Context Echinacea is a widely used herbal remedy for treatment of upper respiratory
tract infections (URIs). However, there are few data on the efficacy and safety
of echinacea in treating URIs in children.
Objectives To determine if Echinacea purpurea is effective
in reducing the duration and/or severity of URI symptoms in children and to
assess its safety in this population.
Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of healthy children
2 to 11 years old recruited from a regional practice-based network and an
alternative medical center in 4-month periods from 2000 through 2002.
Interventions Study patients were randomized to receive either echinacea or placebo
for up to 3 URIs over a 4-month period. Study medication was begun at the
onset of symptoms and continued throughout the URI, for a maximum of 10 days.
Main Outcome Measures Primary outcomes were duration and severity of symptoms and adverse
events recorded by parents; secondary outcomes included peak severity of symptoms,
number of days of peak severity, number of days of fever, and a global assessment
of severity of symptoms by parents of study children.
Results Data were analyzed on 707 URIs that occurred in 407 children, including
337 URIs treated with echinacea and 370 with placebo. There were 79 children
who completed their study period without having a URI. The median duration
of URIs was 9 days (95% confidence interval, 8-10 days); there was no difference
in duration between URIs treated with echinacea or placebo (P = .89). There was also no difference in the overall estimate of severity
of URI symptoms between the 2 treatment groups (median, 33 in both groups; P = .69). In addition, there were no statistically significant
differences between the 2 groups for peak severity of symptoms (P = .68), number of days of peak symptoms (1.60 in the echinacea group
and 1.64 in the placebo group; P = .97), number of
days of fever (0.81 in the echinacea group vs 0.64 in the placebo group; P = .09), or parental global assessment of severity of
the URI (P = .67). Overall, there was no difference
in the rate of adverse events reported in the 2 treatment groups; however,
rash occurred during 7.1% of the URIs treated with echinacea and 2.7% of those
treated with placebo (P = .008).
Conclusions Echinacea purpurea, as dosed in this study,
was not effective in treating URI symptoms in patients 2 to 11 years old,
and its use was associated with an increased risk of rash.
Upper respiratory tract infections (URIs) are a significant health burden
in childhood. The average child has 6 to 8 colds each year, each lasting 7
to 9 days.1-3 Symptoms
frequently require medical attention; during the winter months almost 40%
of visits to pediatricians by patients 1 to 5 years old are because of cold
and cough symptoms.4 Up to one third of young
children with URIs are diagnosed with secondary bacterial infections such
as otitis media or sinusitis, frequently resulting in antibiotic therapy.2,4 To alleviate the symptoms of URIs,
children are frequently given drugs such as decongestants, antihistamines,
and cough suppressants.5 Unfortunately, there
is little evidence that these medications are efficacious in children younger
than 12 years.6-8
Perhaps because of the lack of efficacy of conventional medications
for URIs, a substantial proportion of children receive alternative forms of
treatment such as homeopathy and naturopathy. It has been estimated that 11%
to 21% of children in the United States and Canada who are receiving care
from conventional clinicians are also using alternative therapies.9-12 Much
of this use is for treatment of respiratory and/or ear, nose, and throat symptoms.9,10,12
Echinacea, has been used extensively for the prevention and treatment
of URIs.13,14 It remains one of
the most commonly used herbal remedies in the United States, with reported
sales of more than $300 million annually.15 Three
species of echinacea are used for medicinal purposes: Echinacea
purpurea, E angustifolia, and E pallida; E purpurea has been the most extensively
used and studied species.13 The beneficial
effects of echinacea are thought to be due to its "immunomodulating" activity,
most notably macrophage activation and enhanced neutrophil phagocytosis.16,17 There have been a number of clinical
trials of echinacea in treating or preventing URI symptoms in adults. In critical
reviews and meta-analyses of these studies, most investigators have concluded
that the evidence suggests echinacea may be an efficacious treatment for URIs,18-20 but the conclusion
is limited by methodological flaws in many of the studies.18-20
There are limited data on the efficacy and safety of echinacea in pediatric
patients. Given the number of URIs in children and the lack of demonstrable
benefit from conventional therapies, treatment with echinacea could potentially
have a significant impact on young patients. Thus, we conducted a randomized
controlled trial to determine the efficacy and safety of E purpurea in treating URIs in children 2 to 11 years old. Prior to
the study, we postulated that treatment with echinacea would result in at
least a 1.5- to 2-day reduction in the duration of URIs in children and that
symptoms would be less severe than in patients receiving placebo.
