A multicentric trial of loratadine and cetirizine in urticaria

Two hundred and ten patients with chronic urticaria were divided into two groups; one group was treated with Loratadine 10mg daily while the other with cetirizine 10mg daily. The total duration of treatment was four weeks. Pretreatment and post-treatment evaluations were made. It was noticed that loratadine was superior to cetirizine in terms of a rapid onset of actions, overall clinical efficacy and minimal side effects.     

The skin as a target organ for the investigation of antiallergic drugs: comparison between cetirizine and terfenadine.

Two double-blind clinical pharmacology studies were performed in atopics in order to compare the inhibitory effects of cetirizine (CTZ) 2 HCl and terfenadine (TER) on histamine and antigen-induced skin reactions. In the first study, the subjects took single intakes of CTZ 10 mg and TER 60 mg. In the second study, they took CTZ 10 mg once a day and TER 60 mg b.i.d. for 3 weeks. CTZ was more effective than TER in inhibiting histamine skin reactivity. CTZ and TER were equally effective in inhibiting antigen-induced reactions. There was no tachyphylaxis, either for CTZ or for TER.     

Loratadine and cetirizine in the treatment of chronic urticaria

Aim This study was designed to compare loratadine and cetirizine in controlling the symptoms of chronic urticaria. Subjects One hundred and sixteen adult patients with chronic urticaria. Methods In this double-blind study the patients were randomly divided into three therapeutic groups: 38 received loratadine (10 mg), 40 cetirizine (10 mg) and 38 placebo tablets once daily for 28 days. Steroid-dependent subjects and patients with physical urticaria or with angioncurotic hereditary oedema as well as pregnant or breast-feeding women were excluded from the study. A suitable wash-out period was observed in case of previous treatments for the same disease. Itching, erythema, number of lesions and diameter of the largest one were evaluated according to a scale from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe). The minimum entry study score for itching plus number of lesions had to be at least equal to three. Control visits were scheduled after 3, 7 and 14 days of therapy. Symptoms, disease status, therapeutic response, side effects and compliance were evaluated at each visit. Diary cards were filled in by patients at home. Results Active drugs compared to placebo significantly reduced global clinical symptoms (p < 0.05). Loratadine was more rapid in developing its activity than the other two agents (p < 0.01 at day 3). Each single symptom showed the same trend. At the end of the study 24 (63%) patients treated with loratadine, 18 (45%) with cetirizine and 5 (13%) with placebo were free from symptoms. Four failures occurred with loratadine, six with cetirizine and seventeen with placebo. The tolerability profile was similar for all three groups. One patient receiving cetirizine dropped out due to severe gastric pain. Conclusions Loratadine is more active and safer than cetirizine in the treatment of chronic urticaria.     

Persistent solar urticaria. A case report

Solar urticaria is an uncommon dermatological disease characterized by wheals developing within a few minutes after sun exposure and lasting a few hours. We describe a man in whom wheals developed on his trunk and arms more than 30 min after sun exposure and lasted more than 24 h. High doses of UVA reproduced lesions with histological features typical of urticaria. After 7 years, urticaria began to develop even in winter and without sun exposure. Our patient is unusual in that his wheals were delayed in onset and longlasting. The later association of idiopathic urticaria is an additional unusual feature.     

Comparative efficacy of cetirizine and levocetirizine in chronic idiopathic urticaria

H1 receptor antagonists are the mainstay of treatment for chronic idiopathic urticaria. Newer hydroxyzine derivatives such as cetirizine and levocetirizine have been found to be equally efficacious in preclinical studies in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. In this study, the clinical efficacy of cetirizine and levocetirizine has been studied sequentially in individual patients. Fifty chronic idiopathic urticaria patients received 10 mg of levocetirizine daily for 6 weeks. Some 45 patients out of these showed reasonably good clinical efficacy on a visual analog scale to qualify for comparison with levocetirizine. A total of 30 patients completed the study period of 6 weeks each of cetirizine and levocetirizine sequentially. Thus, the clinical efficacy of cetirizine and levocetirizine was comparable with a marginal advantage of better antipruritic effect with levocetirizine, probably at the cost of increased sedation.     

Ultraviolet A phototherapy in the prophylaxis of solar urticaria

Five patients with solar urticaria were treated with ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation. Three experienced marked increases in sunlight tolerance, but two patients failed to improve. Subjective clinical improvement was documented objectively by marked increases in the minimal urtication doses obtained by provocative light testing. These results indicate that some patients with solar urticaria may respond to treatment with UVA radiation alone.     

Treatment of acquired cold urticaria with cetirizine and zafirlukast in combination

Acquired cold urticaria is an infrequent physical urticaria that can provoke severe systemic reactions. Histamine is the primary mediator, but leukotrienes are also involved in the pathogenesis. H(1) antihistamines are recommended as first-choice treatment, but their efficacy is sometimes unsatisfactory. On the basis of pathogenic knowledge, it can be hypothesized that a combination therapy with antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists is more effective than each drug given alone. We tested this hypothesis in 2 patients with severe systemic cold urticaria poorly responsive to conventional therapy. The patients underwent 3 consecutive treatment regimens (each of 2 weeks): cetirizine (10 mg once a day); zafirlukast (20 mg twice a day); and their combination. They were clinically evaluated, after each regimen, by means of a visual analog scale and ice-cube test. The combination therapy was superior to the 2 drugs given alone, as testified by subjective and objective evaluations.     

