Rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold: a randomised controlled trial. Bird, G., Braithwaite, I., Harper, J., Koorevaar, I., van den Berg, M., Maijers, I., Kearns, N., Dilcher, M., Jennings, L., Fingleton, J., Shortt, N., Weatherall, M., & Beasley, R. BMJ Open, 11(11):e047760, November, 2021.
Rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold: a randomised controlled trial [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
Background The common cold is the most common infectious disease affecting humans and has a substantial economic impact on society. Human rhinoviruses, which cause almost two-thirds of colds, have demonstrated temperature-dependent replication which is optimal between 33°C and 35°C. Methods This randomised, single-blind, parallel-group trial completed at a single-centre in New Zealand, recruited 170 participants aged 18–75 years (mean age 27.5 years) who were within 48 hours of common cold symptom onset and had a symptom score (the Modified Jackson Score (MJS)) ≥7 and a negative point-of-care test for influenza. Participants were blinded to the intervention and randomised (1:1) to 5 days of either nasal high flow rhinothermy (rNHF) (100% humidified air delivered at 35 L/min and 41°C for 2 hours daily) (n=85) or ‘sham’ rhinothermy (100% humidified air delivered at 10 L/min and 31°C for 10 min daily) (n=85) and completed daily symptom diaries, which included the MJS, for 14 days, to investigate whether rNHF reduced common cold symptom severity and duration compared with ‘sham’ rhinothermy. Results An intention-to-treat superiority analysis included all randomised participants and showed no difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome, the day 4 MJS analysed by analysis of covariance: mean (SD) 6.33 (3.97) for rNHF vs 5.8 (3.15) for ‘sham’; estimated difference (95% CI) 0.37 (−0.69 to 1.42), p=0.49. There was no difference in time until resolution of symptoms: mean (SD) 5.96 (4.47) days for rNHF vs 6.42 (4.09) days for ‘sham’; estimated difference (95% CI) 1.02 (0.75 to 1.38), p=0.91. There were no serious adverse events related to the study treatments. Conclusions This well-powered, single-blind randomised controlled trial does not provide evidence that 5 days of rNHF (100% humidified air heated to 41°C delivered at 35 L/min for 2 hours daily) reduces common cold symptom severity or duration. However, investigation of rNHF in the treatment of influenza is warranted. Trial registration number ACTRN12617001340325.
@article{bird_rhinothermy_2021,
	title = {Rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold: a randomised controlled trial},
	volume = {11},
	issn = {2044-6055, 2044-6055},
	shorttitle = {Rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold},
	url = {https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047760},
	doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047760},
	abstract = {Background
              The common cold is the most common infectious disease affecting humans and has a substantial economic impact on society. Human rhinoviruses, which cause almost two-thirds of colds, have demonstrated temperature-dependent replication which is optimal between 33°C and 35°C.
            
            
              Methods
              This randomised, single-blind, parallel-group trial completed at a single-centre in New Zealand, recruited 170 participants aged 18–75 years (mean age 27.5 years) who were within 48 hours of common cold symptom onset and had a symptom score (the Modified Jackson Score (MJS)) ≥7 and a negative point-of-care test for influenza. Participants were blinded to the intervention and randomised (1:1) to 5 days of either nasal high flow rhinothermy (rNHF) (100\% humidified air delivered at 35 L/min and 41°C for 2 hours daily) (n=85) or ‘sham’ rhinothermy (100\% humidified air delivered at 10 L/min and 31°C for 10 min daily) (n=85) and completed daily symptom diaries, which included the MJS, for 14 days, to investigate whether rNHF reduced common cold symptom severity and duration compared with ‘sham’ rhinothermy.
            
            
              Results
              An intention-to-treat superiority analysis included all randomised participants and showed no difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome, the day 4 MJS analysed by analysis of covariance: mean (SD) 6.33 (3.97) for rNHF vs 5.8 (3.15) for ‘sham’; estimated difference (95\% CI) 0.37 (−0.69 to 1.42), p=0.49. There was no difference in time until resolution of symptoms: mean (SD) 5.96 (4.47) days for rNHF vs 6.42 (4.09) days for ‘sham’; estimated difference (95\% CI) 1.02 (0.75 to 1.38), p=0.91. There were no serious adverse events related to the study treatments.
            
            
              Conclusions
              This well-powered, single-blind randomised controlled trial does not provide evidence that 5 days of rNHF (100\% humidified air heated to 41°C delivered at 35 L/min for 2 hours daily) reduces common cold symptom severity or duration. However, investigation of rNHF in the treatment of influenza is warranted.
            
            
              Trial registration number
              ACTRN12617001340325.},
	language = {en},
	number = {11},
	urldate = {2022-03-04},
	journal = {BMJ Open},
	author = {Bird, Grace and Braithwaite, Irene and Harper, James and Koorevaar, Iris and van den Berg, Marthe and Maijers, Ingrid and Kearns, Nethmi and Dilcher, Meik and Jennings, Lance and Fingleton, James and Shortt, Nick and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},
	month = nov,
	year = {2021},
	pages = {e047760},
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021