A randomized controlled trial was conducted by the Puget Sound Pediatric
Research Network (PSPRN) and Bastyr University. The PSPRN is a regional practice-based
research group in the Seattle, Wash, area. For this project, pediatricians
from 7 private practices and 1 inner-city clinic participated. Bastyr University
is an alternative medicine institution located in Kenmore, Wash.
Children 2 to 11 years old, without significant health problems, were
eligible for participation in the study. Children with a history of asthma,
allergic rhinitis, cystic fibrosis, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia were excluded
as were patients with autoimmune disease because of the possible effects of
echinacea on the immune system.18 In addition,
children with a history of an allergy to any related species and those receiving
chronic medications of any kind or herbal, mineral, or specific vitamin supplements
were excluded. Only 1 child per family was enrolled in the study.
Study patients were recruited for the project in 2 ways. At participating
PSPRN practices, physicians discussed the study with parents of potentially
eligible children at the time of an office visit. For those interested parents
and children, the medical record was reviewed and exclusion criteria discussed
to determine eligibility. A broader recruiting strategy was used at Bastyr
University. Informational brochures about the study were distributed in the
university's health care clinics and naturopaths' offices in the Seattle area;
newspaper and radio advertisements were also used. After an initial screening,
a history and physical examination were performed to ensure that the child
was eligible.
At the time of enrollment, parents of study children completed a form
that included demographic items such as the child's age, sex, and the number
of other siblings in the family. Because of the possible effects on URI duration
and severity, parents were also asked about the number of colds their child
had experienced during the previous year, use of day care more than 20 hours
per week, and presence of cigarette smokers in the household.
Each study child was enrolled in the project for a 4-month period between
September and May 2000-2001 or 2001-2002; in Seattle, rhinoviral infections
are most prevalent during this period of the year.21 During
the observation period, data were collected on up to 3 URIs in a study patient.
Each site was given a supply of study medication (echinacea and placebo)
in consecutively numbered bottles that were identical in appearance. The contents
of each bottle were randomly determined. Randomization was performed using
a computer-generated randomization list and was stratified by site and in
blocks of 10. As children were enrolled in the project, they were assigned
a unique study number corresponding to the numbers on the bottles of study
medication. The patient, parents, practitioner, and research staff were unaware
of the contents of the individual bottles of study medication.
We used the dried pressed E purpurea juice
of the above-ground herb harvested at flowering as the active study medication.
This preparation was chosen because the extract has been used extensively
in clinical and in vitro research.22 We used
an alcohol-free preparation; both an in vitro phagocytosis bioassay and chromatogram
of the study medication indicated that it was equivalent to the fresh juice
(data from Madaus AG, Cologne, Germany). The active medication was combined
with syrup, while the placebo was syrup without active ingredients. The placebo
was identical in appearance and similar in taste and smell to the active medication.
Dosing instructions were based on the recommendations of the manufacturer.
Children 2 to 5 years old received 7.5 mL/d (3.75 mL twice a day) during a
URI, while those 6 to 11 years old took 10 mL/d (5 mL twice a day). These
doses provided 50% of the manufacturer's recommended adult dose in the younger
group and 67% of the adult dose in the older group. The study medication was
begun at the start of the URI and continued until all symptoms had resolved,
up to a maximum of 10 days.
