Gail Patrick, MD, MPP

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

Mrs. D is a 45-year-old patient whom you’ve treated for type 2 diabetes for several years. On her latest visit, she reports a loss of energy and difficulty sleeping and wonders if they could be related to the diabetes. As you explore further and question Mrs. D about these symptoms, she becomes tearful—and tells you she has episodes of sadness and no longer enjoys things the way she used to. Although she has no past history of depression, when you suggest that her symptoms may be an indication of depression, she readily agrees.

You discuss treatment options, including antidepressants and therapy. Mrs. D decides to try medication. But with so many antidepressants on the market, how do you determine which to choose?

Major depression is the fourth leading cause of disease globally, according to the World Health Organization.² Depression is common in the United States as well, and primary care physicians are often the ones who are diagnosing and treating it. In fact, the US Preventive Services Task Force recently expanded its recommendation that primary care providers screen adults for depression, to include adolescents ages 12 to 18 years.³ When depression is diagnosed, physicians must help patients decide on an initial treatment plan.

All antidepressants are not equal

Options for initial treatment of unipolar major depression include psychotherapy and the use of an antidepressant. For mild and moderate depression, psychotherapy alone is as effective as medication. Combined psychotherapy and antidepressants are more effective than either treatment alone for all degrees of depression.⁴

The ideal medication for depression would be a drug with a high level of effectiveness and a low side-effect profile; until now, however, there has been little evidence to support 1 antidepressant over another. Previous meta-analyses have concluded that there are no significant differences in either efficacy or acceptability among the various second-generation antidepressants on the market.^5,6 Thus, physicians have historically made initial monotherapy treatment decisions based on side effects and cost.^7,8 The meta-analysis we report on here tells a different story, providing strong evidence that some antidepressants are more effective and better tolerated than others.

STUDY SUMMARY: Meta-analysis reveals 2 “best” drugs

Cipriani et al¹ conducted a systematic review and multiple-treatments meta-analysis of 117 prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Taken together, the RCTs evaluated the comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 second-generation antidepressants: bupropion, citalopram, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. The methodology of this meta-analysis differed from that of traditional meta-analyses by allowing the integration of data from both direct and indirect comparisons. (An indirect comparison is one in which drugs from different trials are assessed by combining the results of their effectiveness and comparing the combined finding with the effectiveness of a drug that all the trials have in common.) Previous studies, based only on direct comparisons, yielded inconsistent results.

The studies included in this meta-analysis were all RCTs in which 1 of these 12 antidepressants was tested against 1, or several, other second-generation antidepressants as monotherapy for the acute treatment phase of unipolar major depression. The authors excluded placebo-controlled trials in order to evaluate efficacy and acceptability of the study medications relative to other commonly used antidepressants. They defined acute treatment as 8 weeks of antidepressant therapy, with a range of 6 to 12 weeks. The primary outcomes studied were response to treatment and dropout rate.

Response to treatment (efficacy) was constructed as a Yes or No variable; a positive response was defined as a reduction of ≥50% in symptom score on either the Hamilton depression rating scale or the Montgomery-Asberg rating scale, or a rating of “improved” or “very much improved” on the clinical global impression at 8 weeks. Efficacy was calculated on an intention-to-treat basis; if data were missing for a participant, that person was classified as a nonresponder.

Dropout rate was used to represent acceptability, as the authors believed it to be a more clinically meaningful measure than either side effects or symptom scores. Comparative efficacy and acceptability were analyzed. Fluoxetine—the first of the second-generation antidepressants—was used as the reference medication. The ( FIGURE ) shows the outcomes for 9 of the antidepressants, compared with those of fluoxetine. The other 2 antidepressants, milnacipran and reboxetine, are omitted because they are not available in the United States.

The overall meta-analysis included 25,928 individuals, with 24,595 in the efficacy analysis and 24,693 in the acceptability analysis. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the participants were women. The mean duration of follow-up was 8.1 weeks, and mean sample size per study was 110. Studies of women with postpartum depression were excluded.

Escitalopram and sertraline stand out. Overall, escitalopram, mirtazapine, sertraline, and venlafaxine were significantly more efficacious than fluoxetine or the other medications. Bupropion, citalopram, escitalopram, and sertraline were better tolerated than the other antidepressants. Escitalopram and sertraline were found to have the best combination of efficacy and acceptability.

Efficacy results. Fifty-nine percent of participants responded to sertraline, vs a 52% response rate for fluoxetine (number needed to treat [NNT]=14). Similarly, 52% of participants responded to escitalopram, compared with 47% of those taking fluoxetine (NNT=20).

Acceptability results. In terms of dropout rate, 28% of participants discontinued fluoxetine, vs 24% of patients taking sertraline. This means that 25 patients would need to be treated with sertraline, rather than fluoxetine, to avoid 1 discontinuation. In the comparison of fluoxetine vs escitalopram, 25% discontinued fluoxetine, compared with 24% who discontinued escitalopram.

The efficacy and acceptability of sertraline and escitalopram compared with other second-generation antidepressant medications show similar trends.

The generic advantage. The investigators recommend sertraline as the best choice for an initial antidepressant because it is available in generic form and is therefore lower in cost. They further recommend that sertraline, instead of fluoxetine or placebo, be the new standard against which other antidepressants are compared.

FIGURE
Sertraline and escitalopram come out on top

WHAT’S NEW?: Antidepressant choice is evidence-based

We now have solid evidence for choosing sertraline or escitalopram as the first medication to use when treating a patient with newly diagnosed depression. This represents a practice change because antidepressants that are less effective and less acceptable have been chosen more frequently than either of these medications. That conclusion is based on our analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey database for outpatient and ambulatory clinic visits in 2005-2006 (the most recent data available). We conducted this analysis to determine which of the second-generation antidepressants were prescribed most for initial monotherapy of major depression.

Our finding: An estimated 4 million patients ages 18 years and older diagnosed with depression in the course of the study year received new prescriptions for a single antidepressant. Six medications accounted for 90% of the prescriptions, in the following order:

• fluoxetine (Prozac)
• duloxetine (Cymbalta)
• escitalopram (Lexapro)
• paroxetine (Paxil)
• venlafaxine (Effexor)
• sertraline (Zoloft).

Sertraline and escitalopram, the drugs shown to be most effective and acceptable in the Cipriani meta-analysis, accounted for 11.8% and 14.5% of the prescriptions, respectively.

CAVEATS: Meta-analysis looked only at acute treatment phase

The results of this study are limited to initial therapy as measured at 8 weeks. Little long-term outcome data are available; response to initial therapy may not be a predictor of full remission or long-term success. Current guidelines suggest maintenance of the initial successful therapy, often with increasing intervals between visits, to prevent relapse.⁹

This study does not add new insight into long-term response rates. Nor does it deal with choice of a replacement or second antidepressant for nonresponders or those who cannot tolerate the initial drug.

What’s more, the study covers drug treatment alone, which may not be the best initial treatment for depression. Psychotherapy, in the form of cognitive behavioral therapy or interpersonal therapy, when available, is equally effective, has fewer potential physiologic side effects, and may produce longer-lasting results.^10,11

Little is known about study design

The authors of this study had access only to limited information about inclusion criteria and the composition of initial study populations or settings. There is a difference between a trial designed to evaluate the “efficacy” of an intervention (“the beneficial and harmful effects of an intervention under controlled circumstances”) and the “effectiveness” of an intervention (the “beneficial and harmful effects of the intervention under usual circumstances”).¹² It is not clear which of the 117 studies were efficacy studies and which were effectiveness studies. This may limit the overall generalizability of the study results to a primary care population.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were selected exclusively from published literature. There is some evidence that there is a bias toward the publication of studies with positive results, which may have the effect of overstating the effectiveness of a given antidepressant.¹³ However, we have no reason to believe that this bias would favor any particular drug.

