Relationships between allergic inflammation and nasal airflow in children with persistent allergic rhinitis due to mite sensitization

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is associated with Th2-dependent inflammation. Nasal obstruction is the most typical symptom in children with mite allergy. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible relationships among nasal symptoms, allergic inflammation, including inflammatory cells and cytokine pattern, and nasal airflow in children with persistent allergic rhinitis because of mite sensitization. METHODS: Twenty children (13 males and seven females, mean age 13.4 +/- 1.6 years) with persistent rhinitis because of mite allergy were evaluated. All of them had moderate-severe grade of nasal obstruction. Total symptom score (TSS), rhinomanometry, nasal lavage, and nasal scraping were obtained in all subjects. Inflammatory cells were counted by conventional staining; interleukin (IL)-5, and IL-8 were measured by immunoassay on fluids recovered from nasal lavage. RESULTS: Eosinophils were significantly associated with TSS (R = 74.4%, P = 0.0002), with IL-5 (R = 90.6%, P < 0.0001) and with nasal flow (R = -69%, P = 0.0007), but not with IL-8 (R = 0.1%, P = 0.995). Eosinophil levels were shown to independently predict nasal flow (P < 0.001), with flow decreasing linearly for increasing eosinophils, together with a significant effect of neutrophils (P = 0.016, linear increase in flow) and a borderline effect of IL-8 (P = 0.063, linear increase in flow). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the close association between IL-5 concentration and eosinophil infiltration. In addition, there is clear evidence concerning the relationship between eosinophil infiltration and nasal airflow. Thus, nasal eosinophils can be regarded as the most important predictor of upper airway function. These findings constitute first evidence of the relationship between nasal airflow impairment and Th2-related eosinophilic inflammation in children with persistent allergic rhinitis because of mite sensitization.     

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.     

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.     

Relationships between allergic inflammation and nasal airflow in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is characterized by a T(H)2-dependent inflammation. Nasal obstruction is a typical symptom of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the possible relationships among nasal symptoms, allergic inflammation, including inflammatory cells and cytokine pattern, and nasal airflow in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Children with seasonal allergic rhinitis and moderate-severe nasal obstruction were evaluated during the pollen season. Total symptom score, rhinomanometry, nasal lavage, and nasal scraping were evaluated in all patients. Inflammatory cells were counted by conventional staining; interleukin 5 (IL-5) and IL-8 levels were measured by immunoassay on fluids recovered from nasal lavage. RESULTS: Twenty children (11 boys and 9 girls; mean +/- SD age, 12.9 +/- 1.7 years) participated in this study. Eosinophil levels were significantly associated with total symptom score (r = 90.6%, P < .001), IL-5 (r = 94.9%, P < .001), and nasal flow (r = -93.6%, P < .001). No association was elicited with IL-8 (r = 9.4%, P = .69). In a multivariate analysis that included eosinophils, neutrophils, and IL-5, eosinophil levels were shown to be the only independent predictor of nasal flow. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the close connection between T(H)2 cytokines and eosinophil infiltration. In addition, there is clear evidence concerning the relationship among nasal symptoms, eosinophil infiltration, and nasal airflow. These findings constitute evidence of the relationship between nasal airflow impairment and eosinophilic inflammation in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.     

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   

The effect of budesonide on the cytokine pattern in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: A T(H)2-polarized cytokine pattern has been demonstrated in allergic rhinitis. Budesonide represents an effective topical corticosteroid in the management of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cytokine pattern and symptoms in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis before and after treatment with intranasal budesonide. METHODS: All patients received budesonide aqueous nasal spray or placebo for 2 weeks. The study was double-blind, parallel group, placebo controlled, and randomized. Nasal lavage was performed in all patients before and after treatment. A panel of cytokines, including interleukin 4 (IL-4), IL-5, and IL-6, was measured by immunoassay on fluids recovered from nasal lavage. Total symptom score (including rhinorrhea, nasal itching, sneezing, and nasal obstruction) was evaluated before and after treatment. RESULTS: Twenty patients with perennial allergic rhinitis were evaluated (13 men and 7 women; mean age, 24.7 years). Budesonide aqueous nasal spray treatment showed a significant decrease of IL-4 (P = .007), IL-5 (P = .04), and IL-6 levels (P = .009). Budesonide aqueous nasal spray treatment also induced significant symptom relief (P = .006). Placebo treatment did not significantly affect the evaluated parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that budesonide aqueous nasal spray is effective in exerting immunomodulatory activity by reducing cytokine pattern and relieving symptoms. These findings are evidence of the effects of intranasal budesonide in treating perennial allergic rhinitis.     