At enrollment, parents of study children received enough study medication
for 3 URIs, symptom logbooks, and dosing spoons. Study coordinators telephoned
parents shortly after enrollment and at 10- to 14-day intervals during the
4-month observation period to review study procedures and inquire about URI
symptoms in the child. Parents were asked to call the study coordinator immediately
when their child developed at least 2 symptoms of a URI, including sneezing,
coughing, nasal congestion, runny nose, or temperature greater than 100.4°
F (38.0° C). A study coordinator was available 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week. Once the coordinator confirmed that the child met criteria for having
a URI, the parent was asked to begin the study medication and to record information
in the symptom logbook. The study coordinator contacted parents 1 to 3 additional
times during the course of the URI to answer questions and inquire about any
adverse events.
During a URI, parents were asked to monitor their child's symptoms daily
during a standardized observation period from 5 PM to 8 AM. Each day, the parents recorded the severity of 4 symptoms (sneezing,
coughing, nasal congestion, and runny nose) in the logbook using a 4-point
Likert scale with possible responses ranging from "none" to "severe." To help
standardize the ratings, a description of the different severities of each
symptom was provided. Parents recorded the presence of fever in the child
daily, based on either a documented temperature or a tactile assessment. The
daily logbook assessment also included "other symptoms." A list of several
possible symptoms was provided; parents were asked to write in any other symptom
not included. Parents were asked to not give their child any medication other
than the study medication and acetaminophen (if desired) unless prescribed
by a physician. However, if another medication was administered, the parent
was requested to record the name. Finally, parents recorded the times that
they gave the study medication to their child. Parents completed the symptom
logbook daily until they rated each of their child's symptoms as "none" for
2 consecutive days, up to a maximum of 21 days for each URI.
The primary study outcomes were duration and severity of URIs and adverse
events. Duration was defined as the number of days between the start of the
URI as recorded in the daily symptom logbook and the last day before all symptoms
were recorded as "none" for 2 consecutive days. To assess severity, Likert
scale responses for each of the 4 monitored symptoms were transformed to an
ordinal scale, ranging from 0 for "none" to 3 for "severe." The daily severity
score was determined by summing the scores for each symptom. The overall severity
of each URI was computed by summing the daily scores for each day that symptoms
were present. For days on which severity data were missing for a symptom,
the severity score for that symptom was imputed by averaging the scores for
the symptom from the preceding and following days.
The main assessment of the safety of echinacea was based on review of
the daily symptom logbooks. Any indication in the logbook by the parent of
any "other symptom" that the child experienced during a study URI was classified
as an adverse event. To evaluate severity, parents were specifically queried
about adverse events during each telephone call during the URI, using a standardized
script to determine severity. An adverse event was considered "mild" if it
did not interfere with routine activities, "moderate" if the symptom required
the child to miss school or not participate in routine activities, and "severe"
if the adverse event resulted in an urgent visit to an emergency department
or necessitated hospitalization.
Secondary study outcomes included the peak severity of the URI (defined
as the maximal daily severity score), number of days of peak severity, days
of fever, and parental assessment of the overall severity of the URI in their
child. A study patient was considered to have a day of fever when 1 or more
temperatures of more than 100.4° F (38.0°C) was recorded in the logbook
or the parent indicated that the child had a tactile fever. At the conclusion
of a URI, the study coordinators contacted a parent of the study child and
asked her or him to classify the severity of the URI as mild, moderate, or
severe. At the end of the observation period, parents were asked to guess
which treatment their child had received.
We used 2 measures to assess compliance with taking study medication.
The main compliance measure was calculated as the number of doses recorded
in the daily symptom logbooks divided by the number of doses that were indicated
based on the duration of the URI. This assessment was validated by comparing
the weight of bottles of study medication for patients prior to and after
their observation periods to determine the volume used. With both measures,
a patient was considered to be compliant if he or she took at least 80% of
the indicated doses.
