Comparative effects of desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine on nasal adenosine monophosphate challenge in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

Summary Background There are no data directly comparing the relative efficacy of modern H(1)-antihistamines in allergic rhinitis using nasal provocation challenge. Objective We elected to study the comparative effectiveness of usual clinically recommended doses of desloratadine (DES), fexofenadine (FEX), and levocetirizine (LEV), on nasal adenosine monophosphate (AMP) challenge in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). Methods 16 patients with PAR were randomized in double-blind cross-over fashion to receive single doses of DES 5 mg, FEX 180 mg, LEV 5 mg, or placebo (PL), with nasal AMP challenge performed 12 h after dosing. Measurements of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) were made over 60 min after nasal AMP challenge. Results Pre-challenge values (mean+/-SEM) for PNIF (L/min) were not significantly different comparing all groups; DES (129+/-9), FEX (128+/-11), LEV (128+/-13), and PL (128+/-12). The maximum % PNIF fall from baseline over 60 min after nasal AMP challenge was significantly attenuated (P<0.05) compared to PL (50+/-4), with DES (32+/-5), FEX (36+/-4), and LEV (36+/-4). The area under the 60-min time-response curve (%.min) was also significantly attenuated (P<0.05) compared to PL (2110+/-268), with DES (1126+/-285), FEX (1225+/-255), and LEV (1261+/-194). There were no significant differences between the three H(1)-antihistamines for any outcomes. Conclusion DES, FEX, and LEV were equally effective in attenuating the response to nasal AMP challenge. However, further long-term studies will be required to study their comparative effects on nasal symptoms, quality of life, as well as on nasal inflammatory cells.     

A comparison of once daily fexofenadine versus the combination of montelukast plus loratadine on domiciliary nasal peak flow and symptoms in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: The combination of montelukast (ML) and loratadine (LT) has previously been shown to be superior to either drug alone in managing seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), whilst fexofenadine (FEX) has been shown to be better than LT as monotherapy. OBJECTIVES: We wished to compare ML + LT vs. FEX alone for effects on daily measurements (am/pm) of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and symptoms. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with SAR (skin prick positive to grass pollen) were randomised into a single-blind, double-dummy placebo (PL)-controlled cross-over study during the grass pollen season, comparing 2 weeks of once daily treatment with (a) 120mg FEX or (b) 10mg ML + 10mg LT. There was a 7-10 day placebo run-in and washout prior to each randomised treatment. The average of am/pm PIF (the primary outcome variable) was analysed. Patients recorded their symptom scores (from 0 to 3) twice daily, for nasal blockage, discharge, itching and sneezing with; total eye symptoms, ocular cromoglycate use, and daily activity. The total nasal symptom score was calculated as a composite (out of 24). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between baselines after the run-in and washout placebos for any variables. There were significant (P < 0.05, Bonferroni) improvements in all symptoms and PIF compared to pooled placebo with both treatments for all end-points, but no differences between the two treatment regimes (as means and within-treatment 95% confidence intervals): PIF: PL 102 (98-107), FEX 111 (107-116), ML+LT 113 (109-118); total nasal symptoms: PL 7.4 (6.7-2.0), FEX 5.0 (4.3-5.7), ML + LT 4.0 (3.3-4.7). CONCLUSIONS: Once daily FEX as monotherapy was equally effective as the combination of once daily ML + LT in improving nasal peak flow and controlling symptoms in SAR. Further studies are indicated to assess whether ML confers additional benefits to FEX in SAR.     

