in the resolution rates among groups who used steroids, antihistamines, steroids and antihistamines, or other medications to manage 42 children with allergies (P>0.05).
                In the tertiary hospital, the cure rate of children with OME was not as high as well-known, and antibiotics or anti-allergic medications were not more effective than control. We may, therefore, need any other guidelines which are different from the previous evidence-based recommendations, including early operation in the tertiary hospitals. We tested the hypothesis that antihistamine-decongestant combinations cause no clinically significant relief of the symptoms of upper respiratory tract infections in young children by randomly assigning 96 children to one of three treatment groups: antihistamine-decongestant, placebo, and no treatment. There were no differences among the three study groups in the proportion of children considered "better" overall by the parent 48 hours after the initial assessment (drug, 67%; placebo, 71%; no treatment, 57%; p = 0.53). There were no differences among groups in individual or composite symptom score changes. Two thirds of parents whose children were eligible for the drug trial believed that their child needed medicine for cold symptoms. In the proportion of parents believing that their child needed medicine, there was no difference between those who consented to participate and those who refused. Parents who wanted medicine at the initial visit reported more improvement at follow-up, regardless of whether the child received drug, placebo, or no treatment. We conclude that there is no clinically significant improvement in symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection, including no significant placebo effect, in young children for whom an antihistamine-decongestant is prescribed. A multicentered trial compared the effects of the non-sedating antihistamine, loratadine, 5 mg plus pseudoephedrine 120 mg with a placebo on the signs and symptoms of the common cold. One hundred forty-two (142) subjects were treated with the loratadine/pseudoephedrine combination and 141 subjects were treated with placebo twice daily for five days. Evaluations by both subjects and physicians suggest that this antihistamine/decongestant combination is superior to placebo in relieving symptoms of the common cold. Specific differences were found in symptoms including nasal congestion, sneezing, postnasal drainage, and nasal discharge. Differences between groups for the following side effects were found: dry mouth (9% for the combination vs 2% for placebo), insomnia (6% vs 3%), and nervousness (4% vs 2%). There were no differences between groups for the frequency of drowsiness. In a double-blind, randomized trial of 553 infants and children who had otitis media with effusion ("secretory" otitis media), we compared the efficacy of a four-week course of an oral decongestant-antihistamine combination (pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, 4 mg per kilogram of body weight per day, and chlorpheniramine maleate, 0.35 mg per kilogram per day) with that of placebo. Among patients with initially unilateral disease, resolution of middle-ear effusion occurred at four weeks in 38 per cent of those treated with placebo and 34 per cent of those treated with drug (P = 0.74). Among patients with initially bilateral disease the corresponding proportions were 19 and 21 per cent, respectively (P = 0.67). Side effects were reported more often among drug-treated than placebo-treated patients. Decongestant-antihistamine combinations do not appear to be indicated for the treatment of otitis media with effusion in infants and children. To determine the efficiency of drugs, which include antihistaminic-decongestant-acetaminophen agents versus only acetaminophen in symptomatic treatment of acute nasopharyngitis in children.
                This clinical, randomized, controlled, single blind drug efficacy comparison research was conducted in 148 patients with acute nasopharyngitis between ages 2 and 12 years. After randomization, Group-1 consisted of cases (n: 86), which used OTC drugs [acetaminophen+diphenhydramine+pseudoephedrin] and Group-2 consisted of cases (n: 62), which used only acetaminophen. After receiving nasal swab for showing the viral etiology, symptoms were scored clinically on admission and then on 10 days follow-up period, and re-evaluated on the third and fifth days of the drug therapy with the same scoring scale. Any complications were noted during the 1-month follow-up period after taking the drugs.
                The virus isolation rate in Group-1 was 27.9% and in Group-2 was 22.6%. At the first day of study, before medication, clinic scores of the groups did not show a significant difference (Group-1 1.7 versus Group-2 2.0). Clinic scores in both groups on the third (Group-1 4.0 versus Group-2 4.1) and fifth days of therapy (Group-1 1.7 versus Group-2 2.0) were not different either. Also, the complication rate was not different during the 1-month follow-up period (Group-1 2.3% versus Group-2 8.0%, p: 0.12). The family response for the drug satisfaction in both groups was similar and positive.
