Nasal decongestants in monotherapy for the common cold

Background : Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited. Objectives : To assess the efficacy, and short-and long-termsafety, of nasal decongestants used inmonotherapy to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in adults and children. Search methods : We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6, June 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016), Embase (2010 to 15 July 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 July 2016), LILACS (1982 to July 2016), Web of Science (1955 to July 2016) and clinical trials registers. Selection criteria : Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating the effectiveness and adverse effects of nasal decongestants compared with placebo for treating the common cold in adults and children. We excluded quasi-RCTs. Data collection and analysis : Three review authors independently extracted and summarised data on subjective measures of nasal congestion, overall patient wellbeing score, objective measures of nasal airway resistance, adverse effects and general recovery. One review author acted as arbiter in cases of disagreement. We categorised trials as single and multi-dose and analysed data both separately and together. We also analysed studies using an oral or topical nasal decongestant separately and together. Main results : We included 15 trials with 1838 participants. Fourteen studies included adult participants only (aged 18 years and over). In six studies the intervention was a single dose and in nine studies multiple doses were used. Nine studies used pseudoephedrine and three studies used oxymetazoline. Other decongestants included phenylpropanolamine, norephedrine and xylometazoline. Phenylpropanolamine (or norephedrine) is no longer available on the market therefore we did not include the results of these studies in the meta-analyses. Eleven studies used oral decongestants; four studies used topical decongestants. Participants were included after contracting the common cold. The duration of symptoms differed among studies; in 10 studies participants had symptoms for less than three days, in three studies symptoms were present for less than five days, one study counted the number of colds over one year, and one study experimentally induced the common cold. In the single-dose studies, the effectiveness of a nasal decongestant was measured on the same day, whereas the follow-up in multi-dose studies ranged between one and 10 days. Most studies were conducted in university settings (N = eight), six at a specific university common cold centre. Three studies were conducted at a university in collaboration with a hospital and two in a hospital only setting. In two studies the setting was unclear. There were large differences in the reporting of outcomes and the reporting of methods in most studies was limited. Therefore, we judged most studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Pooling was possible for a limited number of studies only; measures of effect are expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). A positive SMD represents an improvement in congestion. There is no defined minimal clinically important difference for measures of subjective improvement in nasal congestion, therefore we used the SMDs as a guide to assess whether an effect was small (0.2 to 0.49), moderate (0.5 to 0.79) or large (>= 0.8). Single-dose decongestant versus placebo: 10 studies compared a single dose of nasal decongestant with placebo and their effectiveness was tested between 15 minutes and 10 hours after dosing. Seven of 10 studies reported subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion; none reported overall patient well-being. However, pooling was not possible due to the large diversity in the measurement and reporting of symptoms of congestion. Two studies recorded adverse events. Both studies used an oral decongestant and each of them showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group versus the placebo group. Multi-dose decongestant versus placebo: nine studies compared multiple doses of nasal decongestants with placebo, but only five reported on the primary outcome, subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion. Only one study used a topical decongestant; none reported overall patient well-being. Subjective measures of congestion were significantly better for the treatment group compared with placebo approximately three hours after the last dose (SMD 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.92; P = 0.02; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, the SMD of 0.49 only indicates a small clinical effect. Pooling was based on two studies, one oral and one topical, therefore we were unable to assess the effects of oral and topical decongestants separately. Seven studies reported adverse events (six oral and one topical decongestant); meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group (125 per 1000) compared to the placebo group (126 per 1000). The odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the treatment group was 0.98 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; P = 0.90; GRADE: low-quality evidence). The results remained the same when we only considered studies using an oral decongestant (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39; P = 0.80; GRADE: low-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions : We were unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of single-dose nasal decongestants due to the limited evidence available. For multiple doses of nasal decongestants, the current evidence suggests that these may have a small positive effect on subjective measures of nasal congestion in adults with the common cold. However, the clinical relevance of this small effect is unknown and there is insufficient good-quality evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Due to the small number of studies that used a topical nasal decongestant, we were also unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of oral versus topical decongestants. Nasal decongestants do not seem to increase the risk of adverse events in adults in the short term. The effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants in children and the clinical relevance of their small effect in adults is yet to be determined

Ethical considerations of digital health technology in older adult care

No abstrac

Transitions of care for advanced cancer in post-acute and long-term care

No abstrac

Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, prostate cancer, and older adults: A global Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology drug review

Prostate cancer is a disease of older adults that has undergone a significant therapeutic paradigm shift in the last decade with the emergence of novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPis). One of the more commonly used ARPis is enzalutamide. This drug, along with darolutamide and apalutamide, initially received approvals in the metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer setting but is now utilized frequently in the metastatic castrate-sensitive and non-metastatic castration-resistant settings. Landmark phase III data illustrating ARPi efficacy in older adults are limited to those with excellent performance status. However, its role in unfit older prostate cancer patients remains to be explored in the context of a narrative review. This first-of-its-kind drug review aims to shed light on the most up-to-date evidence behind the unique toxicity profile of ARPis in the context of geriatric vulnerabilities such as cognitive and functional impairment, along with potential solutions and supporting evidence that exists to circumvent these issues in the vulnerable older adult

Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition: A mediator of sorafenib resistance in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most lethal cancers worldwide and its incidence is steadily rising. Currently, sorafenib remains the only approved standard treatment for patients with advanced HCC, as it has proven to increase survival in these patients. However, clinical and preclinical observations indicate that sorafenib treatment may have limited efficacy due to tumor progression from the rapid development of acquired resistance. Elucidation of the underlying mechanisms of evasive resistance to sorafenib is a major challenge in HCC research. In recent years, the role of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in the advancement of HCC and development of drug resistance has gained increasing attention. EMT is a developmental multistep molecular and cellular reprogramming process that is hijacked by cancer cells to enable aggressiveness. In this review, we provide an overview of the currently available preclinical studies on the EMT mechanisms underlying resistance to sorafenib treatment. Recent studies report enrichment of cancer stem cells (CSCs) after sorafenib treatment. Interestingly, EMT process has been implicated in the generation of CSCs associated with therapy resistance. We discuss how combination of sorafenib with EMT inhibitors could enhance the clinical response to sorafenib, resulting in longer duration of responses, than observed with sorafenib monotherapy. In particular, we discuss how these new insights may facilitate rational development of combination therapies in the future to impact survival of patients with advanced HCC

Hypomethylating agent-based therapies in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia - A joint review by the Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology and European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Trainee Committee.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with poor outcomes in older adults. A major goal of treatment is to balance quality of life and functional independence with disease control. With the approval of new, more tolerable regimens, more older adults are able to receive AML-directed therapy. Among these options are hypomethylating agents (HMAs), specifically azacitidine and decitabine. HMAs have become an integral part of AML therapy over the last two decades. These agents are used either as monotherapy or nowadays more commonly in combination with other agents such as the Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax. Biological AML characteristics, such as molecular and cytogenetic risk factors, play crucial roles in guiding treatment decisions. In patients with high-risk AML, HMAs are increasingly used rather than intensive chemotherapy, although further trials based on a risk-adapted approach using patient- and disease-related factors are needed. Here, we review trials and evidence for the use of HMA monotherapy and combination therapy in the management of older adults with AML. Furthermore, we discuss the use of HMAs and HMA combination therapies in AML, mechanisms of action, their incorporation into hematopoietic stem cell transplantation strategies, and their use in patients with comorbidities and reduced organ function