The unit of analysis for statistical tests was the individual URI. Repeated
measures techniques, including generalized estimating equation (GEE) regressions
and repeated measure Cox marginal likelihood models, were used to account
for multiple URIs in some study children. To compare the duration and severity
of URIs treated with echinacea and placebo, Cox regression analysis for censored
data was used. This regression technique was chosen because it accounts both
for repeated URIs in the same child and missing data, such as occurred when
parents failed to complete logbooks.23 Linear
GEE regression was used to assess differences between the 2 groups for the
secondary outcomes of peak severity, number of days of peak severity, and
number of days of fever. Due to skewed distributions of the data, a log transformation
was performed on each of these variables. Logistic GEE regression was used
to compare incidence of adverse events in the 2 treatment groups, and multinomial
logistic GEE regression was performed to assess differences in parental global
rating of severity of URIs treated with echinacea and placebo. For all of
these evaluations, data were analyzed from all returned logbooks regardless
of whether the patient was compliant with taking the study medication as prescribed.
In addition, several subgroup analyses were conducted for the 2 primary outcomes.
Prestudy sample size estimations were based on simplifying assumptions.
Some recruited patients would be expected to have no URIs during the study
period, while others would have multiple URIs. However, we based sample size
calculations on an assumption of 500 children each having 1 URI. With this
sample size we would have a power of 80% to detect a 1.5- to 2-day difference
in duration between URIs treated with echinacea and placebo (2-tailed α
level = .05), assuming that the mean duration of URIs treated with placebos
would be 7 to 10 days.
The study was approved by the institutional review boards of Children's
Hospital and Regional Medical Center and Bastyr University. Signed written
consent was obtained from parents of study patients; assent was obtained from
children older than 7 years.
A total of 524 children were included in the study (Figure 1), including 311 enrolled by PSPRN pediatricians and 213
enrolled at Bastyr University. Overall, 92.7% of those children enrolled either
contributed data on at least 1 URI or completed the study period without any
URI symptoms. Figure 1 does not
include 7 patients who dropped out of the study after contributing data on
1 URI. These included 1 child who moved out-of-state, 1 child whose parents
were concerned about a possible citric acid allergy, and 1 child whose parents
felt that the study protocol was too demanding. The parents of 1 patient,
who received placebo, discontinued participation because they felt that the
study medication was ineffective in treating their child's URI symptoms. Finally,
3 patients, all randomized to the echinacea group, dropped out of the study
after contributing data from 1 URI because of the palatability of the medication.
A total of 759 confirmed URIs occurred in study patients; data were
either not recorded in the logbooks or completed logbooks were not received
for 52 URIs. Thus, logbook data were collected and analyzed on 707 URIs (93.9%
of confirmed URIs) that occurred in 407 children. Children randomized to receive
echinacea or placebo had similar characteristics (Table 1). There was a trend toward more use of day care in the echinacea
group (P = .09); this analysis was limited to children
younger than 6 years at the time of enrollment. Use of day care was not statistically
associated with any change in the duration or severity of URI symptoms (P = .50 and P = .79, respectively).
Overall, the mean (SD) age of patients with at least 1 URI was 5.5 (2.7) years;
49.6% were girls. The mean (SD) number of URIs in the previous year was 3.5
(1.5).
Among the 707 URIs for which data were collected, 370 were treated with
placebo and 337 with echinacea. The difference in number of URIs treated with
the 2 study medications is largely attributable to fewer second and third
URIs among children randomized to the echinacea group. Of the children who
had at least 1 URI, 64.4% of children in the placebo group had more than 1
URI compared with 52.3% of children receiving echinacea (P = .015 by χ2 test).
There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups
for duration of symptoms (P = .89), severity of symptoms
(P = .69), peak severity of symptoms (P = .68), number of days of peak symptoms (P =
.97), number of days of fever (P = .09), or parental
global assessment of the severity of the cold (P =
.67) (Table 2). Overall, parents
continued to record data in the logbooks until all symptoms had resolved or
through day 21 of symptoms for 608 URIs (86% of the total). After limiting
the analysis to these 608 URIs, there was no statistically significant difference
in duration of symptoms among URIs treated with echinacea or placebo (P = .90). Among study patients 2 to 5 years old, the duration
and severity of symptoms were similar in the 2 treatment groups (P = .66 and P = .80, respectively). The results
were unchanged when use of day care was included in the regression models
(difference in duration, P = .69; difference in severity, P = .87). There was also no difference between treatment
groups for the duration or severity of URI symptoms in children 6 to 11 years
of age (P = .19 and P =
.73, respectively).