A placebo-controlled evaluation of butterbur and fexofenadine on objective and subjective outcomes in perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: There are presently no placebo-controlled data regarding the effects of butterbur (BB) on subjective and objective outcomes in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: We performed a placebo-controlled evaluation of the effects of BB and fexofenadine (FEX) on subjective and objective outcomes in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Sixteen patients with perennial allergic rhinitis and house dust mite sensitization were randomized in double-blind cross-over fashion to receive for 1 week either BB 50 mg twice daily, FEX 180 mg once daily and placebo (PL) once daily, or PL twice daily. The peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) response to adenosine monophosphate (AMP) challenge administered as a single 400 mg/mL dose was measured over a 60-min period after challenge, and domiciliary total nasal symptom score was recorded. RESULTS: Pre-challenge values for mean+/-SEM PNIF (L/min) were not significantly different comparing all groups; BB (138+/-8), FEX (140+/-9), and PL (138+/-8). The maximum % PNIF fall from baseline after nasal AMP challenge was significantly attenuated (P<0.05) compared to PL (46+/-3), with BB (34+/-3) and FEX (39+/-3). The area under the 60-min time-response curve (%.min) was also significantly attenuated (P<0.05) compared to PL (1734+/-156), with BB (1052+/-258) and FEX (1194+/-161). There was also a significant reduction (P<0.05) in total nasal symptom score with BB (1.8+/-0.4) and FEX (1.8+/-0.4), compared to PL (2.8+/-0.5). There were no significant differences between BB and FEX for any outcomes. CONCLUSION: BB and FEX, in comparison to PL, were equally effective in attenuating the nasal response to AMP and in improving nasal symptoms, highlighting a potential role for BB in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.     

Desloratadine therapy for symptoms associated with perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) has a substantial negative social and economic impact. Recent studies emphasize the potential seriousness of PAR and the need for improved treatment of this condition. OBJECTIVE: To confirm the efficacy and safety of the H1-antihistamine desloratadine in reducing the symptoms of PAR in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with PAR (N = 1,179) from 67 US/international centers received desloratadine, 5 mg once daily, or identical placebo tablets. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 4 in average morning and evening reflective total symptom scores (TSSs). Secondary end points included changes from baseline in total nasal and nonnasal symptom scores and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) rates. RESULTS: Desloratadine was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing morning and evening reflective TSSs for each week and during weeks 1 through 4 (P = .001). Mean changes in TSSs during the 4-week study were -3.9 (26.6% reduction) and -3.2 (22.3% reduction) for the desloratadine and placebo groups, respectively (P = .001, desloratadine vs placebo). With desloratadine therapy, significant improvements were also seen in secondary efficacy end points compared with placebo use (total nasal and nonnasal symptom scores: P < or = .04). Improvements in mean morning PNIF were significantly greater in the desloratadine-treated group than in the placebo group (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm and extend previous findings that desloratadine is safe and is associated with a statistically significant reduction in nasal and nonnasal symptoms in patients with PAR. Objective nasal airflow, evaluated by PNIF, was statistically significantly improved after desloratadine treatment.     

Efficacy of desloratadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, controlled trials

The objective of the study is to assess the efficacy of the nonsedating antihistamine, desloratadine, in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL databases was undertaken from January, 1966 to May, 2006. Double-blind, randomized, controlled studies of desloratadine in the treatment of AR in adult patients were carried out. The measured outcomes included the total symptoms score, the total nasal symptoms score, nasal airflow, and inflammatory markers (nasal eosinophils, nasal interleukin-4). The analysis included the calculation of standardized mean difference (SMD). A total of 57 studies were analyzed, and 13 randomized, double-blind, controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The trials included 3108 subjects who had completed studies involving desloratadine. There was significant heterogeneity among the study results, because of differing study methodologies. Desloratadine was associated with significant reductions in total symptoms scores (SMD -1.63; 95% CI -2.75 to -0.51; P = 0.004) and total nasal symptoms score (SMD -0.66; 95% CI -0.91 to -0.42; P < 0.001), when compared with placebo. Analysis of objective data on nasal blockage demonstrated a significant improvement in nasal airflow with desloratadine, when compared with placebo (SMD 0.32; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55; P = 0.005). A benefit favoring desloratadine over placebo in terms of nasal eosinophil levels was also noted in the analysis. This meta-analysis confirms the reduction of AR symptoms and improvement in nasal airflow seen in individual studies of desloratadine. Objective improvements in nasal airflow, total symptoms, and total nasal symptoms seen with desloratadine are supported by Ia evidence.     