                For relieving symptoms of acute nasopharyngitis in children, acetaminophen without any combination is as effective as OTC drugs containing acetaminophen, decongestant, and antihistaminics. To determine whether an antihistamine-decongestant combination (ADC) is superior to placebo in temporarily relieving symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection (URI) in preschool children.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
                Four pediatric offices in the Seattle, Wash, area.
                Children 6 months through 5 years of age with a URI of less than 7 days' duration.
                Children were randomly assigned to receive an ADC (brompheniramine maleate-phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride) or placebo as needed for URI symptoms. Two hours after each dose of study medication, changes in the child's runny nose, nasal congestion, cough, and sleep status were assessed by means of a standardized questionnaire.
                A total of 175 responses were recorded for 59 patients. There were no statistically significant differences in symptom improvement between the ADC and the placebo group (runny nose, p = 0.48; nasal congestion, p = 0.94; cough, p = 0.66). However, the proportion of children asleep 2 hours after receiving the ADC was significantly higher than the proportion receiving placebo (46.6% vs 26.5%; p = 0.01). Results were unchanged after control for the correlated nature of repeated responses, age, symptom duration, use of acetaminophen, time that the medication was given, and parental desire for medication.
                The ADC was equivalent to placebo in providing temporary relief of URI symptoms in preschool children. However, the ADC did have significantly greater sedative effects than did placebo. The effect of slow-release aminophylline, salbutamol and a half dose combination of both was compared in children with chronic asthma. Drugs were given over three consecutive 5-week periods during which patients recorded daily peak flow measurements and symptom scores. At the end of each treatment period pulmonary function tests were done. Sixteen of twenty-nine children completed the trial satisfactorily and their results have been used for analysis. The data show slow-release aminophylline and salbutamol to be equally effective and the half dose combination as effective as either drug alone. The results suggest there may be a therapeutic advantage in combining a beta 2 agonist with theophylline when high doses of either drug alone are not fully effective or when toxic effects occur. Eighty-nine patients who presented to the hospital for treatment of acute episodes of asthma were randomly assigned to initial therapy with subcutaneously administered epinephrine or 1 of 2 combination regimens consisting of intravenously administered aminophylline and either subcutaneously administered of epinephrine or inhaled isoproterenol. During the first hour of treatment, as a group, the patients treated with the 2-drug regimens showed greater objective improvement than did patients who received epinephrine alone. This was particularly true for patients with either severe airway obstruction or a subtherapeutic theophylline concentration at the time of presentation. There were no differences in the heart rate and blood pressure responses to the 3 regimens, and symptoms consistent with drug side effects were not reported more frequently by patients treated with 2 drugs. Thus, the combination of sympathomimetics and aminophylline appear more effective, and no more toxic, than epinephrine alone for the initial treatment of acute episodes of asthma. Antimicrobial solutions are widely used in the nursing care of chemotherapy induced oral mucositis (OM). There is little evidence, however, supporting their use for reducing mucosal damage. In our study, 132 patients were randomized to use normal saline (n=65) or povidone-iodine diluted 1:100 (n=67) mouthwashes for OM prophylaxis and treatment after high-dose chemotherapy comprising BEAM or HD-L-PAM followed by autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation. The study groups were well balanced in respect of age, sex, chemotherapy and the number of CD34+ cells in the graft. No significant difference was found between the groups in respect of OM characteristics, fever of unknown origin (FUO) and other infections. The antimicrobial solution was less tolerable for patients. OM occurred significantly more often in females than in males (86% vs 60%, P=0.0016) and was worse and of longer duration. The mechanical effect of mouthwashes might have a certain importance in FUO prevention. When indicating oral rinses, the patient's individual preference and tolerance of solutions offered should be considered. Patients with severe asthma are often inadequately controlled on existing anti-asthma therapy, constituting an unmet clinical need.