At least 1 concomitant medication, other than acetaminophen, was recorded
as being administered to a study patient during 37.7% of URIs treated with
echinacea and 34.3% of those treated with placebo (P =
.43). The most common concomitant medications were over-the-counter cold remedies
(decongestants, antihistamines, and/or cough suppressants) administered during
15.1% of study URIs; there was no significant difference in use of these products
between the groups (P = .56). The use of oral antibiotics
was also similar in the 2 treatment groups (8.9% of URIs treated with echinacea
and 7.3% treated with placebo, P = .48). There was
significantly more use of vitamin and/or mineral supplementation among children
with URIs in the placebo group than in patients receiving echinacea (11.9%
and 6.5%, respectively, P = .04). Conversely, antipyretics
and analgesics other than acetaminophen were administered more commonly to
children with colds treated with echinacea than placebo (9.8% and 5.1%, respectively, P = .03).
Study medication bottles were returned by parents of 278 children, who
contributed data on 498 URIs. Among these patients, 238 (85.6%) had compliance
reported in the logbooks of at least 80%; this compliance was verified by
a determination based on changes in bottle weights before and after the observation
period in 229 children (96%). Overall, reported compliance with administering
study medication as prescribed was at least 80% for 620 (87.6%) of the 707
study URIs, including 85.8% of URIs treated with echinacea and 89.5% of those
treated with placebo (P = .16). After limiting the
analysis to the 620 URIs in which patients received at least 80% of the prescribed
study medication, there was no difference in the duration (P = .68) or severity (P = .41) of symptoms
between the groups.
At least 1 adverse event was reported during 42.5% of study URIs, with
no significant difference between the 2 treatment groups (P = .14) (Table 3). Rash
was reported during 7.1% of URIs treated with echinacea and 2.7% of those
treated with placebo (P = .008). Parents were also
asked about adverse events through telephone contacts during URIs in their
children. There was at least 1 telephone contact with parents of study patients
during 704 of the 707 URIs; the median interval from the first day of study
medication until the first contact was 3 days (range, 2-17 days). One or more
adverse event was noted through this mechanism during 22.8% of URIs, including
25.6% of those treated with echinacea and 20.8% of those in which placebo
was administered (P = .06). In the echinacea group,
77.3% of adverse events were categorized as mild and 21.2% as moderate; the
percentages were similar in URIs treated with placebo (P = .89). Two children had a serious adverse event, the sudden onset
of stridor after receiving a dose of study medication that was severe enough
to necessitate a visit to an emergency department; both of these patients
were treated as outpatients with oral steroids. Both patients were receiving
echinacea, and both were excluded from further participation in the study.
Parents of 398 of the 407 study pa-tients who had at least 1 URI were
contacted at the end of the observation period and asked to guess which medication
their child had taken. Among those parents whose children were randomized
to the echinacea group, 35.1% correctly guessed that their child had received
the active medication, 22.7% thought that their child had taken placebo, and
42.3% indicated that they didn't know which medication they had received.
The results were similar among parents of placebo recipients; 33.8% thought
that their child had received echinacea, 25.5% placebo, and 40.7% did not
know.
The sample of 707 URIs in 407 children provided an 80% chance to detect
a 2-day difference in duration of symptoms in URIs treated with echinacea
and placebo, given a median duration of 9 days in the placebo group (2-sided α
level = .05).
The results of this study demonstrate that E purpurea, in the dosing regimen used, was not effective in shortening the duration
or decreasing the severity of URIs in children 2 to 11 years old. Despite
multiple subanalyses, we did not find any group of children in whom echinacea
appeared to have a positive effect. We also found no differences between echinacea
and placebo for secondary study outcomes. Echinacea was generally well tolerated.