Efficacy of diphenhydramine vs desloratadine and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that diphenhydramine and desloratadine effectively relieve symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of 50 mg of diphenhydramine hydrochloride, 5 mg of desloratadine, and placebo in relieving symptoms in patients with moderate-to-severe SAR. METHODS: In this 1-week, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study, 610 patients with moderate-to-severe SAR received 50 mg of diphenhydramine hydrochloride 3 times daily, 5 mg of desloratadine once daily, or placebo. Daily 24-hour reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) (primary end point), total symptom scores, and individual symptom scores were evaluated. A global evaluation of response to treatment was conducted at 2 posttreatment visits. RESULTS: The mean reduction from baseline in 24-hour reflective TNSSs relative to the placebo response was 77.6% for the diphenhydramine group (P < .001) and 21.0% for the desloratadine group (P = .12). A TNSS between-treatment difference of -1.81 (46.7%; P < .001) was observed when comparing diphenhydramine with desloratadine. A similar between-treatment difference was observed for the 24-hour reflective total symptom score comparing diphenhydramine to desloratadine (-3.35; 45.5%; P < .001). Diphenhydramine provided clinically and statistically significant reductions vs placebo and desloratadine in all individual symptoms, including nasal congestion. Desloratadine had a tendency toward improvement compared with placebo for most individual symptom scores. However, a statistically significant result was reached only for sneezing (-0.27; 33.9%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Diphenhydramine, 50 mg, given for 1 week provided statistically significant and clinically superior improvements in symptoms compared with 5 mg of desloratadine in patients with moderate-to-severe SAR. Somnolence occurred more frequently with diphenhydramine (22.1%) compared with desloratadine (4.5%) and placebo (3.4%).     

Effect of desloratadine versus placebo on nasal airflow and subjective measures of nasal obstruction in subjects with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis in an allergen-exposure unit

BACKGROUND: Unlike many antihistamines, desloratadine can reduce nasal congestion in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: We compared the effects of 5 mg of desloratadine and placebo on nasal airflow and SAR symptoms, including nasal congestion, in response to grass pollen in an allergen-exposure unit. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, 47 subjects with histories of SAR received desloratadine or placebo every morning for 7 days and, after a 10-day washout period, were crossed over to the other treatment arm for 7 days. Subjects underwent a 6-hour allergen exposure on day 7 of each treatment period. Nasal airflow and nasal secretion weights were measured before and every 30 minutes during allergen exposure; SAR symptoms (including nasal congestion) were scored before exposure and every 15 minutes thereafter. RESULTS: Nasal obstruction, as measured by nasal airflow, was less severe with desloratadine than with placebo (P <.02). Individual and combined SAR symptom severity scores, including nasal congestion and sneezing, were significantly lower with desloratadine than with placebo (all P < or =.003). Within 30 minutes of allergen exposure, less severely decreased nasal airflow (P <.02), less nasal secretions (P <.001), and less severe symptoms, including nasal congestion (P <.002), rhinorrhea, and sneezing, occurred with desloratadine compared with placebo, and this continued throughout (0-6 hours) allergen exposure. Desloratadine was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSION: In subjects with allergen-induced SAR symptoms, desloratadine significantly reduced the severity of nasal obstruction and accompanying complaints of nasal congestion and other SAR symptoms compared with the effects of placebo.     

Safety and efficacy of desloratadine 5 mg in asthma patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and nasal congestion.