                This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the ability of omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, to improve disease control sufficiently to enable inhaled corticosteroid reduction in patients with severe allergic asthma.
                After a run-in period when an optimized fluticasone dose (> or =1000 microg/day) was received for 4 weeks, patients were randomized to receive subcutaneous omalizumab [minimum 0.016 mg/kg/IgE (IU/mL) per 4 weeks; n=126] or matching placebo (n=120) at intervals of 2 or 4 weeks. The study comprised a 16-week add-on phase of treatment followed by a 16-week fluticasone-reduction phase. Short-/long-acting beta(2)-agonists were allowed as needed.
                Median reductions in fluticasone dose were significantly greater with omalizumab than placebo: 60% vs. 50% (P=0.003). Some 73.8% and 50.8% of patients, respectively, achieved a > or =50% dose reduction (P=0.001). Fluticasone dose reduction to < or =500 microg/day occurred in 60.3% of omalizumab recipients vs. 45.8% of placebo-treated patients (P=0.026). Through both phases, omalizumab reduced rescue medication requirements, improved asthma symptoms and asthma-related quality of life compared to placebo.
                Omalizumab treatment improves asthma control in severely allergic asthmatics, reducing inhaled corticosteroid requirements without worsening of symptom control or increase in rescue medication use. The clinical benefit and steroid-sparing effect of treatment with the anti-immunoglobulin-E (IgE) antibody, omalizumab, was assessed in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. After a run-in period, 546 allergic asthmatics (aged 12-76 yrs), symptomatic despite inhaled corticosteroids (500-1,200 microg daily of beclomethasone dipropionate), were randomized to receive double-blind either placebo or omalizumab every 2 or 4 weeks (depending on body weight and serum total IgE) subcutaneously for 7 months. A constant beclomethasone dose was maintained during a 16-week stable-steroid phase and progressively reduced to the lowest dose required for asthma control over the following 8 weeks. The latter dose was maintained for the next 4 weeks. Asthma exacerbations represented the primary variable. Compared to the placebo group, the omalizumab group showed 58% fewer exacerbations per patient during the stable-steroid phase (p<0.001). During the steroid-reduction phase, there were 52% fewer exacerbations in the omalizumab group versus the placebo group (p<0.001) despite the greater reduction of the beclomethasone dosage on omalizumab (p<0.001). Treatment with omalizumab was well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups. These results indicate that omalizumab therapy safely improves asthma control in allergic asthmatics who remain symptomatic despite regular use of inhaled corticosteroids and simultaneous reduction in corticosteroid requirement. We studied the efficacy of (1) preventing the development of serous otitis media (SOM) by using an oral decongestant in children with acute otitis media and (2) treating SOM with an oral decongestant. In a randomized double-blind study, 190 children were treated for acute otitis media with antibiotics and either pseudoephedrine hydrochloride (Sudafed) or placebo. They were evaluated two weeks later by tympanometry and (independently) by clinical evaluation and pneumotoscopy. There were no significant differences between the two groups, except that males developed SOM significantly more often than did females. Use of decongestant and placebo was continued in 78 patients with SOM for up to four more weeks. Again, there were no siginificant differences between the treatment groups except that patients with an allergic history did significantly worse using a decongestant. Overall there was no benefit from pseudoephedrine in either the prevention or treatment of SOM. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of a topical gel containing histamine dihydrochloride (HDC) versus a placebo gel in preventing oral mucositis in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients. A total of 45 patients post-HSCT were enrolled in a prospective longitudinal, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Patients were evaluated twice weekly for oral mucositis (OMAS, NCI score), oral pain (VAS), oral function and salivary flow rate. Compliance was assessed using a patient diary. Oral mucositis developed in 85% of the HDC group and 63% of the placebo group. The mean maximal intensity for NCI score was 1.45+/-1 in the HDC group and 1.21+/-1.27 in the placebo group (P=0.37). The mean duration of oral mucositis was 4.7+/-3.6 and 2.33+/-2.23 days in the HDC and placebo groups, respectively (P=0.06). The same