Nasal obstruction in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis: relationships between allergic inflammation and nasal airflow

BACKGROUND: Nasal obstruction is a typical symptom of allergic rhinitis. Allergic rhinitis is characterized by a Th2-dependent inflammation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible relationships between allergic inflammation, including inflammatory cells and cytokine pattern, and nasal airflow in patients with nasal obstruction due to seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Fifty patients (31 males and 19 females, mean age 31.9 +/- 4.8 years) with seasonal allergic rhinitis were evaluated during the pollen season. All of them had moderate to severe nasal obstruction. Total symptom score, rhinomanometry, nasal lavage, and nasal scraping were assessed in all subjects. Inflammatory cells were counted by conventional staining; IL-4, IL-5, IL-8, and IFNgamma were measured by immunoassay on fluids recovered from nasal lavage. RESULTS: Significant positive relationships were demonstrated between eosinophil infiltration and IL-4 levels (p < 0.0001), eosinophils and IL-5 levels (p < 0.0001), and eosinophils and IL-8 levels (p < 0.0001). Significant negative relationships were demonstrated between eosinophil infiltration and IFNgamma levels (p < 0.0001) and eosinophil infiltration and nasal airflow (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the close connection between Th2 cytokines and eosinophil infiltration. In addition, there is clear evidence concerning the relationship between eosinophil infiltration and nasal airflow. These findings constitute first evidence of the relationship between nasal airflow impairment and Th2-related inflammation in seasonal allergic rhinitis.     

Impact and modulation of nasal obstruction

Nasal obstruction, the leading symptom of allergic rhinitis, results from the combined activity of early- and late-phase allergic reactions. Desloratadine inhibits both early- and late-phase inflammatory mediators in vitro . Thus, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover trials were conducted to assess the efficacy of desloratadine against nasal obstruction, measured objectively and subjectively, during controlled exposure of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis to allergen. Positive results were obtained in three single-dose studies; desloratadine 5 mg resulted in a greater improvement from baseline than did placebo in the total symptom score and the nasal obstruction symptom score ( P  ≤ 0.02). Desloratadine was more effective than placebo in a multiple-dose study; desloratadine 5 mg was given once daily for 7 days, and a 6-h allergen challenge was administered at the end of treatment compared with placebo. Desloratadine treatment was associated with less deterioration from baseline in the mean nasal airflow ( P  < 0.05) and in the mean severity score for the symptom of nasal obstruction ( P  < 0.03). Desloratadine significantly reduces the severity of nasal obstruction in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.     

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.     

Montelukast with desloratadine or levocetirizine for the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Montelukast sodium is approved as a treatment for intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis (AR), but it has not been evaluated as combined therapy with antihistamines for persistent AR. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of 6 weeks of treatment of persistent AR with desloratadine, levocetirizine, or montelukast alone or in combination. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study was performed. Patients were assigned to 2 arms: 20 received montelukast, 10 mg/d, desloratadine, 5 mg/d, or both or placebo and 20 received montelukast, levocetirizine, or both, 5 mg/d, or placebo. The treatment periods were separated by 2-week washout periods. Symptom scoring, skin prick tests, spirometry, rhinometry, and nasal lavage were performed the day before and the last days of the treatment periods. Eosinophil cationic protein levels were evaluated by means of nasal lavage. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD total baseline nasal symptom score was 7.7 +/- 0.49 before treatment, 3.74 +/- 0.54 after desloratadine use, 3.6 +/- 0.48 after montelukast use, and 3.04 +/- 0.4 after montelukast-desloratadine use. The mean +/- SD baseline nasal symptom score was 7.95 +/- 0.68 before treatment, 3.02 +/- 0.64 after levocetirizine use, 3.44 +/- 0.55 after montelukast use, and 2.14 +/- 0.39 after montelukast-levocetirizine use. The greatest improvement in nasal symptoms occurred after combination treatment. Decreases in the level of eosinophil cationic protein were greater after the combined use of montelukast and antihistamine than after each agent given alone. CONCLUSIONS: For persistent AR, the combination of montelukast and either desloratadine or levocetirizine is more effective than monotherapy with these agents.     

