Zinc Nasal gel for the Treatment of Common Cold Symptoms: A Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial

Abstract

Effective treatments fo r the common cold have been diffic ult to develop because so many different types of virus are respons ible for this condition. Oral zinc has been studied as a possible mea ns ofpreventing O I' alle viating symptotns, with mixed resu lts. We studied a new app roach to zinc therapy-an ever-the-cou nter nasal ge l formu lation (Zieam)-to independently eva luate its efficaey as a treatment fo r the common cold. Our study was conducted at [o ur sites ove r a 5-month pe riod. The study group cons isted of2 13 patients with recent-onset ("5,24 hr) cold symptoms; 108 patients received zlnc therapy, and 105 received placebo. Sytnptom cha rts we re used to track the duration and severity ofeach patient's symptoms. At study 's end, the duration ofsymptoms was 2.3 days (± O. 9) in the zinc gro up and 9.0 days (±2.5) in the control gro up-s-a statistically significant differenee (p <0. 05). These results provide evidence tha t zinc nasal gel is effective in sho rtening the duration of common cold symptoms when tak en within 24 hou rs of their onse t.

Treatment of Naturally Acquired Common Colds with Zinc: A Structured Review

“…Among the 7 studies reporting no effect, 3 fulfilled all 11 criteria [23][24][25], 1 met 8 criteria [14], 1 met 7 criteria [15], and 2 met 6 criteria [26,27]. Among the studies reporting positive effects, 1 met all 11 criteria [28], 2 met 10 criteria [29,30], 2 met 7 criteria [31,32], and 2 met 6 criteria [6,33]. Of the 4 studies that fulfilled all 11 criteria [23][24][25]28], 2 studies [23,25] reported that zinc lozenges have no effect on the symptom severity and duration of common cold, 1 study [24] reported no effect of zinc nasal spray, and 1 study [28] reported a positive effect of zinc nasal gel on the symptoms and duration of the common cold.…”

“…Eight of 14 studies [6,14,15,26,27,29,31,32] did not show an intent-to-treat analysis of all subjects initially enrolled in the study. Seven studies [6,14,15,26,27,32,33] did not have a quantifiable hypothesis or sample size calculation. Proof of blinding was lacking in 7 studies [6,26,27,[30][31][32][33].…”

“…Seven studies [6,14,15,26,27,32,33] did not have a quantifiable hypothesis or sample size calculation. Proof of blinding was lacking in 7 studies [6,26,27,[30][31][32][33]. Six studies [6,15,26,27,31,33] failed to state the method of randomization or failed to show similarity of groups at trial onset.…”

“…Proof of blinding was lacking in 7 studies [6,26,27,[30][31][32][33]. Six studies [6,15,26,27,31,33] failed to state the method of randomization or failed to show similarity of groups at trial onset. Two studies did not measure compliance [31,33].…”

“…Six studies [6,15,26,27,31,33] failed to state the method of randomization or failed to show similarity of groups at trial onset. Two studies did not measure compliance [31,33]. All studies contained double blinding, valid case definitions, measurement of dropout rates, methods of statistical analysis, and measurements of probability.…”