Brian K. Crownover, MD

Evidence summary

The Healthy People 2010 report calls for increasing the proportion of Americans who engage in moderate physical activity (activities that use large muscle groups and are at least equivalent to brisk walking) from 15% to 30%.¹ The report doesn’t describe how best to achieve this objective.

Systematic review reveals approaches worth trying
The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a systematic review of 94 qualifying trials and assigned interventions to 1 of 3 approaches: “information based,” “behavioral and social,” and “facilities and activities.”²

Behavioral and social interventions have the best data support.² Within this category, strong evidence backed school-based physical education and accountability partners or exercise support groups. School-based physical education resulted in a median net increase in physical activity time of 50.3% (range 6.0%-125.3%); accountability partners or support groups produced a mean net increase of 44.2% (interquartile range 19.9%-45.6%).

“Green” prescriptions are primary care behavioral interventions that include measurable goals, self-reward, structured problem-solving, social network reinforcement, and relapse prevention counseling. In the DHHS review, 10 trials studied green prescriptions; the median net increase in physical activity time was 35.4% (interquartile range 16.7%-83.3%).² A trial in 42 rural and urban New Zealand general practices that added 3 telephone follow-up sessions to the green prescription showed a 10% increase in achieving 150 minutes of vigorous exercise weekly among green prescription participants compared with controls (number needed to treat=10).³

Pedometers. A systematic review using meta-regression to calculate summary effects evaluated the use of pedometers by study participants for an average of 18 weeks.⁴ Pedometer users increased their physical activity significantly, by 2491 steps per day compared with controls (95% confidence interval [CI], 1098-3885 steps per day).⁴ In adults, walking normally and walking briskly for an average of 2500 steps burns 100 and 150 kcal, respectively.⁵

Here’s what works with kids
A British systematic review of 24 high-quality controlled trials involving adolescents and children reported significant improvements with interventions that were school-based and either community- or family-based. Multidimensional outcomes included a 42% increase in participation in regular physical activity and an increase of 83 minutes weekly in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.⁶

A US meta-analysis of 11 after-school programs with an average contact time of 275 minutes per week showed a positive standardized mean difference effect size for physical activity (0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.60).⁷

Evidence for other interventions is lacking
Insufficient evidence exists to support other interventions, such as classroom-based informational health education, mass media campaigns, college-based health and physical education, and classroom-based education focused on reducing television viewing and video-game playing.²

Recommendations

The British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has found sufficient evidence to recommend brief interventions in primary care. They include:

• using a validated tool to identify inactive patients
• recommending at least 30 minutes of patient-specific exercise at least 5 days per week
• establishing exercise goals
• presenting patients with written material on the benefits of exercise and local exercise opportunities
• following up several times over a 3-to 6-month period.⁸

Acknowledgments
The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and not to be construed as official, or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force Medical Service or the US Air Force at large.

Evidence summary

The Healthy People 2010 report calls for increasing the proportion of Americans who engage in moderate physical activity (activities that use large muscle groups and are at least equivalent to brisk walking) from 15% to 30%.¹ The report doesn’t describe how best to achieve this objective.

Systematic review reveals approaches worth trying
The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a systematic review of 94 qualifying trials and assigned interventions to 1 of 3 approaches: “information based,” “behavioral and social,” and “facilities and activities.”²

Behavioral and social interventions have the best data support.² Within this category, strong evidence backed school-based physical education and accountability partners or exercise support groups. School-based physical education resulted in a median net increase in physical activity time of 50.3% (range 6.0%-125.3%); accountability partners or support groups produced a mean net increase of 44.2% (interquartile range 19.9%-45.6%).

“Green” prescriptions are primary care behavioral interventions that include measurable goals, self-reward, structured problem-solving, social network reinforcement, and relapse prevention counseling. In the DHHS review, 10 trials studied green prescriptions; the median net increase in physical activity time was 35.4% (interquartile range 16.7%-83.3%).² A trial in 42 rural and urban New Zealand general practices that added 3 telephone follow-up sessions to the green prescription showed a 10% increase in achieving 150 minutes of vigorous exercise weekly among green prescription participants compared with controls (number needed to treat=10).³

Pedometers. A systematic review using meta-regression to calculate summary effects evaluated the use of pedometers by study participants for an average of 18 weeks.⁴ Pedometer users increased their physical activity significantly, by 2491 steps per day compared with controls (95% confidence interval [CI], 1098-3885 steps per day).⁴ In adults, walking normally and walking briskly for an average of 2500 steps burns 100 and 150 kcal, respectively.⁵

Here’s what works with kids
A British systematic review of 24 high-quality controlled trials involving adolescents and children reported significant improvements with interventions that were school-based and either community- or family-based. Multidimensional outcomes included a 42% increase in participation in regular physical activity and an increase of 83 minutes weekly in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.⁶