Efficacy and safety of an extended-release formulation of desloratadine and pseudoephedrine vs the individual components in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Antihistamine-decongestant combination products generally provide more benefit than individual components for adequately treating patients who have seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) with moderate-to-severe nasal congestion. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of a 24-hour, extended-release formulation of desloratadine and pseudoephedrine with the individual components in patients who have SAR with moderate-to-severe nasal congestion. METHODS: Patients with SAR and significant nasal congestion were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study. Patients were randomly assigned for 2 weeks to once-daily treatment with desloratadine-pseudoephedrine, 5/240-mg tablets; desloratadine, 5 mg; or pseudoephedrine, 240 mg. Primary efficacy variables for the antihistamine and decongestant components of desloratadine-pseudoephedrine were morning and evening reflective total symptom score (TSS), excluding nasal congestion, and morning and evening reflective nasal congestion score during the 2-week treatment period, respectively. Secondary variables included morning instantaneous (end-of-interval) TSS (excluding congestion), nasal congestion score, reflective morning and evening individual symptom scores, overall condition of SAR, and therapeutic response. RESULTS: A total of 1121 patients were enrolled in the study, and 1047 patients completed the 2-week study. Desloratadine-pseudoephedrine was significantly more effective than desloratadine or pseudoephedrine monotherapy in reducing morning and evening reflective TSS (excluding nasal congestion) during the entire treatment period. Desloratadine-pseudoephedrine also was significantly more effective in reducing the morning and evening reflective nasal congestion score compared with desloratadine or pseudoephedrine monotherapy. Significant differences were seen between the desloratadine-pseudoephedrine and monotherapy groups for changes in morning instantaneous TSS (excluding nasal congestion) and nasal congestion scores. No unusual or unexpected adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Desloratadine-pseudoephedrine, 5/240-mg once-daily tablets, provided additional benefit over desloratadine, 5 mg, or sustained-release pseudoephedrine, 240 mg, monotherapy in the treatment of patients with SAR and moderate-to-severe nasal congestion.     

Correlation of nasal inflammation and nasal airflow with forced expiratory volume in 1 second in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis and asthma.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis and asthma are frequently associated and are characterized by TH2-dependent inflammation. Nasal and bronchial obstruction largely depend on allergic inflammation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationships among nasal eosinophil counts, interleukin 4 (IL-4) and interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) levels, nasal airflow, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis and asthma. METHODS: Eight men and 7 women (mean +/- SD age, 24.8 +/- 4.7 years) with perennial allergic rhinitis and asthma were evaluated. All 15 patients had a moderate-to-severe grade of nasal obstruction. Total symptom score, rhinomanometry, nasal lavage, nasal scraping, and spirometry were evaluated in all patients. Eosinophils were counted using conventional staining; IL-4 and IFN-gamma levels were measured by immunoassay in fluids recovered from nasal lavage. RESULTS: Significant positive relationships were demonstrated between eosinophil infiltration and IL-4 levels, nasal airflow and IFN-gamma levels, FEV1 and IFN-gamma levels, and nasal airflow and FEV1 (P < .001 for all). Significant negative relationships were demonstrated between eosinophil infiltration and IFN-gamma levels, IL-4 and IFN-gamma levels, eosinophil infiltration and nasal airflow, IL-4 values and nasal airflow, nasal eosinophil counts and FEV1, and IL-4 values and FEV1 (P < .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: There is a close association between TH2 cytokines and eosinophil infiltration in the nose. There is also clear evidence concerning the relationships among eosinophil infiltration, IL-4 and IFN-gamma levels, and nasal airflow. Nasal eosinophil, IL-4, and IFN-gamma levels correlate with FEV1. Finally, nasal airflow is related to FEV1. These findings constitute the first evidence of a relationship between TH2-related nasal inflammation and nasal and bronchial airflow in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis and asthma.     

Efficacy and safety of desloratadine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: The evidence base for the use of H1-antihistamines in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis is considerably smaller than it is in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that desloratadine, a new, nonsedating selective H1-antihistamine, would be efficacious and safe in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study, 676 patients with symptomatic perennial allergic rhinitis were randomly assigned to 4 weeks of treatment with either 5 mg of desloratadine once daily or placebo. Efficacy was assessed by using a morning-evening instantaneous total symptom score (TSS), which was composed of scores for 4 individual nasal symptoms (rhinorrhea, itching, sneezing, and postnasal drip) and 3 individual nonnasal symptoms (itching eyes, watering eyes, and itching of the ears or palate). Secondary outcome measures included a morning-evening reflective TSS, total nasal and nonnasal symptoms scores, and individual symptom scores. Safety evaluations, including 12-lead electrocardiograms, were performed. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-four patients completed the study. Desloratadine consistently diminished perennial allergic rhinitis symptoms, reducing the morning-evening instantaneous TSS (P =.005), the morning-evening reflective TSS (P =.007), the morning-evening reflective total nonnasal score (P =.023), and the individual nasal symptom scores for rhinorrhea, nasal itching, sneezing, and postnasal drip/drainage (P =.05 to P =.013) during weeks 1 through 4. Improvement in symptoms was observed after the first dose. Dropouts, and the type and frequency of adverse events (headache, viral infection, pharyngitis, and upper respiratory tract infection), were similar in both treatment groups. No clinically significant changes in QTc intervals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Desloratadine rapidly and safely reduced the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis, and its efficacy did not diminish during 4 weeks of treatment.     