Most of the included studies were sponsored by drug companies. Notably, pharmaceutical companies have the option of continuing to conduct trials of medications until a study results in a positive finding for their medication, with no penalty for the suppression of equivocal or negative results (negative publication bias). Under current FDA guidelines, there is little transparency to the consumer as to how many trials have been undertaken and the direction of the results, published or unpublished.¹⁴

We doubt that either publication bias or the design and sponsorship of the studies included in this meta-analysis present significant threats to the validity of these findings over other sources upon which guidelines rely, given that these issues are common to much of the research on pharmacologic therapy. We also doubt that the compensation of the authors by pharmaceutical companies would bias the outcome of the study in this instance. One of the authors (TAF) received compensation from Pfizer, the maker of Zoloft, which is also available as generic sertraline. None of the authors received compensation from Forest Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Lexapro (escitalopram).

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: No major barriers are anticipated

Both sertraline and escitalopram are covered by most health insurers. As noted above, sertraline is available in generic formulation, and is therefore much less expensive than escitalopram. In a check of online drug prices, we found a prescription for a 3-month supply of Lexapro (10 mg) to cost about $250; a 3-month supply of generic sertraline (100 mg) from the same sources would cost approximately $35 (www.pharmcychecker.com). Both Pfizer, the maker of Zoloft, and Forest Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Lexapro, have patient assistance programs to make these medications available to low-income, uninsured patients.

Acknowledgements

The PURLs Surveillance System is supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR02499 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

The authors wish to acknowledge Sofia Medvedev, PhD, of the University HealthSystem Consortium in Oak Brook, Ill, for analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data and the UHC Clinical Database.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

Mrs. D is a 45-year-old patient whom you’ve treated for type 2 diabetes for several years. On her latest visit, she reports a loss of energy and difficulty sleeping and wonders if they could be related to the diabetes. As you explore further and question Mrs. D about these symptoms, she becomes tearful—and tells you she has episodes of sadness and no longer enjoys things the way she used to. Although she has no past history of depression, when you suggest that her symptoms may be an indication of depression, she readily agrees.

You discuss treatment options, including antidepressants and therapy. Mrs. D decides to try medication. But with so many antidepressants on the market, how do you determine which to choose?

Major depression is the fourth leading cause of disease globally, according to the World Health Organization.² Depression is common in the United States as well, and primary care physicians are often the ones who are diagnosing and treating it. In fact, the US Preventive Services Task Force recently expanded its recommendation that primary care providers screen adults for depression, to include adolescents ages 12 to 18 years.³ When depression is diagnosed, physicians must help patients decide on an initial treatment plan.

All antidepressants are not equal

Options for initial treatment of unipolar major depression include psychotherapy and the use of an antidepressant. For mild and moderate depression, psychotherapy alone is as effective as medication. Combined psychotherapy and antidepressants are more effective than either treatment alone for all degrees of depression.⁴

The ideal medication for depression would be a drug with a high level of effectiveness and a low side-effect profile; until now, however, there has been little evidence to support 1 antidepressant over another. Previous meta-analyses have concluded that there are no significant differences in either efficacy or acceptability among the various second-generation antidepressants on the market.^5,6 Thus, physicians have historically made initial monotherapy treatment decisions based on side effects and cost.^7,8 The meta-analysis we report on here tells a different story, providing strong evidence that some antidepressants are more effective and better tolerated than others.

STUDY SUMMARY: Meta-analysis reveals 2 “best” drugs

Cipriani et al¹ conducted a systematic review and multiple-treatments meta-analysis of 117 prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Taken together, the RCTs evaluated the comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 second-generation antidepressants: bupropion, citalopram, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. The methodology of this meta-analysis differed from that of traditional meta-analyses by allowing the integration of data from both direct and indirect comparisons. (An indirect comparison is one in which drugs from different trials are assessed by combining the results of their effectiveness and comparing the combined finding with the effectiveness of a drug that all the trials have in common.) Previous studies, based only on direct comparisons, yielded inconsistent results.

The studies included in this meta-analysis were all RCTs in which 1 of these 12 antidepressants was tested against 1, or several, other second-generation antidepressants as monotherapy for the acute treatment phase of unipolar major depression. The authors excluded placebo-controlled trials in order to evaluate efficacy and acceptability of the study medications relative to other commonly used antidepressants. They defined acute treatment as 8 weeks of antidepressant therapy, with a range of 6 to 12 weeks. The primary outcomes studied were response to treatment and dropout rate.

Response to treatment (efficacy) was constructed as a Yes or No variable; a positive response was defined as a reduction of ≥50% in symptom score on either the Hamilton depression rating scale or the Montgomery-Asberg rating scale, or a rating of “improved” or “very much improved” on the clinical global impression at 8 weeks. Efficacy was calculated on an intention-to-treat basis; if data were missing for a participant, that person was classified as a nonresponder.

Dropout rate was used to represent acceptability, as the authors believed it to be a more clinically meaningful measure than either side effects or symptom scores. Comparative efficacy and acceptability were analyzed. Fluoxetine—the first of the second-generation antidepressants—was used as the reference medication. The ( FIGURE ) shows the outcomes for 9 of the antidepressants, compared with those of fluoxetine. The other 2 antidepressants, milnacipran and reboxetine, are omitted because they are not available in the United States.

The overall meta-analysis included 25,928 individuals, with 24,595 in the efficacy analysis and 24,693 in the acceptability analysis. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the participants were women. The mean duration of follow-up was 8.1 weeks, and mean sample size per study was 110. Studies of women with postpartum depression were excluded.

Escitalopram and sertraline stand out. Overall, escitalopram, mirtazapine, sertraline, and venlafaxine were significantly more efficacious than fluoxetine or the other medications. Bupropion, citalopram, escitalopram, and sertraline were better tolerated than the other antidepressants. Escitalopram and sertraline were found to have the best combination of efficacy and acceptability.

Efficacy results. Fifty-nine percent of participants responded to sertraline, vs a 52% response rate for fluoxetine (number needed to treat [NNT]=14). Similarly, 52% of participants responded to escitalopram, compared with 47% of those taking fluoxetine (NNT=20).

Acceptability results. In terms of dropout rate, 28% of participants discontinued fluoxetine, vs 24% of patients taking sertraline. This means that 25 patients would need to be treated with sertraline, rather than fluoxetine, to avoid 1 discontinuation. In the comparison of fluoxetine vs escitalopram, 25% discontinued fluoxetine, compared with 24% who discontinued escitalopram.

The efficacy and acceptability of sertraline and escitalopram compared with other second-generation antidepressant medications show similar trends.

The generic advantage. The investigators recommend sertraline as the best choice for an initial antidepressant because it is available in generic form and is therefore lower in cost. They further recommend that sertraline, instead of fluoxetine or placebo, be the new standard against which other antidepressants are compared.

FIGURE
Sertraline and escitalopram come out on top

WHAT’S NEW?: Antidepressant choice is evidence-based

We now have solid evidence for choosing sertraline or escitalopram as the first medication to use when treating a patient with newly diagnosed depression. This represents a practice change because antidepressants that are less effective and less acceptable have been chosen more frequently than either of these medications. That conclusion is based on our analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey database for outpatient and ambulatory clinic visits in 2005-2006 (the most recent data available). We conducted this analysis to determine which of the second-generation antidepressants were prescribed most for initial monotherapy of major depression.

Our finding: An estimated 4 million patients ages 18 years and older diagnosed with depression in the course of the study year received new prescriptions for a single antidepressant. Six medications accounted for 90% of the prescriptions, in the following order:

• fluoxetine (Prozac)
• duloxetine (Cymbalta)
• escitalopram (Lexapro)
• paroxetine (Paxil)
• venlafaxine (Effexor)
• sertraline (Zoloft).

Sertraline and escitalopram, the drugs shown to be most effective and acceptable in the Cipriani meta-analysis, accounted for 11.8% and 14.5% of the prescriptions, respectively.

CAVEATS: Meta-analysis looked only at acute treatment phase

The results of this study are limited to initial therapy as measured at 8 weeks. Little long-term outcome data are available; response to initial therapy may not be a predictor of full remission or long-term success. Current guidelines suggest maintenance of the initial successful therapy, often with increasing intervals between visits, to prevent relapse.⁹

This study does not add new insight into long-term response rates. Nor does it deal with choice of a replacement or second antidepressant for nonresponders or those who cannot tolerate the initial drug.