A US meta-analysis of 11 after-school programs with an average contact time of 275 minutes per week showed a positive standardized mean difference effect size for physical activity (0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.60).⁷

Evidence for other interventions is lacking
Insufficient evidence exists to support other interventions, such as classroom-based informational health education, mass media campaigns, college-based health and physical education, and classroom-based education focused on reducing television viewing and video-game playing.²

Recommendations

The British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has found sufficient evidence to recommend brief interventions in primary care. They include:

• using a validated tool to identify inactive patients
• recommending at least 30 minutes of patient-specific exercise at least 5 days per week
• establishing exercise goals
• presenting patients with written material on the benefits of exercise and local exercise opportunities
• following up several times over a 3-to 6-month period.⁸

Acknowledgments
The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and not to be construed as official, or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force Medical Service or the US Air Force at large.

Evidence summary

The Healthy People 2010 report calls for increasing the proportion of Americans who engage in moderate physical activity (activities that use large muscle groups and are at least equivalent to brisk walking) from 15% to 30%.¹ The report doesn’t describe how best to achieve this objective.

Systematic review reveals approaches worth trying
The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a systematic review of 94 qualifying trials and assigned interventions to 1 of 3 approaches: “information based,” “behavioral and social,” and “facilities and activities.”²

Behavioral and social interventions have the best data support.² Within this category, strong evidence backed school-based physical education and accountability partners or exercise support groups. School-based physical education resulted in a median net increase in physical activity time of 50.3% (range 6.0%-125.3%); accountability partners or support groups produced a mean net increase of 44.2% (interquartile range 19.9%-45.6%).

“Green” prescriptions are primary care behavioral interventions that include measurable goals, self-reward, structured problem-solving, social network reinforcement, and relapse prevention counseling. In the DHHS review, 10 trials studied green prescriptions; the median net increase in physical activity time was 35.4% (interquartile range 16.7%-83.3%).² A trial in 42 rural and urban New Zealand general practices that added 3 telephone follow-up sessions to the green prescription showed a 10% increase in achieving 150 minutes of vigorous exercise weekly among green prescription participants compared with controls (number needed to treat=10).³

Pedometers. A systematic review using meta-regression to calculate summary effects evaluated the use of pedometers by study participants for an average of 18 weeks.⁴ Pedometer users increased their physical activity significantly, by 2491 steps per day compared with controls (95% confidence interval [CI], 1098-3885 steps per day).⁴ In adults, walking normally and walking briskly for an average of 2500 steps burns 100 and 150 kcal, respectively.⁵

Here’s what works with kids
A British systematic review of 24 high-quality controlled trials involving adolescents and children reported significant improvements with interventions that were school-based and either community- or family-based. Multidimensional outcomes included a 42% increase in participation in regular physical activity and an increase of 83 minutes weekly in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.⁶

A US meta-analysis of 11 after-school programs with an average contact time of 275 minutes per week showed a positive standardized mean difference effect size for physical activity (0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.60).⁷

Evidence for other interventions is lacking
Insufficient evidence exists to support other interventions, such as classroom-based informational health education, mass media campaigns, college-based health and physical education, and classroom-based education focused on reducing television viewing and video-game playing.²

Recommendations

The British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has found sufficient evidence to recommend brief interventions in primary care. They include:

• using a validated tool to identify inactive patients
• recommending at least 30 minutes of patient-specific exercise at least 5 days per week
• establishing exercise goals
• presenting patients with written material on the benefits of exercise and local exercise opportunities
• following up several times over a 3-to 6-month period.⁸

Acknowledgments
The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and not to be construed as official, or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force Medical Service or the US Air Force at large.

Evidence summary

Based on the advantage of nocturnal sedation of first-generation antihistamines, clinicians frequently use these agents to treat pruritus. Evidence is lacking to support this intuitive approach. Furthermore, not all pruritus can be lumped into a single category, as distinct treatment recommendations exist for different categories.

The best evidence supporting antihistamines is for the treatment of urticarial pruritus. A Medline-based review found 7 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that compared the benefit of first- and second-generation antihistamines in 720 patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Hydroxyzine was used in 682 patients, while the remainder took clemastine. Second-generation agents included cetirizine, loratadine, or acrivastine. The researchers qualitatively summarized outcomes and concluded that the treatment benefits were equivalent and superior to placebo.¹ The clinical practice of doubling the dose of second-generation agents for initial treatment failures was not recommended, due to absence of supporting data for this approach.