However, although rash was only reported during 7.1% of URIs in children treated
with active medication, this was a significantly greater frequency than in
placebo recipients; the P value for the difference
was sufficiently low (.008), suggesting that this was actually an adverse
effect of treatment with echinacea.
To our knowledge, this is one of the largest randomized controlled trials
of echinacea in pediatric patients, and perhaps one of the largest conducted
on patients of any age. In addition to our large sample size, the validity
of the results is strengthened because of several aspects of the project.
First, we enrolled patients who seek care from both traditional and alternative
providers in an attempt to negate the effects of preconceived biases about
echinacea. The "blinding" procedures worked well; virtually equal proportions
of parents of children receiving echinacea and placebo guessed that their
child received active medication, while the biggest proportion indicated that
they "couldn't tell" which medication their child received. In addition, through
extensive telephone contacts and the ability to talk with a study coordinator
24 hours each day, we collected data on a high percentage of URIs and were
able to ensure that the medication was started early in the course of the
illness. Finally, our results were the same whether we used standardized definitions
for severity or a global assessment of severity by parents of study children.
Other placebo-controlled trials on the efficacy of echinacea in treating
URIs have all been conducted in adults and have had mixed results. In 2 trials
using products similar to that used in our study, patients receiving echinacea
had significantly shorter and less severe URIs than placebo recipients.24,25 Other investigators have used E pallida root,26 mixtures
of E purpurea root and herb,27 and
mixtures of E purpurea root, herb, and E angustifolia herb28; in each of these
studies the active medication was found to be more effective than placebo
in decreasing duration and/or severity of URIs. However, it is difficult to
generalize the results of these trials because of significant methodological
issues, including problems with randomization, the adequacy of blinding, and
analytic techniques.18-20 In
a more recently published study, Barrett et al29 found
no difference between a mixture of E purpurea root
and herb and E angustifolia root and placebo in relieving
URI symptoms.
There are several possible explanations for our finding of a lack of
efficacy of echinacea in treating URIs in children. It is thought that echinacea
therapy should be initiated at the first signs of a URI to be effective.30 Although we designed our trial so that the study
medication could be begun in a timely manner, it is conceivable that if the
medication were started even earlier in the course of the illness, we may
have found benefit. In previous trials with positive results using products
similar to that used in our study, treatment was begun when patients had a
subjective feeling of a cold, rather than requiring a minimum of 2 symptoms.24,25 Because the active ingredients in
echinacea have not been standardized, it is difficult to determine the optimal
dosing regimen in children. We may have had different results in our study
if we had used a different species of echinacea or different preparation of E purpurea, if we had used a larger dose of medication,
or had used a different dosing schedule.
Finally, one of the most vexing problems in conducting research on symptomatic
relief in children is adequately assessing outcomes. Not only is the assessment
secondhand (ie, made by the parent instead of the child), fewer symptoms can
be evaluated than in trials of adults. In addition, although the scoring system
we used for assessing symptoms was based on criteria developed and validated
in adults,31 there are, to our knowledge, no
scoring systems that have been validated in children. These inherent problems
may explain why similarly designed trials of zinc gluconate for the treatment
of URIs had positive results when adults were studied,32 but
negative results in children.3
Our study had an 80% power of detecting a decrease of approximately
20% in duration of URI symptoms in those patients receiving echinacea. This
is a smaller effect size than that observed in previous trials.24-26,28 It
is possible that echinacea, as used in our study, may have had a small benefit
in reducing the duration of symptoms that might have been detected with a
larger sample size.