What’s more, the study covers drug treatment alone, which may not be the best initial treatment for depression. Psychotherapy, in the form of cognitive behavioral therapy or interpersonal therapy, when available, is equally effective, has fewer potential physiologic side effects, and may produce longer-lasting results.^10,11

Little is known about study design

The authors of this study had access only to limited information about inclusion criteria and the composition of initial study populations or settings. There is a difference between a trial designed to evaluate the “efficacy” of an intervention (“the beneficial and harmful effects of an intervention under controlled circumstances”) and the “effectiveness” of an intervention (the “beneficial and harmful effects of the intervention under usual circumstances”).¹² It is not clear which of the 117 studies were efficacy studies and which were effectiveness studies. This may limit the overall generalizability of the study results to a primary care population.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were selected exclusively from published literature. There is some evidence that there is a bias toward the publication of studies with positive results, which may have the effect of overstating the effectiveness of a given antidepressant.¹³ However, we have no reason to believe that this bias would favor any particular drug.

Most of the included studies were sponsored by drug companies. Notably, pharmaceutical companies have the option of continuing to conduct trials of medications until a study results in a positive finding for their medication, with no penalty for the suppression of equivocal or negative results (negative publication bias). Under current FDA guidelines, there is little transparency to the consumer as to how many trials have been undertaken and the direction of the results, published or unpublished.¹⁴

We doubt that either publication bias or the design and sponsorship of the studies included in this meta-analysis present significant threats to the validity of these findings over other sources upon which guidelines rely, given that these issues are common to much of the research on pharmacologic therapy. We also doubt that the compensation of the authors by pharmaceutical companies would bias the outcome of the study in this instance. One of the authors (TAF) received compensation from Pfizer, the maker of Zoloft, which is also available as generic sertraline. None of the authors received compensation from Forest Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Lexapro (escitalopram).

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: No major barriers are anticipated

Both sertraline and escitalopram are covered by most health insurers. As noted above, sertraline is available in generic formulation, and is therefore much less expensive than escitalopram. In a check of online drug prices, we found a prescription for a 3-month supply of Lexapro (10 mg) to cost about $250; a 3-month supply of generic sertraline (100 mg) from the same sources would cost approximately $35 (www.pharmcychecker.com). Both Pfizer, the maker of Zoloft, and Forest Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Lexapro, have patient assistance programs to make these medications available to low-income, uninsured patients.

Acknowledgements

The PURLs Surveillance System is supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR02499 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

The authors wish to acknowledge Sofia Medvedev, PhD, of the University HealthSystem Consortium in Oak Brook, Ill, for analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data and the UHC Clinical Database.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

Mrs. D is a 45-year-old patient whom you’ve treated for type 2 diabetes for several years. On her latest visit, she reports a loss of energy and difficulty sleeping and wonders if they could be related to the diabetes. As you explore further and question Mrs. D about these symptoms, she becomes tearful—and tells you she has episodes of sadness and no longer enjoys things the way she used to. Although she has no past history of depression, when you suggest that her symptoms may be an indication of depression, she readily agrees.

You discuss treatment options, including antidepressants and therapy. Mrs. D decides to try medication. But with so many antidepressants on the market, how do you determine which to choose?

Major depression is the fourth leading cause of disease globally, according to the World Health Organization.² Depression is common in the United States as well, and primary care physicians are often the ones who are diagnosing and treating it. In fact, the US Preventive Services Task Force recently expanded its recommendation that primary care providers screen adults for depression, to include adolescents ages 12 to 18 years.³ When depression is diagnosed, physicians must help patients decide on an initial treatment plan.

All antidepressants are not equal

Options for initial treatment of unipolar major depression include psychotherapy and the use of an antidepressant. For mild and moderate depression, psychotherapy alone is as effective as medication. Combined psychotherapy and antidepressants are more effective than either treatment alone for all degrees of depression.⁴

The ideal medication for depression would be a drug with a high level of effectiveness and a low side-effect profile; until now, however, there has been little evidence to support 1 antidepressant over another. Previous meta-analyses have concluded that there are no significant differences in either efficacy or acceptability among the various second-generation antidepressants on the market.^5,6 Thus, physicians have historically made initial monotherapy treatment decisions based on side effects and cost.^7,8 The meta-analysis we report on here tells a different story, providing strong evidence that some antidepressants are more effective and better tolerated than others.

STUDY SUMMARY: Meta-analysis reveals 2 “best” drugs

Cipriani et al¹ conducted a systematic review and multiple-treatments meta-analysis of 117 prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Taken together, the RCTs evaluated the comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 second-generation antidepressants: bupropion, citalopram, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. The methodology of this meta-analysis differed from that of traditional meta-analyses by allowing the integration of data from both direct and indirect comparisons. (An indirect comparison is one in which drugs from different trials are assessed by combining the results of their effectiveness and comparing the combined finding with the effectiveness of a drug that all the trials have in common.) Previous studies, based only on direct comparisons, yielded inconsistent results.

The studies included in this meta-analysis were all RCTs in which 1 of these 12 antidepressants was tested against 1, or several, other second-generation antidepressants as monotherapy for the acute treatment phase of unipolar major depression. The authors excluded placebo-controlled trials in order to evaluate efficacy and acceptability of the study medications relative to other commonly used antidepressants. They defined acute treatment as 8 weeks of antidepressant therapy, with a range of 6 to 12 weeks. The primary outcomes studied were response to treatment and dropout rate.

Response to treatment (efficacy) was constructed as a Yes or No variable; a positive response was defined as a reduction of ≥50% in symptom score on either the Hamilton depression rating scale or the Montgomery-Asberg rating scale, or a rating of “improved” or “very much improved” on the clinical global impression at 8 weeks. Efficacy was calculated on an intention-to-treat basis; if data were missing for a participant, that person was classified as a nonresponder.

Dropout rate was used to represent acceptability, as the authors believed it to be a more clinically meaningful measure than either side effects or symptom scores. Comparative efficacy and acceptability were analyzed. Fluoxetine—the first of the second-generation antidepressants—was used as the reference medication. The ( FIGURE ) shows the outcomes for 9 of the antidepressants, compared with those of fluoxetine. The other 2 antidepressants, milnacipran and reboxetine, are omitted because they are not available in the United States.

The overall meta-analysis included 25,928 individuals, with 24,595 in the efficacy analysis and 24,693 in the acceptability analysis. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the participants were women. The mean duration of follow-up was 8.1 weeks, and mean sample size per study was 110. Studies of women with postpartum depression were excluded.

Escitalopram and sertraline stand out. Overall, escitalopram, mirtazapine, sertraline, and venlafaxine were significantly more efficacious than fluoxetine or the other medications. Bupropion, citalopram, escitalopram, and sertraline were better tolerated than the other antidepressants. Escitalopram and sertraline were found to have the best combination of efficacy and acceptability.

Efficacy results. Fifty-nine percent of participants responded to sertraline, vs a 52% response rate for fluoxetine (number needed to treat [NNT]=14). Similarly, 52% of participants responded to escitalopram, compared with 47% of those taking fluoxetine (NNT=20).

Acceptability results. In terms of dropout rate, 28% of participants discontinued fluoxetine, vs 24% of patients taking sertraline. This means that 25 patients would need to be treated with sertraline, rather than fluoxetine, to avoid 1 discontinuation. In the comparison of fluoxetine vs escitalopram, 25% discontinued fluoxetine, compared with 24% who discontinued escitalopram.

The efficacy and acceptability of sertraline and escitalopram compared with other second-generation antidepressant medications show similar trends.

The generic advantage. The investigators recommend sertraline as the best choice for an initial antidepressant because it is available in generic form and is therefore lower in cost. They further recommend that sertraline, instead of fluoxetine or placebo, be the new standard against which other antidepressants are compared.