BACKGROUND: Antihistamines relieve most seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms, with the exception of nasal congestion, which is often the most troublesome symptom for patients. A nonsedating antihistamine that significantly decreases nasal congestion and improves symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma would be a significant advance in therapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of desloratadine 5 mg in patients experiencing moderate SAR, nasal congestion, and symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma. METHODS: This 4-week, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind study evaluated desloratadine treatment (5 mg once daily) versus placebo in 331 subjects with SAR and mild seasonal allergic asthma. Subjects evaluated SAR and asthma symptoms twice daily, recording 12-hour reflective and instantaneous severity evaluation scores. The primary efficacy parameter was the difference from baseline in AM/PM reflective total symptom scores. Changes in individual SAR and asthma symptoms were also analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, desloratadine significantly reduced mean AM/PM reflective total symptom scores for SAR, beginning with the first dose (P < 0.001) and continuing throughout days 1 to 15 (-4.90 vs -2.98; P < 0.001) and days 1 to 29 (-5.47 vs -3.73; P < 0.001). Desloratadine significantly decreased AM/PM reflective total asthma symptom scores for days 1 to 15 (P = 0.023) and AM/PM reflective nasal congestion scores over days 1 to 15 and days 1 to 29 (P = 0.006 and P = 0.014, respectively). Desloratadine was safe and well tolerated; adverse events were similar to placebo overall. CONCLUSIONS: Desloratadine provided significant relief from the signs and symptoms of SAR, including nasal congestion. In this patient population, symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma also improved.     

Effects of monotherapy with intra-nasal corticosteroid or combined oral histamine and leukotriene receptor antagonists in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: The combination of a leukotriene receptor antagonist with an antihistamine may have beneficial effects in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: To determine how combined oral mediator blockade compares to monotherapy with intranasal corticosteroid in the treatment of SAR. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were enrolled in a placebo controlled crossover study comparing 2 weeks therapy of either (a) 200 microg intranasal mometasone furoate (MF) once daily or (b) 10 mg oral montelukast plus 10 mg oral cetirizine once daily (MON/CZ), with a 7-10 day placebo period prior to each treatment period. Domiciliary measures of symptoms and nasal flow were recorded daily. Measurements of posterior rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry and nasal nitric oxide were made after all treatment and placebo periods. RESULTS: There were significant (P < 0.05) improvements in domiciliary peak nasal flow (l/min) with both MF (133 (3.8)) and MON/CZ (124 (3.8)) compared to pooled placebo (110 (4.0). Both treatments also showed significant improvement in terms of nasal blockage (units) (PL: 1.1(0.1), MF: 0.5 (0.1), MON/CZ 0.7 (0.1); and total nasal symptoms (units) (PL: 3.5 (0.3), MF 1.6 (0.3), MON/CZ 1.7 (0.3)), although there was no significant difference between the two active treatments. There were no significant differences between placebo and treatment for rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry or nitric oxide. CONCLUSIONS: Both intranasal mometasone furoate as monotherapy and oral cetirizine plus montelukast as cotherapy were equally effective for objective and subjective measures of treatment response in SAR. Domiciliary measurements of symptoms and peak flow were more sensitive than laboratory measurements of rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry and nasal nitric oxide.     

Comparison of the effects of desloratadine 5-mg daily and placebo on nasal airflow and seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms induced by grass pollen exposure

BACKGROUND: Nasal congestion is a chronic symptom of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) that is often difficult to treat with antihistamines. Desloratadine, a new, potent, H1-receptor antagonist has been shown to decrease nasal congestion in clinical trials and to maintain nasal airflow in response to grass pollen exposure. We compared the effects of desloratadine 5 mg and placebo on nasal airflow, nasal secretion weights and SAR symptoms, including nasal congestion, in patients exposed to grass pollen in an environmental exposure unit. METHODS: Forty-six grass pollen allergic SAR patients received desloratadine or placebo for 7 days, followed by a 10-day washout, and then crossed over to the other treatment for 7 days. A 6-h allergen exposure was performed at the end of each treatment period. RESULTS: Desloratadine was significantly superior to placebo in maintaining nasal airflow (P 相似文献   