A recent review of therapies for urticarial itch concluded that second-generation antihista mines were preferred.² However, the methodology failed to use a systematic search technique. The conclusion was based upon a single double-blind placebo-controlled study of 188 patients at least 12 years of age. They received cetirizine 10 mg daily, hydroxyzine 25 mg 3 times daily, or placebo. This study found both agents produced significant, and equivalent, pruritus reduction relative to placebo.³

In contrast to urticarial itch, pruritus from atopic dermatitis does not improve with antihistamines. An NHS Centre narrative review on relieving pruritus in atopic dermatitis concluded that there was little objective evidence to support the efficacy of first- or second-generation antihistamines; 803 participants from 16 case series and reports were included. There were no large RCTs. Results were not pooled or tested for heterogeneity, so they should be interpreted cautiously.^4,5

Another systematic review focusing on pediatric patients concluded oral antihistamines are not beneficial for pruritus from atopic dermatitis. A search of Cochrane and PubMed revealed only 2 relevant RCTs involving 177 children. Cetirizine and chlorpheniramine were each compared with placebo, and no statistically significant reduction in symptoms was found.⁶

Vigilance must be exercised when interpreting pruritus literature. Many studies are pharmacodynamic only, omit appropriate statistical information, and measure surrogate outcomes in healthy volunteers, such as wheal and flare suppression to injected histamine. Such disease-oriented evidence has filtered into clinical recommendations.

One recent nonsystematic, narrative review of pruritic dermatoses concluded second-generation antihistamines appear to be more effective.⁷ This conclusion was largely based on a study of 14 young, healthy, “light-skinned” Canadian men. No placebo control was used. Seven received fexofenadine 120 mg; the other 7 took diphenhydramine 50 mg. Primary outcomes were concentrations of drug in skin punch biopsies and plasma samples, plus degree of wheal and flare suppression to histamine. In this study, fexofenadine showed statistically significant disease-oriented results.⁸

Recommendations from others

No evidence-based guidelines or consensus statements were found that address antihistamine preference in the treatment of pruritus. Although use of non-antihistamine agents is beyond the scope of this inquiry, an excellent topical review of pruritus was recently published that comprehensively outlined the Twycross classification system and detailed the evidence for usual and nontraditional treatments.⁹ Since antihistamines do not benefit atopic-related pruritus, other options include emollients, counterirritants such as menthol/camphor or capsaicin, EMLA cream, topical pramoxine, topical corticosteroids, topical doxepin, topical immunomodulators such as pimecrolimus or tacrolimus, topical aspirin, and phototherapy with psoralen ultraviolet A-range (PUVA).

Acknowledgments

The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the author and are not to be construed as official, or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force medical department or the US Air Force at large.

Evidence summary

Based on the advantage of nocturnal sedation of first-generation antihistamines, clinicians frequently use these agents to treat pruritus. Evidence is lacking to support this intuitive approach. Furthermore, not all pruritus can be lumped into a single category, as distinct treatment recommendations exist for different categories.

The best evidence supporting antihistamines is for the treatment of urticarial pruritus. A Medline-based review found 7 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that compared the benefit of first- and second-generation antihistamines in 720 patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Hydroxyzine was used in 682 patients, while the remainder took clemastine. Second-generation agents included cetirizine, loratadine, or acrivastine. The researchers qualitatively summarized outcomes and concluded that the treatment benefits were equivalent and superior to placebo.¹ The clinical practice of doubling the dose of second-generation agents for initial treatment failures was not recommended, due to absence of supporting data for this approach.

A recent review of therapies for urticarial itch concluded that second-generation antihista mines were preferred.² However, the methodology failed to use a systematic search technique. The conclusion was based upon a single double-blind placebo-controlled study of 188 patients at least 12 years of age. They received cetirizine 10 mg daily, hydroxyzine 25 mg 3 times daily, or placebo. This study found both agents produced significant, and equivalent, pruritus reduction relative to placebo.³

In contrast to urticarial itch, pruritus from atopic dermatitis does not improve with antihistamines. An NHS Centre narrative review on relieving pruritus in atopic dermatitis concluded that there was little objective evidence to support the efficacy of first- or second-generation antihistamines; 803 participants from 16 case series and reports were included. There were no large RCTs. Results were not pooled or tested for heterogeneity, so they should be interpreted cautiously.^4,5

Another systematic review focusing on pediatric patients concluded oral antihistamines are not beneficial for pruritus from atopic dermatitis. A search of Cochrane and PubMed revealed only 2 relevant RCTs involving 177 children. Cetirizine and chlorpheniramine were each compared with placebo, and no statistically significant reduction in symptoms was found.⁶

Vigilance must be exercised when interpreting pruritus literature. Many studies are pharmacodynamic only, omit appropriate statistical information, and measure surrogate outcomes in healthy volunteers, such as wheal and flare suppression to injected histamine. Such disease-oriented evidence has filtered into clinical recommendations.