FIGURE
Sertraline and escitalopram come out on top

WHAT’S NEW?: Antidepressant choice is evidence-based

We now have solid evidence for choosing sertraline or escitalopram as the first medication to use when treating a patient with newly diagnosed depression. This represents a practice change because antidepressants that are less effective and less acceptable have been chosen more frequently than either of these medications. That conclusion is based on our analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey database for outpatient and ambulatory clinic visits in 2005-2006 (the most recent data available). We conducted this analysis to determine which of the second-generation antidepressants were prescribed most for initial monotherapy of major depression.

Our finding: An estimated 4 million patients ages 18 years and older diagnosed with depression in the course of the study year received new prescriptions for a single antidepressant. Six medications accounted for 90% of the prescriptions, in the following order:

• fluoxetine (Prozac)
• duloxetine (Cymbalta)
• escitalopram (Lexapro)
• paroxetine (Paxil)
• venlafaxine (Effexor)
• sertraline (Zoloft).

Sertraline and escitalopram, the drugs shown to be most effective and acceptable in the Cipriani meta-analysis, accounted for 11.8% and 14.5% of the prescriptions, respectively.

CAVEATS: Meta-analysis looked only at acute treatment phase

The results of this study are limited to initial therapy as measured at 8 weeks. Little long-term outcome data are available; response to initial therapy may not be a predictor of full remission or long-term success. Current guidelines suggest maintenance of the initial successful therapy, often with increasing intervals between visits, to prevent relapse.⁹

This study does not add new insight into long-term response rates. Nor does it deal with choice of a replacement or second antidepressant for nonresponders or those who cannot tolerate the initial drug.

What’s more, the study covers drug treatment alone, which may not be the best initial treatment for depression. Psychotherapy, in the form of cognitive behavioral therapy or interpersonal therapy, when available, is equally effective, has fewer potential physiologic side effects, and may produce longer-lasting results.^10,11

Little is known about study design

The authors of this study had access only to limited information about inclusion criteria and the composition of initial study populations or settings. There is a difference between a trial designed to evaluate the “efficacy” of an intervention (“the beneficial and harmful effects of an intervention under controlled circumstances”) and the “effectiveness” of an intervention (the “beneficial and harmful effects of the intervention under usual circumstances”).¹² It is not clear which of the 117 studies were efficacy studies and which were effectiveness studies. This may limit the overall generalizability of the study results to a primary care population.

Studies included in this meta-analysis were selected exclusively from published literature. There is some evidence that there is a bias toward the publication of studies with positive results, which may have the effect of overstating the effectiveness of a given antidepressant.¹³ However, we have no reason to believe that this bias would favor any particular drug.

Most of the included studies were sponsored by drug companies. Notably, pharmaceutical companies have the option of continuing to conduct trials of medications until a study results in a positive finding for their medication, with no penalty for the suppression of equivocal or negative results (negative publication bias). Under current FDA guidelines, there is little transparency to the consumer as to how many trials have been undertaken and the direction of the results, published or unpublished.¹⁴

We doubt that either publication bias or the design and sponsorship of the studies included in this meta-analysis present significant threats to the validity of these findings over other sources upon which guidelines rely, given that these issues are common to much of the research on pharmacologic therapy. We also doubt that the compensation of the authors by pharmaceutical companies would bias the outcome of the study in this instance. One of the authors (TAF) received compensation from Pfizer, the maker of Zoloft, which is also available as generic sertraline. None of the authors received compensation from Forest Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Lexapro (escitalopram).

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: No major barriers are anticipated

Both sertraline and escitalopram are covered by most health insurers. As noted above, sertraline is available in generic formulation, and is therefore much less expensive than escitalopram. In a check of online drug prices, we found a prescription for a 3-month supply of Lexapro (10 mg) to cost about $250; a 3-month supply of generic sertraline (100 mg) from the same sources would cost approximately $35 (www.pharmcychecker.com). Both Pfizer, the maker of Zoloft, and Forest Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Lexapro, have patient assistance programs to make these medications available to low-income, uninsured patients.

Acknowledgements

The PURLs Surveillance System is supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR02499 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

The authors wish to acknowledge Sofia Medvedev, PhD, of the University HealthSystem Consortium in Oak Brook, Ill, for analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data and the UHC Clinical Database.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 39-year-old, otherwise healthy woman presents to your clinic with a sore throat, nasal congestion, and dry cough she’s had since yesterday. She wants an antibiotic, but your evaluation reveals an uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infection—a common cold. You would like to provide her with an alternative treatment, but you are aware of the lack of evidence for clear benefit of zinc lozenges, echinacea, and vitamin C. Is there any other medication that might benefit this patient?

Yes. Pelargonium sidoides, a species of South African geranium used for centuries in Zulu medicine,² shows promise as an herbal remedy for respiratory infections. Two randomized trials show that extracts of P sidoides improve symptoms of acute bronchitis which, like the common cold, is usually caused by a virus.^3-5

There is a plausible biological mechanism of action. In vitro studies show that Pelargonium extract induces the interferon system and up-regulates cytokines important in protecting host cells from viral infection.⁶

BACKGROUND: $17 billion dollar cold

Our patients want more relief from cold symptoms and are clearly willing to pay for it. Americans spend approximately $2.9 billion annually on over-the-counter (OTC) cold preparations and $1.1 billion on unnecessary antibiotics.⁷ The term “common cold” refers to a collection of symptoms, including sore throat, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, cough, low-grade fever, and malaise, usually self-limited and lasting 10 to 14 days, caused by a number of viruses, most commonly by a rhinovirus.⁸ According to the 2005 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, the common cold is the third most common diagnosis in physicians’ offices behind only hypertension and well-infant/child visits.⁹ A 2001 US telephone survey determined that approximately 500 million episodes of non-influenza viral infection occur annually, resulting in direct costs of $17 billion for physician services and medications and approximately 200 million missed days of work.⁷

CLINICAL CONTEXT: Evidence proves most cold remedies don’t work

Although colds are common and result in annoying symptoms and missed work, much of the money spent on remedies is wasted. A truly effective treatment would be valuable to our patients.

Despite brisk sales, evidence for the efficacy of various cold remedies is inconclusive and contradictory. We found 6 Cochrane reviews of cold treatments, including antitussives, antihistamines, decongestants, vitamin C, echinacea, and zinc lozenges. With the exception of pseudoephedrine for nasal symptoms, the evidence that any product improves symptoms or decreases the duration of the cold is not encouraging.

Cough medications. The 2004 Cochrane Review of OTC medications for cough¹⁰ found no consistent evidence that any of them work. Codeine was no more effective than placebo for reducing cough symptoms. Three efficacy studies of dextromethorphan for cough showed either no difference or small but possibly clinically insignificant improvement in cough over placebo. One study of guaifenesin showed benefit over placebo in reducing cough frequency; another one showed no benefit over placebo.

Vitamin C, echinacea. Three Cochrane reviews found no conclusive evidence of benefit over placebo for either vitamin C¹¹ or echinacea¹² in treating the common cold.

Zinc. A new panel has been convened by the Cochrane group to reassess the effectiveness of zinc, but a 1999 Cochrane review¹³ found no benefit for zinc over placebo.

Antihistamines are not effective for relieving cold symptoms.¹⁴

Pseudoephedrine is the only medication with good-quality evidence for effectiveness, but only for reducing nasal symptoms.¹⁵ The authors concluded that patients may be encouraged to continue pseudoephedrine for up to 5 days if found to be effective with the first dose. Nasal congestion and discharge, however, are only 2 of the many irritating symptoms of a cold.

You can be a “REALITY CHECKER”

Bernard Ewigman, MD, MSPH

If you are in full-time clinical practice, a medical director of a practice, or otherwise directly involved in decision-making about adopting new practices, join our team of “reality checkers.”

Just email me at be.editor@gmail.com

STUDY SUMMARY: Duration and severity of symptoms are reduced

This was a multicenter, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a liquid herbal preparation from the roots of Pelargonium sidoides for decreasing the duration and severity of symptoms of the common cold.