Effect of desloratadine therapy on symptom scores and measures of nasal patency in seasonal allergic rhinitis: results of a single-center, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Desloratadine reduces symptoms and maintains nasal airflow in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) during experimental allergen exposure. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of desloratadine and placebo on symptom scores, quality of life (QOL), and nasal airway patency in patients with SAR during the allergy season. METHODS: Adults with symptomatic SAR were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive desloratadine, 5 mg, or placebo for 14 days. Patient-rated SAR symptoms were recorded twice daily (morning and evening). On days 1 and 15, SAR symptoms were scored jointly (investigator and patient), nasal airflow was measured using 4-phase rhinomanometry, and QOL and the overall condition of SAR were rated. Overall treatment response was scored on day 15. Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: At day 15, total symptom (P = .03) and total nasal symptom (P = .02) scores and patient morning-rated individual nasal symptom scores (except nasal stuffiness) (P < or = .04) decreased significantly from baseline with desloratadine vs placebo. Flow in the descending expiratory nasal airflow phase was significantly greater (P = .046) and the percentage increase in total inspiratory nasal airway resistance was less (P = .03) in the desloratadine group vs the placebo group. The overall condition of SAR was less severe (P = .045), the therapeutic response was greater (P = .004), and the nasal symptom domain of the QOL score was significantly better (P = .03) in the desloratadine group. Adverse event rates were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Desloratadine treatment for 14 days improved nasal airflow and resistance as well as symptom and QOL scores in patients with symptomatic SAR during the allergy season.     

Comparative in vivo bioactivity of modern H1-antihistamines on AMP challenge in atopic asthma

BACKGROUND: Modern H(1)-antihistamines differ in their in vitro binding affinity, but their comparative in vivo bioactivity in asthmatic airways is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We compared clinically recommended doses of 3 H(1)-antihistamines on airway hyperresponsiveness to AMP challenge (the primary outcome variable). METHODS: Sixteen atopic patients with mild-to-moderate asthma of whom 10 were receiving inhaled corticosteroid therapy (all had positive results to house dust mite on skin prick testing) were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over fashion to receive single doses of 5 mg of desloratadine, 180 mg of fexofenadine hydrochloride (FEX), 5 mg of levocetirizine dihydrochloride (LEV), or placebo, with AMP challenge performed 12 hours after dosing. RESULTS: All H(1)-antihistamines demonstrated significantly greater (P <.05) geometric mean +/- SEM AMP PC(20) values compared with that of placebo (86 +/- 29 mg/mL): desloratadine, 189 +/- 54 mg/mL; FEX, 176 +/- 57 mg/mL; and LEV, 163 +/- 48 mg/mL. Prechallenge forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of maximal lung volume (percent predicted) but not FEV(1) was significantly higher (P <.05) for all H(1)-antihistamines compared with that of placebo (53% +/- 4%): desloratadine, 62% +/- 4%; FEX, 62% +/- 4%; and LEV, 59% +/- 3%. There were no significant differences in either AMP PC(20) or lung function values among the H(1)-antihistamines. CONCLUSION: Single doses of H(1)-antihistamines improved airway hyperresponsiveness and small-airways caliber to a similar degree. Data for in vitro binding affinity do not therefore translate into commensurate differences in in vivo bioactivity at clinically recommended doses.     

Levocetirizine improves nasal obstruction and modulates cytokine pattern in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis: a pilot study