trends were measured with OMAS. Visual analogue scale for oral pain and oral function was not significantly different between the two groups. Histamine dihydrochloride was found to be safe. In the search for topical agents for the prevention of mucositis, we found that HDC neither improves nor worsens oral mucositis in HSCT patients. The balance between the pro- and anti-inflammatory effects of HDC should be investigated further in order to acquire a clinically effective topical medication based on its anti-inflammatory properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a Chinese herbal formula modified Mai-Men-Dong-Tang (mMMDT) for treatment of persistent, mild-to-moderate asthma. A total of 100 asthmatic patients were enrolled and assigned to three treatment groups in this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Over a period of 4 months, patients in groups A and B received 80 and 40 mg/kg/day of mMMDT, while those in group C received a placebo. Efficacy variables included changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), symptom score, serum total immunoglobulin E (IgE), and dust mite-specific IgE. Safety assessments included complete blood count, and liver and kidney function. Relative to baseline, significantly greater increases in FEV1 were demonstrated for both A and B groups in comparison with the placebo-treated analog (both p <0.05). Further, similar improvements in symptom score were observed for both mMMDT treatment groups. The serum total IgE for group A showed a decreasing tendency after treatment but no statistical difference was noted. Furthermore, no drug-related adverse effects were reported. Blood test, and liver and kidney function were within normal range during the study, with no marked changes demonstrated over time. In conclusion, the Chinese herbal formula mMMDT provided improvements in lung function and relieved asthma symptoms in our sample of patients. Given its efficacy and safety, we consider mMMDT a credible treatment regimen for persistent, mild-to-moderate asthma. To test the effectiveness of 3 mouthwashes used to treat chemotherapy-induced mucositis. The mouthwashes were as follows: salt and soda, chlorhexidine, and "magic" mouthwash (lidocaine, Benadryl, and Maalox). Study Design: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was implemented in 23 outpatient and office settings. Participants were monitored from the time they developed mucositis until cessation of the signs and symptoms of mucositis, or until they finished their 12-day supply of mouthwash. All participants followed a prescribed oral hygiene program and were randomly assigned a mouthwash. Nurses used the Oral Assessment Guide for initial assessment and taught patients how to assess their own mouths, then phoned the patients every other day to gather status reports.
                In 142 of 200 patients, there was a cessation of the signs and symptoms of mucositis within 12 days. No significant differences in time for the cessation of the signs and symptoms were observed among the 3 groups.
                Given the comparable effectiveness of the mouthwashes, the least costly was salt and soda mouthwash. The role of aminophylline (ethylene diamine salt of theophylline) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of asthma has not been well established in children.
                The aim of the study was to determine the additional therapeutic benefit of intravenous aminophylline in the treatment of children hospitalized for acute asthmatic exacerbation and treated with inhaled bronchodilators and glucocorticoid therapy.
                Thirty-eight children aged from 2 to 16 years (mean age 5.64 +/- 3.31), admitted for acute exacerbation of asthma, participated in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. All the subjects received methylprednisolone, administered intravenously, and nebulized salbutamol. The treatment group received intravenous aminophylline therapy and the placebo group received 0.9% saline solution for 24 hours.
                The number of salbutamol nebulizations needed and the clinical asthma scoring were recorded both at onset and at the end of 24 hours. There was no significant difference in either the mean number of nebulizations or the clinical asthma scores between the two groups (P = .7843, P = .8452).
                Intravenous aminophylline (ethylene diamine salt of theophylline) demonstrated no additional beneficial effect to the combination of beta adrenergic agonists and glucocorticoid treatment in acute asthma attack in children.
The pooled data demonstrate no benefit and some harm from the use of antihistamines or decongestants alone or in combination in the management of OME, therefore we recommend against their use.