Patient characteristics. Patients were recruited from 8 outpatient departments in Ukraine between December 2003 and May 2004. Two hundred and seven (207) patients were eligible. The number of ineligible and excluded patients was not stated. These 207 patients were randomized into 1 of 4 groups:

• 52 received 30 drops 3 times daily vs 51 patients who received placebo
• 52 patients received 60 drops 3 times daily vs 52 patients who received a higher-dose placebo.

The report gives the outcomes of the low-dose arm only. Two-thirds of the participants were women; all were Caucasian. Patients in the treatment and placebo groups were similar in terms of recurrent disease, prior use of medication for the common cold, smoking, and alcohol and caffeine consumption. All had a negative Group A beta-hemolytic strep test.

Inclusion criteria. Patients included men and women 18 to 55 years of age; able to provide written informed consent; with 2 major cold symptoms (nasal discharge, sore throat) and at least 1 minor cold symptom (nasal congestion, sneezing, scratchy throat, hoarseness, cough, headaches, muscle aches, or fever) or presence of 1 major cold symptom and at least 3 minor cold symptoms; duration of symptoms 24 to 48 hours.

Exclusion criteria were any acute ear, nose, throat and respiratory tract disease other than the common cold; positive rapid strep test; 6 or more episodes of recurrent tonsillitis, sinusitis, or otitis within the past 12 months or any chronic ear, nose, throat or respiratory tract disease; treatment with antibiotics, glucocorticoids, or antihistamine drugs during the 4 weeks prior to enrollment in the trial; treatment with cold medications that might impair the trial results (eg, decongestants, local anesthetics); and use of cough or pain relief medications, or any other treatment for the common cold within 7 days prior to enrollment in the trial.

Treatment regimen. Patients were assigned to take 30 drops of either the study herbal preparation or 30 drops of placebo 3 times daily, at least 30 minutes before or after a meal, from day 1 continuing to day 10. The investigational drug and placebo were supplied by Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. (Karlsruhe, Germany). The investigational medication is a preparation of the roots of P sidoides, extraction solution: ethanol 11% (1:8-10) (wt/wt). The placebo was matched for color, smell, taste, and viscosity. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) tablets were allowed for all patients for fever greater than 39°C.

Primary endpoint. Severity of cold symptoms was evaluated using the Cold Intensity Score (CIS), a validated scale derived from the sum of scores for 10 cold-related symptoms (nasal drainage, sore throat, nasal congestion, sneezing, scratchy throat, hoarseness, cough, headaches, muscle aches, and fever) on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0=not present and 4=very severe, to a maximum of 40 points. At baseline, the mean total CIS was comparable in both treatment and placebo groups (17.8±4.0 vs 16.9±3.4). From baseline to day 5, the mean total CIS decreased by 10.4±3.0 in the treatment group vs 5.6±4.3 in the placebo group (P<.0001).

Secondary endpoints. The number of patients achieving clinical cure (defined by CIS ≤1) by day 10 was significantly higher in the treatment group (78.8% vs 31.4%, P<.0001). The mean duration of days absent from work was significantly lower in the treatment group (6.9±1.8 vs 8.2±2.1, P<.0003), as was number of days with less than 100% usual activity level (7.1±1.5 vs 8.7±1.3, P<.0001). Data for both the primary and secondary endpoints were evaluated according to an intention-to-treat analysis. Both the intervention and placebo sides each had 4 patients that became ineligible after initial randomization. No patients were lost to follow-up.

Safety and tolerability. Patients in the low-dose arm experienced 3 nonserious adverse events, and 1 experienced mild epistaxis. Two additional patients (1 in the treatment and 1 in the placebo group) experienced moderate to severe tracheitis, not attributable to the study medication. Tolerability was rated slightly better in the treatment than placebo group on day 5. Forty-nine of 52 patients (94%) in the treatment group rated the preparation as good or very good tolerability vs 42 of 51 patients (82%) in the placebo group.

WHAT’S NEW?: A first

This is the first study that demonstrates the efficacy and safety of P sidoides in the treatment of the common cold. More importantly, this degree of improvement in cold symptoms is dramatically better than other common OTC treatments, including vitamin C, echinacea, and zinc preparations.

CAVEATS: How is this different from other cold remedies?

Patients are already spending a lot on cold remedies; this study suggests money would be better spent on having a ready supply of Pelargonium in the medicine cabinet, and it appears to be safe.

Other initially promising complementary and alternative therapies, such as zinc, echinacea, and vitamin C, have not been shown to be effective with more vigorous evaluation. We recognize that this is only 1 clinical trial, and the results may not be replicated in future trials. However, we are impressed by the effect size—twice the size as that seen for placebo, with a reduction in half of total cold symptom severity over 5 days and a reduction of missed time from work by more than a full day on average over placebo.

In vitro studies suggest a physiologic mechanism that is consistent with the study outcomes.

Similar findings are reported for symptom reduction in acute bronchitis.

Safety

There were no significant adverse events in this study, which is consistent with the findings of the studies of acute bronchitis.^12-14P sidoides has been widely used in Germany since the 1980s, with an annual sale value in 2002 of $55 million or 4.1 million packages.

The Uppsala Monitoring Centre, in conjunction with the World Health Organization international pharmacovigilance program, received 34 case reports between 2002 and 2006 of allergic reactions to ethanolic herbal extract of Pelargonium root, 2 of which involved life-threatening circulatory collapse requiring emergency medical attention. Given the extremely rare occurrence of these events we believe the minimal risk is acceptable. The others involved rash and pruritus.

Also of note: contact dermatitis to Pelargonium houseplants has been reported. As a result, product information will be added to product packaging, warning of common reactions of gastrointestinal complaints (gastric pain, heartburn, nausea, and diarrhea) as well as the potential for serious allergic reaction. In addition, since some of the active compounds are plant coumarins, there is a theoretical risk of interaction with warfarin and aspirin but no serious bleeding events have been reported.¹⁶

It is also recommended that individuals with renal or hepatic disease or women who are pregnant or breastfeeding avoid use of this preparation, as safety studies have not been performed.

Other study design issues

A few other issues struck us as important when assessing the validity of this study. For example, 1 of the authors appears to be an employee of the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the preparation, raising the conflict of interest issue.

We were also curious about why the results of the high-dose arm were not reported in this manuscript. Could there have been a higher rate of adverse events in the high-dose arm? Knowing how many patients were ineligible or excluded, and the efficacy or safety in the high-dose arm would give us more confidence in the findings, but we decided that these were not necessarily fatal flaws.

Bottom line

Despite the above caveats, this was a well-designed randomized controlled trial that suggests that P sidoides is impressively efficacious in decreasing the duration and severity of the common cold. In the final analysis, we think that these findings justify recommending this to our patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: 2-day window

The medication was started within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms. We generally see patients seeking treatment for the common cold well after the first 2 days. The efficacy of Pelargonium is no doubt less when started later in the course of the illness. Colds resolve spontaneously, so to get the benefit of this treatment, it likely must be started early.

Our conclusion is that patients could be advised to purchase the medication to have on hand at home at the start of the cold season.

Availability of the drug

P sidoides is available in the US under the brand name Umcka Coldcare.

The preparation used in the study is marketed in Europe by ISO-Arzneimittel¹⁷ under the name Umckaloabo, which is a combination of the Zulu words for lung symptoms and breast pain.¹⁸

Our Internet search on the term “Pelargonium sidoides” failed to yield a distributor of the German preparation used in the study that would be available in the United States. However, a different manufacturer, Nature’s Way, distributes a number of similar preparations containing extract of the root of P sidoides under the name Umcka Coldcare. Umcka Cold-care appears to be readily available for purchase, both on-line and through local health food stores, for less than $20 per 4-oz (120-mL) bottle. A different retailer, African Red Tea, offers syrup, 1:10 ethanolic extract for $29.95 for 100-mL bottle.¹⁹ Like the German preparation, these formulations are delivered by dropper.