Although we attempted to exclude children with known allergies to echinacea
species or those with other atopic conditions from participation, it is possible
that the increased rate of rash seen in children whose URIs were treated with
echinacea was a manifestation of an allergic reaction. Severe allergic reactions
to echinacea, including anaphylaxis, have been reported.33 It
is possible that the 2 children in our study who developed croup symptoms
shortly after taking a dose of echinacea may have been experiencing an allergic
reaction. However, this result could also have easily been a chance occurrence;
croup is not an uncommon disease in young children with URI symptoms.34 Further, placebo-controlled studies in adults have
not documented any increase in rash or allergic reactions among echinacea
recipients.20,24,25,27,29
The statistically significant reduction in the number of subsequent
URIs in children receiving echinacea compared with placebo recipients may
be a spurious finding, given the multitude of outcomes examined. We had not
planned on conducting this analysis prior to the study. However, the result
is intriguing. It is conceivable that echinacea stimulated an immune response
in study children that was too late to modify the URI for which it was given
but provided a window of protection against another URI in the child. In one
study, an echinacea preparation similar to that used in our trial was effective
in preventing URIs in patients 13 to 84 years old, when given over an 8-week
course.35
Given its lack of documented efficacy and an increased risk for the
development of rash, our results do not support the use of echinacea for treatment
of URIs in children 2 to 11 years old. Further studies using different echinacea
formulations, doses, and dosing frequencies are needed to delineate any possible
role for this herb in treating colds in young patients. Our finding that echinacea
may be effective in preventing URIs also deserves additional study.
1.Dingle JH, Badjer DF, Jordan Jr WS. Common respiratory diseases. In: Dingle JH, Badjer DF, Jordan WS Jr. Illness
in the Home. Cleveland, Ohio: Western Reserve University; 1964:33-96.
2.Wald ER, Guerra N, Byers C. Upper respiratory tract infections in young children: duration of and
frequency of complications.
Pediatrics.1991;87:129-133.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1987522&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 3.Macknin ML, Piedmonte M, Calendine C, Janosky J, Wald E. Zinc gluconate lozenges for treating the common cold in children.
JAMA.1998;279:1962-1967.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9643859&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 4.Aitken M, Taylor JA. Prevalence of clinical sinusitis in young children followed up by primary
care pediatricians.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.1998;152:244-248.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9529461&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 5.Kogan MD, Pappas G, Yu S, Kotelchuck, M. Over-the-counter medication use among US preschool-age children.
JAMA.1994;272:1025-1030.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8089884&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 6.Smith MB, Feldman W. Over-the-counter cold medications: a critical review of clinical trials
between 1950 and 1991.
JAMA.1993;269:2258-2263.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8097268&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 7.Taylor JA, Novack AH, Almquist JR, Rogers JE. Efficacy of cough suppressants in children.
J Pediatr.1993;122:799-802.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8496765&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 8.Clemens CJ, Taylor JA, Almquist JR.
et al. Is an antihistamine-decongestant combination effective in temporarily
relieving symptoms of the common cold in preschool children?
J Pediatr.1997;130:463-466.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9063425&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 9.Spigelblatt L, Laine-Ammara G, Pless IB, Guyver A. The use of alternative medicine by children.
Pediatrics.1994;94:811-814.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7970994&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 10.Ottolini MC, Hamburger EK, Loprieato JO.
et al. Complementary and alternative medicine use among children in the Washington,
DC area.
Ambul Pediatr.2001;1:122-125.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11888385&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 11.Sawni-Sikand A, Schubiner H, Thomas RL. Use of complementary/alternative therapies among children in primary
care pediatrics.
Ambul Pediatr.2002;2:99-103.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11926840&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 12.Pitetti R, Singh S, Hornyak D, Garcia SE, Herr S. Complementary and alternative medicine use in children.
Pediatr Emerg Care.2001;17:165-169.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11437139&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 13.O'Hara MA, Kiefer D, Farrell K, Kemper K. A review of 12 commonly used medicinal herbs.
Arch Fam Med.1998;7:523-536.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9821826&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 14.Zink T, Chaffin J. Herbal "health" products: what family physicians need to know.
Am Fam Physician.1998;58:1133-1140.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9787279&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 15.Canedy D. Real medicine or medicine show? growth of herbal sales raises issues
about value.
New York Times.July 23, 1998:C1.Google Scholar 16.Melchart D, Linde K, Worku F.
et al. Results of five randomized studies on the immunomodulatory activity
of preparations of Echinacea.
