Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31004286›Full record

Trial reportDrugs in R&D2019

Safety and Efficacy of 0.5% Carbomer 980 Gel for Treatment of Symptoms of Common Cold: Results of 2 Randomized Trials.

Lara Dennie

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drugs in R&D, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lara DennieClinical Research Innovation, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, 184 Liberty Corner Rd, Warren, NJ, 07059, USA. lara.x.dennie@gsk.com.
GlaxoSmithKline (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo studies of intranasal 0.5% carbomer 980 gel were conducted evaluating nasal tolerability in healthy volunteers and safety and efficacy in adults with common cold symptoms.

methodsStudy 1 randomly assigned healthy adults to 0.5% carbomer 980 gel (n = 20) or placebo (n = 10) administered intranasally four times daily for 7 days. Nasal examinations were conducted at baseline and daily throughout the study. The primary endpoint was local nasal tolerability. Study 2 randomly assigned adults with an investigator-confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic common cold to 0.5% carbomer 980 gel (n = 87) or placebo (n = 81), administered intranasally four times daily for 7 days (except for day 1, where subjects who received their first dose mid-day administered only three doses). The primary efficacy endpoint was the average nasal symptom score over days 1‒4 (ANSS

resultsIn study 1, subjects assigned to 0.5% carbomer 980 gel had no mucosal grading higher than grade 1B (superficial nasal mucosal erosion) and low incidences of mucosal bleeding and crusting. In study 2, there were no statistically significant differences between treatments for any efficacy endpoints. Active treatment was well-tolerated; the most commonly reported AEs were headache, myalgia, and cough.

conclusionWhile 0.5% carbomer 980 gel nasal spray demonstrated good local nasal tolerability in healthy volunteers, the spray did not significantly impact the course of infection or resolution of cold symptoms in subjects with common cold.

Indexed as

Acrylic ResinsAdministration, IntranasalAdultCommon ColdCoughDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGelsHeadacheHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyalgiaTreatment OutcomeAcrylic ResinscarbomerGels

Identifiers

PMID31004286
PMCPMC6544708
OpenAlexW2940296804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.