PURLs methodology

This study was selected and evaluated using FPIN’s Priority Updates from the Research Literature (PURL) Surveillance System methodology. The criteria and findings leading to the selection of this study as a PURL can be accessed at www.jfponline.com/purls.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 39-year-old, otherwise healthy woman presents to your clinic with a sore throat, nasal congestion, and dry cough she’s had since yesterday. She wants an antibiotic, but your evaluation reveals an uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infection—a common cold. You would like to provide her with an alternative treatment, but you are aware of the lack of evidence for clear benefit of zinc lozenges, echinacea, and vitamin C. Is there any other medication that might benefit this patient?

Yes. Pelargonium sidoides, a species of South African geranium used for centuries in Zulu medicine,² shows promise as an herbal remedy for respiratory infections. Two randomized trials show that extracts of P sidoides improve symptoms of acute bronchitis which, like the common cold, is usually caused by a virus.^3-5

There is a plausible biological mechanism of action. In vitro studies show that Pelargonium extract induces the interferon system and up-regulates cytokines important in protecting host cells from viral infection.⁶

BACKGROUND: $17 billion dollar cold

Our patients want more relief from cold symptoms and are clearly willing to pay for it. Americans spend approximately $2.9 billion annually on over-the-counter (OTC) cold preparations and $1.1 billion on unnecessary antibiotics.⁷ The term “common cold” refers to a collection of symptoms, including sore throat, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, cough, low-grade fever, and malaise, usually self-limited and lasting 10 to 14 days, caused by a number of viruses, most commonly by a rhinovirus.⁸ According to the 2005 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, the common cold is the third most common diagnosis in physicians’ offices behind only hypertension and well-infant/child visits.⁹ A 2001 US telephone survey determined that approximately 500 million episodes of non-influenza viral infection occur annually, resulting in direct costs of $17 billion for physician services and medications and approximately 200 million missed days of work.⁷

CLINICAL CONTEXT: Evidence proves most cold remedies don’t work

Although colds are common and result in annoying symptoms and missed work, much of the money spent on remedies is wasted. A truly effective treatment would be valuable to our patients.

Despite brisk sales, evidence for the efficacy of various cold remedies is inconclusive and contradictory. We found 6 Cochrane reviews of cold treatments, including antitussives, antihistamines, decongestants, vitamin C, echinacea, and zinc lozenges. With the exception of pseudoephedrine for nasal symptoms, the evidence that any product improves symptoms or decreases the duration of the cold is not encouraging.

Cough medications. The 2004 Cochrane Review of OTC medications for cough¹⁰ found no consistent evidence that any of them work. Codeine was no more effective than placebo for reducing cough symptoms. Three efficacy studies of dextromethorphan for cough showed either no difference or small but possibly clinically insignificant improvement in cough over placebo. One study of guaifenesin showed benefit over placebo in reducing cough frequency; another one showed no benefit over placebo.

Vitamin C, echinacea. Three Cochrane reviews found no conclusive evidence of benefit over placebo for either vitamin C¹¹ or echinacea¹² in treating the common cold.

Zinc. A new panel has been convened by the Cochrane group to reassess the effectiveness of zinc, but a 1999 Cochrane review¹³ found no benefit for zinc over placebo.

Antihistamines are not effective for relieving cold symptoms.¹⁴

Pseudoephedrine is the only medication with good-quality evidence for effectiveness, but only for reducing nasal symptoms.¹⁵ The authors concluded that patients may be encouraged to continue pseudoephedrine for up to 5 days if found to be effective with the first dose. Nasal congestion and discharge, however, are only 2 of the many irritating symptoms of a cold.

You can be a “REALITY CHECKER”

Bernard Ewigman, MD, MSPH

If you are in full-time clinical practice, a medical director of a practice, or otherwise directly involved in decision-making about adopting new practices, join our team of “reality checkers.”

Just email me at be.editor@gmail.com

STUDY SUMMARY: Duration and severity of symptoms are reduced

This was a multicenter, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a liquid herbal preparation from the roots of Pelargonium sidoides for decreasing the duration and severity of symptoms of the common cold.

Patient characteristics. Patients were recruited from 8 outpatient departments in Ukraine between December 2003 and May 2004. Two hundred and seven (207) patients were eligible. The number of ineligible and excluded patients was not stated. These 207 patients were randomized into 1 of 4 groups:

• 52 received 30 drops 3 times daily vs 51 patients who received placebo
• 52 patients received 60 drops 3 times daily vs 52 patients who received a higher-dose placebo.

The report gives the outcomes of the low-dose arm only. Two-thirds of the participants were women; all were Caucasian. Patients in the treatment and placebo groups were similar in terms of recurrent disease, prior use of medication for the common cold, smoking, and alcohol and caffeine consumption. All had a negative Group A beta-hemolytic strep test.

Inclusion criteria. Patients included men and women 18 to 55 years of age; able to provide written informed consent; with 2 major cold symptoms (nasal discharge, sore throat) and at least 1 minor cold symptom (nasal congestion, sneezing, scratchy throat, hoarseness, cough, headaches, muscle aches, or fever) or presence of 1 major cold symptom and at least 3 minor cold symptoms; duration of symptoms 24 to 48 hours.

Exclusion criteria were any acute ear, nose, throat and respiratory tract disease other than the common cold; positive rapid strep test; 6 or more episodes of recurrent tonsillitis, sinusitis, or otitis within the past 12 months or any chronic ear, nose, throat or respiratory tract disease; treatment with antibiotics, glucocorticoids, or antihistamine drugs during the 4 weeks prior to enrollment in the trial; treatment with cold medications that might impair the trial results (eg, decongestants, local anesthetics); and use of cough or pain relief medications, or any other treatment for the common cold within 7 days prior to enrollment in the trial.

Treatment regimen. Patients were assigned to take 30 drops of either the study herbal preparation or 30 drops of placebo 3 times daily, at least 30 minutes before or after a meal, from day 1 continuing to day 10. The investigational drug and placebo were supplied by Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. (Karlsruhe, Germany). The investigational medication is a preparation of the roots of P sidoides, extraction solution: ethanol 11% (1:8-10) (wt/wt). The placebo was matched for color, smell, taste, and viscosity. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) tablets were allowed for all patients for fever greater than 39°C.

Primary endpoint. Severity of cold symptoms was evaluated using the Cold Intensity Score (CIS), a validated scale derived from the sum of scores for 10 cold-related symptoms (nasal drainage, sore throat, nasal congestion, sneezing, scratchy throat, hoarseness, cough, headaches, muscle aches, and fever) on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0=not present and 4=very severe, to a maximum of 40 points. At baseline, the mean total CIS was comparable in both treatment and placebo groups (17.8±4.0 vs 16.9±3.4). From baseline to day 5, the mean total CIS decreased by 10.4±3.0 in the treatment group vs 5.6±4.3 in the placebo group (P<.0001).

Secondary endpoints. The number of patients achieving clinical cure (defined by CIS ≤1) by day 10 was significantly higher in the treatment group (78.8% vs 31.4%, P<.0001). The mean duration of days absent from work was significantly lower in the treatment group (6.9±1.8 vs 8.2±2.1, P<.0003), as was number of days with less than 100% usual activity level (7.1±1.5 vs 8.7±1.3, P<.0001). Data for both the primary and secondary endpoints were evaluated according to an intention-to-treat analysis. Both the intervention and placebo sides each had 4 patients that became ineligible after initial randomization. No patients were lost to follow-up.

Safety and tolerability. Patients in the low-dose arm experienced 3 nonserious adverse events, and 1 experienced mild epistaxis. Two additional patients (1 in the treatment and 1 in the placebo group) experienced moderate to severe tracheitis, not attributable to the study medication. Tolerability was rated slightly better in the treatment than placebo group on day 5. Forty-nine of 52 patients (94%) in the treatment group rated the preparation as good or very good tolerability vs 42 of 51 patients (82%) in the placebo group.

WHAT’S NEW?: A first

This is the first study that demonstrates the efficacy and safety of P sidoides in the treatment of the common cold. More importantly, this degree of improvement in cold symptoms is dramatically better than other common OTC treatments, including vitamin C, echinacea, and zinc preparations.