The effect of cetirizine on symptoms and wealing in dermographic urticaria

The effect of cetirizine, 10 mg at night, on dermographic urticaria, was studied in 19 patients. The study design was a randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison with placebo, each treatment being given for 7 days. Patients kept a daily diary of itch and weal severity (100-mm linear analogue scale), and recorded sleep disturbance. The dermographic weal response was measured objectively with a spring-loaded stylus, and the weal threshold calculated from the force/response curve. There was a small, insignificant subjective response to placebo, but no objective response. On cetirizine, the subjective assessment of wealing was reduced from 34.3±6.7 (mean ± SEM, 0–100 scale) to 16.8±4.1 (P= 0.02), itch was reduced from 43.2±6.6 to 19.4±4.1 (P=0.001), and nights disturbed from 46.2 to 8.8% (P=0.03). There was a shift to the right in the position of the force/response curve, and the wealing threshold increased from 24.6±3.2 to 54.7±4.4 g/mm² (P=0.00001), but there was no correlation between change in itch scores and wealing threshold. Cetirizine 10 mg daily is an effective treatment in dermographic urticaria, and its usefulness will depend on the prevalence of unwanted effects.     

依匹斯汀和西替利嗪治疗慢性特发性荨麻疹对照观察

我们于2005年7月至2006年12月,分别用依匹斯汀、西替利嗪治疗慢性特发性荨麻疹(chronic idiopathic urticaria,CIU),进行随机、开放、对照的临床疗效观察,现报道如下.     

Plasmapheresis in solar urticaria

Three patients with solar urticaria were treated with plasmapheresis. By intradermal injection of in vitro irradiated serum the existence of a circulating photoallergen was demonstrated in cases 1 and 2 but not in case 3. Plasmapheresis induced complete remission of solar urticaria in case 1 and transient improvement in case 2. In case 3, however, no beneficial effect was observed. It is suggested that some patients with solar urticaria, probably those with a circulating photoallergen, may benefit from plasmapheresis.     

A case of actinic prurigo and solar urticaria

Actinic prurigo and solar urticaria are uncommon chronic idiopathic photodermatoses in the United Kingdom. To our knowledge, their occurrence in the same patient has not hitherto been described.     

Treatment of chronic urticaria with cetirizine dihydrochloride a non-sedating antihistamine

The efficacy of cetirizine dihydrochloride, a new H₁-antagonist with minimal sedative or anticholinergic side effects was evaluated in 30 patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. In the first part of the study, cetirizine 10 mg and placebo were compared in a double-blind cross-over trial. In the second part, patients who did not respond adequately in the first part were randomized, still double-blind, to receive 10 mg cetirizine either once daily or twice daily. In the first part, treatment was discontinued by 17 patients on placebo and two patients on cetirizine because of lack of efficacy. Cetirizine dihydrochloride was found significantly to reduce occurrence of weals, erythema and pruritus compared with placebo (P <0.001). Twenty-six of the patients improved on cetirizine and two on placebo. Mild sedation was noted by two patients on cetirizine and by one on placebo.     

Diagnosis and treatment of solar urticaria

Solar urticaria is one of the most annoying of the photodermatoses. It can be difficult to diagnosis because of phototesting problems, and it is not easy to treat. The different treatment modalities available all have their practical problems, so it is difficult to provide the patient with adequate protection. In many patients, however, treatment can reduce the symptoms and allow regular exposure of the skin to natural sunlight as the skin becomes more tolerant to the provoking wavelengths, the result being more complete protection.     

Treatment of refractory solar urticaria with plasma exchange.

BACKGROUND: Solar urticaria is a photodermatosis that can be very disabling for patients who are highly sensitive to light and can also be very resistant to therapy. OBJECTIVE: To correlate the results of serial phototesting in a patient with severe and refractory solar urticaria before and after treatment with plasma exchange. METHODS: Plasma exchange was performed five times over a period of 10 days. Phototesting to ultraviolet A (UVA) irradiation and visible light was performed with fluorescent ultraviolet tubes and an incandescent lamp. RESULTS: The urticaria that developed after very low light doses during baseline phototesting could not be provoked following plasma exchange. The patient is now almost symptom-free, with only occasional and transient hives more than 21 months after her last plasma exchange. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma exchange is a therapeutic modality to consider in highly light-sensitive patients when other treatments have failed.     

光激发试验确诊日光性荨麻疹一例

患者男,43岁.2007年6月10日患者颈项和前臂曝光部位皮肤经强烈日晒后出现风团,伴明显瘙痒,未出现系统症状.昼起夜消,未经治疗,6月18日到我院就诊.患者自述3年来,日晒后曝光部位皮肤反复起疹,无明显季节倾向,避光后可消退.