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is characterized by an IgE-dependent inflammation. Nasal obstruction is related to allergic inflammation. Some antihistamines have been demonstrated to be capable of improving this nasal symptom. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate nasal symptoms, nasal airflow, inflammatory cells, and cytokine pattern in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), before and after treatment with levocetirizine, desloratadine, or placebo. METHODS: Thirty patients with SAR were evaluated, 27 males and three females (mean age 26.9+/-5.4 years). All of them received levocetirizine (5 mg/day), desloratadine (5 mg/day), or placebo for 2 weeks. The study was double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, and randomized. Total symptom score (TSS) (including: rhinorrhea, nasal itching, sneezing, and nasal obstruction) was assessed before and after treatment. Rhinomanometry, nasal lavage, and nasal scraping were performed in all subjects before and after treatment. Inflammatory cells were counted by conventional staining; IL-4 and IL-8 were measured by immunoassay on fluids recovered from nasal lavage. RESULTS: Levocetirizine treatment induced significant symptom relief (P=0.0009) and improved nasal airflow (P=0.038). Desloratadine also relieved TSS (P=0.01), but did not affect nasal airflow. Levocetirizine significantly reduced eosinophils (P=0.029), neutrophils (P=0.005), IL-4 (P=0.041), and IL-8 (P=0.02), whereas desloratadine diminished IL-4 only (P=0.044). Placebo treatment did not significantly affect any evaluated parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates the effectiveness of levocetirizine in: (i) relieving nasal symptoms, (ii) improving nasal airflow, (iii) reducing leucocyte infiltration, and (iv) diminishing cytokine levels. These findings are the first evidence of the effectiveness of levocetirizine in SAR.     

Comparative effects of desloratadine versus montelukast on asthma symptoms and use of beta 2-agonists in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and asthma

BACKGROUND: Asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) are recognized as manifestations of a single airway disease. Desloratadine has demonstrated efficacy in treating SAR symptoms, including nasal obstruction. METHODS: Safety and efficacy of desloratadine and montelukast each were assessed in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with SAR and symptoms of asthma, who were assigned randomly to once-daily treatment with desloratadine 5 mg, montelukast 10 mg, or placebo for 4 weeks. Change from baseline of AM/PM reflective total asthma symptom severity scores (TASS), FEV(1), individual asthma symptom scores, and beta(2)-agonist usage were assessed. RESULTS: Desloratadine and montelukast each were associated with statistically significant reductions from baseline in the mean TASS averaged over the 4-week period (p < or =0.022 vs. placebo). Individual asthma symptom scores also improved significantly for both therapies (p < or = 0.05). Patients treated with desloratadine or montelukast demonstrated improvement from baseline in FEV(1) versus placebo; significant improvement was seen in a subset of patients with baseline FEV(1) <80% of predicted normal (both p < 0.05). Both active therapies significantly reduced beta(2)-agonist use (both p < 0.01). Improvements for both therapies were comparable for all efficacy parameters; they were tolerated well with adverse event profiles similar to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma symptoms and beta(2)-agonist were improved significantly in patients with concomitant SAR and asthma treated with desloratadine 5 mg as well as montelukast 10 mg once daily. Both therapies significantly improved FEV(1) in a subset of patients with FEV(1) <80% of predicted normal at entry. Improvements in asthma symptoms were comparable for both active treatment groups.     

Comparison of the efficacy, safety and quality of life provided by fexofenadine hydrochloride 120 mg, loratadine 10 mg and placebo administered once daily for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: As there have been no previously published studies, this multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group study compared the efficacy, safety and impact on quality of life (QoL) in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients (SAR) of fexofenadine and loratadine (with placebo), when administered once daily. METHODS: Six hundred and eighty-eight SAR patients were randomized to receive fexofenadine HCl 120 mg, loratadine 10 mg or placebo, once daily for 2 weeks. The key parameters were the change from baseline in: mean 24-h reflective total symptom scores (TSS); sum of four individual symptom scores, excluding nasal congestion; instantaneous TSS; individual symptom scores including nasal congestion; and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: Mean 24-h reflective and instantaneous TSS were significantly reduced by both fexofenadine HCl (both P 相似文献   

Efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone propionate nasal drops 400 μg once daily compared with placebo for the treatment of bilateral polyposis in adults