CAVEATS: How is this different from other cold remedies?

Patients are already spending a lot on cold remedies; this study suggests money would be better spent on having a ready supply of Pelargonium in the medicine cabinet, and it appears to be safe.

Other initially promising complementary and alternative therapies, such as zinc, echinacea, and vitamin C, have not been shown to be effective with more vigorous evaluation. We recognize that this is only 1 clinical trial, and the results may not be replicated in future trials. However, we are impressed by the effect size—twice the size as that seen for placebo, with a reduction in half of total cold symptom severity over 5 days and a reduction of missed time from work by more than a full day on average over placebo.

In vitro studies suggest a physiologic mechanism that is consistent with the study outcomes.

Similar findings are reported for symptom reduction in acute bronchitis.

Safety

There were no significant adverse events in this study, which is consistent with the findings of the studies of acute bronchitis.^12-14P sidoides has been widely used in Germany since the 1980s, with an annual sale value in 2002 of $55 million or 4.1 million packages.

The Uppsala Monitoring Centre, in conjunction with the World Health Organization international pharmacovigilance program, received 34 case reports between 2002 and 2006 of allergic reactions to ethanolic herbal extract of Pelargonium root, 2 of which involved life-threatening circulatory collapse requiring emergency medical attention. Given the extremely rare occurrence of these events we believe the minimal risk is acceptable. The others involved rash and pruritus.

Also of note: contact dermatitis to Pelargonium houseplants has been reported. As a result, product information will be added to product packaging, warning of common reactions of gastrointestinal complaints (gastric pain, heartburn, nausea, and diarrhea) as well as the potential for serious allergic reaction. In addition, since some of the active compounds are plant coumarins, there is a theoretical risk of interaction with warfarin and aspirin but no serious bleeding events have been reported.¹⁶

It is also recommended that individuals with renal or hepatic disease or women who are pregnant or breastfeeding avoid use of this preparation, as safety studies have not been performed.

Other study design issues

A few other issues struck us as important when assessing the validity of this study. For example, 1 of the authors appears to be an employee of the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the preparation, raising the conflict of interest issue.

We were also curious about why the results of the high-dose arm were not reported in this manuscript. Could there have been a higher rate of adverse events in the high-dose arm? Knowing how many patients were ineligible or excluded, and the efficacy or safety in the high-dose arm would give us more confidence in the findings, but we decided that these were not necessarily fatal flaws.

Bottom line

Despite the above caveats, this was a well-designed randomized controlled trial that suggests that P sidoides is impressively efficacious in decreasing the duration and severity of the common cold. In the final analysis, we think that these findings justify recommending this to our patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: 2-day window

The medication was started within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms. We generally see patients seeking treatment for the common cold well after the first 2 days. The efficacy of Pelargonium is no doubt less when started later in the course of the illness. Colds resolve spontaneously, so to get the benefit of this treatment, it likely must be started early.

Our conclusion is that patients could be advised to purchase the medication to have on hand at home at the start of the cold season.

Availability of the drug

P sidoides is available in the US under the brand name Umcka Coldcare.

The preparation used in the study is marketed in Europe by ISO-Arzneimittel¹⁷ under the name Umckaloabo, which is a combination of the Zulu words for lung symptoms and breast pain.¹⁸

Our Internet search on the term “Pelargonium sidoides” failed to yield a distributor of the German preparation used in the study that would be available in the United States. However, a different manufacturer, Nature’s Way, distributes a number of similar preparations containing extract of the root of P sidoides under the name Umcka Coldcare. Umcka Cold-care appears to be readily available for purchase, both on-line and through local health food stores, for less than $20 per 4-oz (120-mL) bottle. A different retailer, African Red Tea, offers syrup, 1:10 ethanolic extract for $29.95 for 100-mL bottle.¹⁹ Like the German preparation, these formulations are delivered by dropper.

PURLs methodology

This study was selected and evaluated using FPIN’s Priority Updates from the Research Literature (PURL) Surveillance System methodology. The criteria and findings leading to the selection of this study as a PURL can be accessed at www.jfponline.com/purls.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 39-year-old, otherwise healthy woman presents to your clinic with a sore throat, nasal congestion, and dry cough she’s had since yesterday. She wants an antibiotic, but your evaluation reveals an uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infection—a common cold. You would like to provide her with an alternative treatment, but you are aware of the lack of evidence for clear benefit of zinc lozenges, echinacea, and vitamin C. Is there any other medication that might benefit this patient?

Yes. Pelargonium sidoides, a species of South African geranium used for centuries in Zulu medicine,² shows promise as an herbal remedy for respiratory infections. Two randomized trials show that extracts of P sidoides improve symptoms of acute bronchitis which, like the common cold, is usually caused by a virus.^3-5

There is a plausible biological mechanism of action. In vitro studies show that Pelargonium extract induces the interferon system and up-regulates cytokines important in protecting host cells from viral infection.⁶

BACKGROUND: $17 billion dollar cold

Our patients want more relief from cold symptoms and are clearly willing to pay for it. Americans spend approximately $2.9 billion annually on over-the-counter (OTC) cold preparations and $1.1 billion on unnecessary antibiotics.⁷ The term “common cold” refers to a collection of symptoms, including sore throat, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, cough, low-grade fever, and malaise, usually self-limited and lasting 10 to 14 days, caused by a number of viruses, most commonly by a rhinovirus.⁸ According to the 2005 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, the common cold is the third most common diagnosis in physicians’ offices behind only hypertension and well-infant/child visits.⁹ A 2001 US telephone survey determined that approximately 500 million episodes of non-influenza viral infection occur annually, resulting in direct costs of $17 billion for physician services and medications and approximately 200 million missed days of work.⁷

CLINICAL CONTEXT: Evidence proves most cold remedies don’t work

Although colds are common and result in annoying symptoms and missed work, much of the money spent on remedies is wasted. A truly effective treatment would be valuable to our patients.

Despite brisk sales, evidence for the efficacy of various cold remedies is inconclusive and contradictory. We found 6 Cochrane reviews of cold treatments, including antitussives, antihistamines, decongestants, vitamin C, echinacea, and zinc lozenges. With the exception of pseudoephedrine for nasal symptoms, the evidence that any product improves symptoms or decreases the duration of the cold is not encouraging.

Cough medications. The 2004 Cochrane Review of OTC medications for cough¹⁰ found no consistent evidence that any of them work. Codeine was no more effective than placebo for reducing cough symptoms. Three efficacy studies of dextromethorphan for cough showed either no difference or small but possibly clinically insignificant improvement in cough over placebo. One study of guaifenesin showed benefit over placebo in reducing cough frequency; another one showed no benefit over placebo.

Vitamin C, echinacea. Three Cochrane reviews found no conclusive evidence of benefit over placebo for either vitamin C¹¹ or echinacea¹² in treating the common cold.

Zinc. A new panel has been convened by the Cochrane group to reassess the effectiveness of zinc, but a 1999 Cochrane review¹³ found no benefit for zinc over placebo.

Antihistamines are not effective for relieving cold symptoms.¹⁴

Pseudoephedrine is the only medication with good-quality evidence for effectiveness, but only for reducing nasal symptoms.¹⁵ The authors concluded that patients may be encouraged to continue pseudoephedrine for up to 5 days if found to be effective with the first dose. Nasal congestion and discharge, however, are only 2 of the many irritating symptoms of a cold.

You can be a “REALITY CHECKER”

Bernard Ewigman, MD, MSPH

If you are in full-time clinical practice, a medical director of a practice, or otherwise directly involved in decision-making about adopting new practices, join our team of “reality checkers.”

Just email me at be.editor@gmail.com

STUDY SUMMARY: Duration and severity of symptoms are reduced

This was a multicenter, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a liquid herbal preparation from the roots of Pelargonium sidoides for decreasing the duration and severity of symptoms of the common cold.