One recent nonsystematic, narrative review of pruritic dermatoses concluded second-generation antihistamines appear to be more effective.⁷ This conclusion was largely based on a study of 14 young, healthy, “light-skinned” Canadian men. No placebo control was used. Seven received fexofenadine 120 mg; the other 7 took diphenhydramine 50 mg. Primary outcomes were concentrations of drug in skin punch biopsies and plasma samples, plus degree of wheal and flare suppression to histamine. In this study, fexofenadine showed statistically significant disease-oriented results.⁸

Recommendations from others

No evidence-based guidelines or consensus statements were found that address antihistamine preference in the treatment of pruritus. Although use of non-antihistamine agents is beyond the scope of this inquiry, an excellent topical review of pruritus was recently published that comprehensively outlined the Twycross classification system and detailed the evidence for usual and nontraditional treatments.⁹ Since antihistamines do not benefit atopic-related pruritus, other options include emollients, counterirritants such as menthol/camphor or capsaicin, EMLA cream, topical pramoxine, topical corticosteroids, topical doxepin, topical immunomodulators such as pimecrolimus or tacrolimus, topical aspirin, and phototherapy with psoralen ultraviolet A-range (PUVA).

Acknowledgments

The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the author and are not to be construed as official, or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force medical department or the US Air Force at large.

Evidence summary

Based on the advantage of nocturnal sedation of first-generation antihistamines, clinicians frequently use these agents to treat pruritus. Evidence is lacking to support this intuitive approach. Furthermore, not all pruritus can be lumped into a single category, as distinct treatment recommendations exist for different categories.

The best evidence supporting antihistamines is for the treatment of urticarial pruritus. A Medline-based review found 7 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that compared the benefit of first- and second-generation antihistamines in 720 patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Hydroxyzine was used in 682 patients, while the remainder took clemastine. Second-generation agents included cetirizine, loratadine, or acrivastine. The researchers qualitatively summarized outcomes and concluded that the treatment benefits were equivalent and superior to placebo.¹ The clinical practice of doubling the dose of second-generation agents for initial treatment failures was not recommended, due to absence of supporting data for this approach.

A recent review of therapies for urticarial itch concluded that second-generation antihista mines were preferred.² However, the methodology failed to use a systematic search technique. The conclusion was based upon a single double-blind placebo-controlled study of 188 patients at least 12 years of age. They received cetirizine 10 mg daily, hydroxyzine 25 mg 3 times daily, or placebo. This study found both agents produced significant, and equivalent, pruritus reduction relative to placebo.³

In contrast to urticarial itch, pruritus from atopic dermatitis does not improve with antihistamines. An NHS Centre narrative review on relieving pruritus in atopic dermatitis concluded that there was little objective evidence to support the efficacy of first- or second-generation antihistamines; 803 participants from 16 case series and reports were included. There were no large RCTs. Results were not pooled or tested for heterogeneity, so they should be interpreted cautiously.^4,5

Another systematic review focusing on pediatric patients concluded oral antihistamines are not beneficial for pruritus from atopic dermatitis. A search of Cochrane and PubMed revealed only 2 relevant RCTs involving 177 children. Cetirizine and chlorpheniramine were each compared with placebo, and no statistically significant reduction in symptoms was found.⁶

Vigilance must be exercised when interpreting pruritus literature. Many studies are pharmacodynamic only, omit appropriate statistical information, and measure surrogate outcomes in healthy volunteers, such as wheal and flare suppression to injected histamine. Such disease-oriented evidence has filtered into clinical recommendations.

One recent nonsystematic, narrative review of pruritic dermatoses concluded second-generation antihistamines appear to be more effective.⁷ This conclusion was largely based on a study of 14 young, healthy, “light-skinned” Canadian men. No placebo control was used. Seven received fexofenadine 120 mg; the other 7 took diphenhydramine 50 mg. Primary outcomes were concentrations of drug in skin punch biopsies and plasma samples, plus degree of wheal and flare suppression to histamine. In this study, fexofenadine showed statistically significant disease-oriented results.⁸

Recommendations from others

No evidence-based guidelines or consensus statements were found that address antihistamine preference in the treatment of pruritus. Although use of non-antihistamine agents is beyond the scope of this inquiry, an excellent topical review of pruritus was recently published that comprehensively outlined the Twycross classification system and detailed the evidence for usual and nontraditional treatments.⁹ Since antihistamines do not benefit atopic-related pruritus, other options include emollients, counterirritants such as menthol/camphor or capsaicin, EMLA cream, topical pramoxine, topical corticosteroids, topical doxepin, topical immunomodulators such as pimecrolimus or tacrolimus, topical aspirin, and phototherapy with psoralen ultraviolet A-range (PUVA).

Acknowledgments

The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the author and are not to be construed as official, or as reflecting the views of the US Air Force medical department or the US Air Force at large.