BACKGROUND: Chronic eosinophilic rhinosinusitis underlies a range of respiratory disorders including nasal polyposis. Surgical and medical methods are used to control polyps, with topical steroids commonly being used for their anti-inflammatory properties. Fluticasone propionate nasal drops (FPND) is a formulation developed specifically for an effective and well tolerated corticosteroid treatment of nasal polyposis. OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy and tolerability of FPND in the treatment of bilateral nasal polyposis in adults. METHODS: This multicentre, randomized, parallel-group study compared FPND 400 microgram once daily (o.d.) with placebo for 12 weeks in adult patients with mild to moderate bilateral polyposis. The primary efficacy endpoint was visual assessment of polyp size by the physician at monthly clinic visits. Nasal blockage, rhinitis, peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), olfactory function and requirement for polypectomy were also assessed at visits. The patients kept diary card records of symptoms, PNIF, and use of rescue antihistamine. Additional safety data were provided by a 12-week open extension, when all patients received FPND 400 microgram o.d. RESULTS: After 12 weeks double-blind treatment with FPND (n = 52) or placebo (n = 52), polyp size was reduced in 27% and 16% of patients, respectively; clinical reduction of nasal blockage significantly favoured FPND over placebo (55% vs 22%; P = 0.002), and clinic PNIF had increased significantly with FPND (by 52 L/min vs -3 L/min for placebo; P < 0.001). Diary card measurements showed significant benefits of FPND vs placebo for daily PNIF, nasal blockage, rhinitis and use of loratadine rescue medication. Both treatments were well tolerated and no serious adverse events occurred during randomized treatment. Epistaxis was more frequent with FPND than placebo but was generally mild and did not result in withdrawals. Mean serum cortisol levels did not change significantly with either treatment. CONCLUSION: This study showed FPND 400 microgram o.d. to be an effective and well tolerated treatment for bilateral nasal polyposis in adults.     

Evaluation of an intranasal house dust mite provocation model as a tool in clinical research

BACKGROUND: As a result of the all-year-round exposure to house dust mite (HDM), perennial rhinitis patients never have a clear symptom-free period. In this study, we investigated whether, despite these symptoms, we can still use nasal HDM provocations to study perennial allergic rhinitis and the effects of treatment. METHODS: In a parallel-group study, after 1 week treatment with either fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) or placebo, 20 patients, allergic to HDM, registered symptoms (nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, pruritus and eye symptoms) using three different scoring methods [Lebel, categorical and visual analogue scale (VAS)] and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) after HDM provocations. Provocations were performed with 1000 biological units/ml and 24 h later with 10,000 biological units/ml of HDM. Before and after the provocations, nasal mucosa biopsies were taken for immunohistochemical staining to determine the number of eosinophils. RESULTS: House dust mite provocations resulted in an increase in symptoms and a decrease in PNIF. Even at high-dose provocation, the FPANS group registered significantly lower symptoms than the placebo group for nasal blockage, sneezing, eye symptoms, and PNIF in both early and late phases. FPANS also suppressed rhinorrhoea during the late phase and the influx of eosinophils in the lamina propria. CONCLUSION: Despite the high background of symptoms, allergic responses can be induced in this perennial rhinitis model. The VAS score seems most suited to detect these changes and the suppression of symptoms by 7 days of FPANS treatment. Epithelial eosinophilia at baseline was correlated positively with the severity of the reaction after the first provocation.     

Onset of action of intranasal budesonide (Rhinocort aqua) in seasonal allergic rhinitis studied in a controlled exposure model