Patient characteristics. Patients were recruited from 8 outpatient departments in Ukraine between December 2003 and May 2004. Two hundred and seven (207) patients were eligible. The number of ineligible and excluded patients was not stated. These 207 patients were randomized into 1 of 4 groups:

• 52 received 30 drops 3 times daily vs 51 patients who received placebo
• 52 patients received 60 drops 3 times daily vs 52 patients who received a higher-dose placebo.

The report gives the outcomes of the low-dose arm only. Two-thirds of the participants were women; all were Caucasian. Patients in the treatment and placebo groups were similar in terms of recurrent disease, prior use of medication for the common cold, smoking, and alcohol and caffeine consumption. All had a negative Group A beta-hemolytic strep test.

Inclusion criteria. Patients included men and women 18 to 55 years of age; able to provide written informed consent; with 2 major cold symptoms (nasal discharge, sore throat) and at least 1 minor cold symptom (nasal congestion, sneezing, scratchy throat, hoarseness, cough, headaches, muscle aches, or fever) or presence of 1 major cold symptom and at least 3 minor cold symptoms; duration of symptoms 24 to 48 hours.

Exclusion criteria were any acute ear, nose, throat and respiratory tract disease other than the common cold; positive rapid strep test; 6 or more episodes of recurrent tonsillitis, sinusitis, or otitis within the past 12 months or any chronic ear, nose, throat or respiratory tract disease; treatment with antibiotics, glucocorticoids, or antihistamine drugs during the 4 weeks prior to enrollment in the trial; treatment with cold medications that might impair the trial results (eg, decongestants, local anesthetics); and use of cough or pain relief medications, or any other treatment for the common cold within 7 days prior to enrollment in the trial.

Treatment regimen. Patients were assigned to take 30 drops of either the study herbal preparation or 30 drops of placebo 3 times daily, at least 30 minutes before or after a meal, from day 1 continuing to day 10. The investigational drug and placebo were supplied by Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. (Karlsruhe, Germany). The investigational medication is a preparation of the roots of P sidoides, extraction solution: ethanol 11% (1:8-10) (wt/wt). The placebo was matched for color, smell, taste, and viscosity. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) tablets were allowed for all patients for fever greater than 39°C.

Primary endpoint. Severity of cold symptoms was evaluated using the Cold Intensity Score (CIS), a validated scale derived from the sum of scores for 10 cold-related symptoms (nasal drainage, sore throat, nasal congestion, sneezing, scratchy throat, hoarseness, cough, headaches, muscle aches, and fever) on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0=not present and 4=very severe, to a maximum of 40 points. At baseline, the mean total CIS was comparable in both treatment and placebo groups (17.8±4.0 vs 16.9±3.4). From baseline to day 5, the mean total CIS decreased by 10.4±3.0 in the treatment group vs 5.6±4.3 in the placebo group (P<.0001).

Secondary endpoints. The number of patients achieving clinical cure (defined by CIS ≤1) by day 10 was significantly higher in the treatment group (78.8% vs 31.4%, P<.0001). The mean duration of days absent from work was significantly lower in the treatment group (6.9±1.8 vs 8.2±2.1, P<.0003), as was number of days with less than 100% usual activity level (7.1±1.5 vs 8.7±1.3, P<.0001). Data for both the primary and secondary endpoints were evaluated according to an intention-to-treat analysis. Both the intervention and placebo sides each had 4 patients that became ineligible after initial randomization. No patients were lost to follow-up.

Safety and tolerability. Patients in the low-dose arm experienced 3 nonserious adverse events, and 1 experienced mild epistaxis. Two additional patients (1 in the treatment and 1 in the placebo group) experienced moderate to severe tracheitis, not attributable to the study medication. Tolerability was rated slightly better in the treatment than placebo group on day 5. Forty-nine of 52 patients (94%) in the treatment group rated the preparation as good or very good tolerability vs 42 of 51 patients (82%) in the placebo group.

WHAT’S NEW?: A first

This is the first study that demonstrates the efficacy and safety of P sidoides in the treatment of the common cold. More importantly, this degree of improvement in cold symptoms is dramatically better than other common OTC treatments, including vitamin C, echinacea, and zinc preparations.

CAVEATS: How is this different from other cold remedies?

Patients are already spending a lot on cold remedies; this study suggests money would be better spent on having a ready supply of Pelargonium in the medicine cabinet, and it appears to be safe.

Other initially promising complementary and alternative therapies, such as zinc, echinacea, and vitamin C, have not been shown to be effective with more vigorous evaluation. We recognize that this is only 1 clinical trial, and the results may not be replicated in future trials. However, we are impressed by the effect size—twice the size as that seen for placebo, with a reduction in half of total cold symptom severity over 5 days and a reduction of missed time from work by more than a full day on average over placebo.

In vitro studies suggest a physiologic mechanism that is consistent with the study outcomes.

Similar findings are reported for symptom reduction in acute bronchitis.

Safety

There were no significant adverse events in this study, which is consistent with the findings of the studies of acute bronchitis.^12-14P sidoides has been widely used in Germany since the 1980s, with an annual sale value in 2002 of $55 million or 4.1 million packages.

The Uppsala Monitoring Centre, in conjunction with the World Health Organization international pharmacovigilance program, received 34 case reports between 2002 and 2006 of allergic reactions to ethanolic herbal extract of Pelargonium root, 2 of which involved life-threatening circulatory collapse requiring emergency medical attention. Given the extremely rare occurrence of these events we believe the minimal risk is acceptable. The others involved rash and pruritus.

Also of note: contact dermatitis to Pelargonium houseplants has been reported. As a result, product information will be added to product packaging, warning of common reactions of gastrointestinal complaints (gastric pain, heartburn, nausea, and diarrhea) as well as the potential for serious allergic reaction. In addition, since some of the active compounds are plant coumarins, there is a theoretical risk of interaction with warfarin and aspirin but no serious bleeding events have been reported.¹⁶

It is also recommended that individuals with renal or hepatic disease or women who are pregnant or breastfeeding avoid use of this preparation, as safety studies have not been performed.

Other study design issues

A few other issues struck us as important when assessing the validity of this study. For example, 1 of the authors appears to be an employee of the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the preparation, raising the conflict of interest issue.

We were also curious about why the results of the high-dose arm were not reported in this manuscript. Could there have been a higher rate of adverse events in the high-dose arm? Knowing how many patients were ineligible or excluded, and the efficacy or safety in the high-dose arm would give us more confidence in the findings, but we decided that these were not necessarily fatal flaws.

Bottom line

Despite the above caveats, this was a well-designed randomized controlled trial that suggests that P sidoides is impressively efficacious in decreasing the duration and severity of the common cold. In the final analysis, we think that these findings justify recommending this to our patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: 2-day window

The medication was started within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms. We generally see patients seeking treatment for the common cold well after the first 2 days. The efficacy of Pelargonium is no doubt less when started later in the course of the illness. Colds resolve spontaneously, so to get the benefit of this treatment, it likely must be started early.

Our conclusion is that patients could be advised to purchase the medication to have on hand at home at the start of the cold season.

Availability of the drug

P sidoides is available in the US under the brand name Umcka Coldcare.

The preparation used in the study is marketed in Europe by ISO-Arzneimittel¹⁷ under the name Umckaloabo, which is a combination of the Zulu words for lung symptoms and breast pain.¹⁸

Our Internet search on the term “Pelargonium sidoides” failed to yield a distributor of the German preparation used in the study that would be available in the United States. However, a different manufacturer, Nature’s Way, distributes a number of similar preparations containing extract of the root of P sidoides under the name Umcka Coldcare. Umcka Cold-care appears to be readily available for purchase, both on-line and through local health food stores, for less than $20 per 4-oz (120-mL) bottle. A different retailer, African Red Tea, offers syrup, 1:10 ethanolic extract for $29.95 for 100-mL bottle.¹⁹ Like the German preparation, these formulations are delivered by dropper.

PURLs methodology

This study was selected and evaluated using FPIN’s Priority Updates from the Research Literature (PURL) Surveillance System methodology. The criteria and findings leading to the selection of this study as a PURL can be accessed at www.jfponline.com/purls.