J Altern Complement Med.1995;1:145-160.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9395611&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 17.Stimpel M, Proksch A, Wagner H, Lohmann-Matthes ML. Macrophage activation and induction of macrophage cytotoxicity by purified
polysaccharide fractions from the plant
Echinacea purpurea. Infect Immun.1984;46:845-849.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6389368&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 18.Barrett B, Vohmann M, Calabrese C. Echinacea for upper respiratory infection.
J Fam Pract.1999;48:628-635.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10496642&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 19. Echinacea for prevention and treatment of upper respiratory infections.
Med Lett Drugs Ther.2002;44:29-30.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11941266&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 20.Melchart D, Linde K, Fischer P, Kaesmayr J. Echinacea for preventing and treating the common cold.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2000;(2):CD000530.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10796553&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 21.Fox JD, Cooney MK, Hall CE, Foy H. Rhinoviruses in Seattle families, 1975-1979.
Am J Epidemiol.1985;122:830-846.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2996330&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 22.Newall CA, Anderson LA, Phillipson JD. Herbal Medicines: A Guide for Health Care Professionals. London, England: Pharmaceutical Press; 1996.
23.Wei LJ, Lin DY, Weissfeld L. Regression analysis of multivariate incomplete failure time data by
modeling marginal distributions.
J Am Stat Assoc.1989;84:1065-1073.Google Scholar 24.Hoheisel O, Sandberg M, Bertram S, Bulitta M, Schafer M. Echinagard treatment shortens the course of the common cold.
Eur J Clin Res.1997;9:261-268.Google Scholar 25.Schulten B, Bulitta M, Ballering-Bruhl B.
et al. Efficacy of
Echinacea purpurea in patients
with a common cold.
Arzneimittelforschung.2001;51:563-568.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11505787&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 26.Dorn M, Knick E, Lewith G. Placebo-controlled, double-blind study of
Echinacea
pallidae radix in upper respiratory tract infections.
Complement Ther Med.1997;5:40-42.Google Scholar 27.Brinkeborn RM, Shah DV, Degenring FH. Echinaforce and other Echinacea fresh plant preparations in the treatment
of the common cold.
Phytomedicine.1999;6:1-6.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10228604&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 28.Lindemuth GF, Lindemuth EB. The efficacy of Echinacea compound herbal tea preparation on the severity
and duration of upper respiratory and flu symptoms.
J Altern Complement Med.2000;6:327-334.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10976979&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 29.Barrett BP, Brown RL, Locken K.
et al. Treatment of the common cold with unrefined Echinacea.
Ann Intern Med.2002;137:939-946.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12484708&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 30.Henneicke-von Zepelin H, Hentschel C, Schnitker J.
et al. Efficacy and safety of a fixed combination phytomedicine in the treatment
of the common cold (acute viral respiratory tract infection).
Curr Med Res Opin.1999;15:214-227.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10621929&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 31.Jackson GG, Dowling HF, Spiesman IG, Boand AV. Transmission of the common cold to volunteers under controlled conditions,
I: the common cold as a clinical entity.
Arch Intern Med.1958;101:267-278.Google Scholar 32.Mossad SB, Macknin ML, Medendorp SV, Mason P. Zinc gluconate lozenges for treating the common cold.
Ann Intern Med.1996;125:81-88.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8678384&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 33.Mullins RJ, Heddle R. Adverse reactions associated with Echinacea: the Australian experience.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol.2002;88:42-51.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11814277&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 34.Denny FW, Murphy TF, Clyde Jr WA, Collier AM, Henderson FW. Croup: an 11-year study in a pediatric practice.
Pediatrics.1983;71:871-876.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6304611&dopt=Abstract
Google Scholar 35.Schoneberger D. The influence of immune-stimulating effects of pressed juice from
Echinacea purpurea on the course and severity colds: results
of a double-blind study [in German].
Forum Immunologie.1992;8:2-12.Google Scholar