BACKGROUND: Intranasal budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS) is recognized as an efficacious treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), but the time to onset of action is not known. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to evaluate the time at which the onset of action of BANS in the symptomatic relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis becomes evident within 12 hours after a single dose in a controlled ragweed pollen exposure setting. METHODS: The study was of a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group design, testing BANS (64 microgram and 256 microgram) and placebo on ragweed-sensitive subjects with symptoms for at least 1 year by using a controlled pollen challenge system (Environmental Exposure Unit). The efficacy variables were the combined nasal score (the sum of blocked nose, runny nose, and sneezing-itchy nose), individual nasal symptoms, overall evaluation of treatment efficacy reported by participants on diaries, and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF). RESULTS: A total of 217 participants were treated with BANS or placebo. At 7 to 12 hours, BANS was better than placebo in reducing combined nasal and blocked nose symptoms. For PNIF, the time to onset of action was shortest for 256 microgram of BANS relative to placebo (3 hours, P =.003). BANS 64 microgram was better than placebo in reducing the individual scores of blocked nose, runny nose, and sneezing-itchy nose from 3 to 5 hours after administration. Treatment efficacy was higher for those receiving BANS compared with placebo starting at 5 hours. All treatments were well tolerated, and no specific adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The onset of action of intranasal BANS was 7 hours according to combined nasal and blocked nose symptom scores. Evidence of earlier response was observed at 3 hours for runny nose and PNIF.     

Desloratadine improves quality of life and symptom severity in patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: Desloratadine is associated with decreased signs and symptoms and improved nasal airflow in multiple clinical trials in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). The effect of desloratadine on quality of life (QOL) in AR has not been widely reported to date. We compared the effects of desloratadine and placebo on QOL in seasonal AR using validated, disease-specific measures. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of desloratadine 5 mg or placebo daily for 2 weeks in patients with symptomatic seasonal AR. QOL was assessed at baseline and at day 14 using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). AR signs/symptoms and the global response to therapy were measured at baseline and at day 14; signs/symptoms were also rated AM/PM in patient diaries. Adverse events (AE) were recorded. RESULTS: Overall 234 patients received desloratadine and 249 received placebo. At day 14 desloratadine was associated with a significantly larger improvement from baseline in the mean total RQLQ score vs placebo (P = 0.0003). Desloratadine also led to significant improvements from baseline in all RQLQ sub-domains (P < or = 0.043). At day 14 significant decreases from baseline were noted in the desloratadine group for total nasal (P = 0.0003), total non-nasal (P = 0.001) and total symptoms scores (P = 0.0001). Morning AR symptoms were significantly decreased in the desloratadine group after 1 day of treatment. Desloratadine was well tolerated, with an AE rate similar to placebo. CONCLUSION: Significant reductions in signs and symptoms of AR with desloratadine treatment were accompanied by improved disease-specific QOL measures.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of bilastine 20 mg vs desloratadine 5 mg in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients

Background: Bilastine is a novel, nonsedating H₁‐antihistamine developed for symptomatic treatment of Allergic Rhinitis and Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of bilastine 20 mg vs placebo and desloratadine 5 mg in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Methods: This randomized, double blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group multicentre study evaluated the effect of 2 weeks’ treatment with bilastine 20 mg, desloratadine 5 mg or matched placebo once daily, in 12–70 years old symptomatic SAR patients. All subjects assessed the severity of nasal (obstruction, rhinorrhoea, itching, and sneezing) and nonnasal (ocular itching, tearing, ocular redness, itching of ears and/or palate) symptoms on a predetermined scale to provide a total symptom score (TSS), composed of nasal and nonnasal symptom scores (NSS and NNSS, respectively). The primary efficacy measure was the area under the curve (AUC) for the TSS over the entire treatment period. Results: Bilastine 20 mg significantly reduced the AUC of TSS to a greater degree from baseline compared to placebo (98.4 with bilastine vs 118.4 with placebo; P < 0.001), but not compared to desloratadine 5 mg (100.5). Bilastine 20 mg was not different from desloratadine 5 mg but significantly more effective than placebo in improving the NSS, NNSS, and rhinitis‐associated discomfort scores (P < 0.05), and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire total (P < 0.005) and four out of seven individual domain (P < 0.05) scores. The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events was similar for bilastine (20.6%), desloratadine (19.8%), and placebo (18.8%). Conclusion: Bilastine 20 mg once daily was efficacious, safe and not different from desloratadine 5 mg once daily in the treatment of SAR symptoms.