Association between response to decongestion testing and sensitizations and allergic inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Rhinomanometry is used to measure nasal airflow, which is frequently impaired in allergic rhinitis (AR). Decongestion testing consists of spraying an intranasal vasoconstrictor drug to evaluate recovery of nasal airflow. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationships among type and number of sensitizations, nasal airflow recovery after topical vasoconstrictor drug use, and allergic inflammation. METHODS: A total of 123 patients (112 men and 11 women; mean +/- SD age, 22.9 +/- 5.7 years) were studied: 40 with perennial AR (PAR), 43 with mixed AR (MAR), and 40 with seasonal AR (SAR). Patients with anatomic nasal defects were excluded. Total symptom scores (including nasal itching, sneezing, rhinorrhea, and nasal obstruction), sensitizations, nasal eosinophils, and cytokines (including interleukin 4 [IL-4], IL-5, and interferon-gamma) were evaluated. Electronic rhinomanometry and decongestion testing were performed in all the patients. RESULTS: After administration of a topical nasal vasoconstrictor agent, mean nasal airflow significantly increased from 471 to 580 mL/s (P < .001). In 12 patients (3 with PAR, 3 with MAR, and 6 with SAR), no increase was shown. Changes from baseline were different in the PAR, MAR, and SAR populations (PAR vs MAR, P < .001; PAR vs SAR, P < .001; and MAR vs SAR, P = .25). Type of sensitization (MAR, PAR, or SAR), concentration of eosinophils, and levels of IL-4, IL-5, and interferon-gamma were associated with nasal airflow recovery of at least 120 mL/s. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first evidence of a different response to decongestion testing taking into consideration the type of AR.     

Airway function and nasal inflammation in seasonal allergic rhinitis and asthma

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma are frequently associated and characterized by a Th2-dependent inflammation. Nasal and bronchial obstruction may be objectively measured. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationships among upper and lower airway function and nasal inflammation in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and asthma. METHODS: Twenty out-patients (12 males and eight females, mean age: 23.4+3.6 years) with SAR and asthma were evaluated during the pollen season. All of them showed a moderate-severe grade of nasal obstruction. Total symptom score, rhinomanometry, spirometry, nasal lavage, and nasal scraping were obtained in all subjects. Eosinophils were counted by conventional staining; IL-4 and IFN-gamma were measured by immunoassay on fluids recovered from nasal lavage. RESULTS: Functional parameters, i.e. nasal airflow and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)), were correlated with nasal eosinophils (R(2)>0.83, P<0.001). Inflammatory parameters, i.e. eosinophils were correlated with immunological parameters, i.e. IL-4 and IFN-gamma levels (R(2)=0.93, P<0.001). Nasal symptoms were correlated with nasal airflow (rho=-0.71, P< or =0.01) and eosinophils (rho=0.72, P<0.01). Nasal airflow was correlated with FEV(1) (r=0.89, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the close connection between Th2 cytokines and eosinophil infiltration in the nose. There is also clear evidence concerning the relationships between eosinophils infiltration and cytokines levels. Nasal eosinophils can be regarded as the most important predictors of upper and lower airway functions. These findings constitute first evidence of a relationship among nasal Th2-related inflammation and nasal and bronchial airflow in patients with SAR and asthma.     

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.     

Levocetirizine is effective for symptom relief including nasal congestion in adolescent and adult (PAR) sensitized to house dust mites

BACKGROUND: Antihistamines are the most commonly prescribed class of medication for perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). The primary objective of this study was to determine whether levocetirizine (Xyzal(R)), the active enantiomer of cetirizine, could achieve at least a 50% improvement in PAR symptoms compared to the placebo over the first week of treatment. METHODS: A total of 294 patients with PAR due to house dust mites were randomized in this 8-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial to receive either levocetirizine 5 mg/day or placebo. Mean Total Four-Symptom Scores (T4SS) (nasal pruritus, ocular pruritus, rhinorrhoea and sneezing) were compared between treatment groups over weeks 1, 4 and 6. All individual symptom scores, including nasal congestion, were also studied. RESULTS: Levocetirizine showed an 86% improvement in T4SS over the first week of treatment and a 47% improvement over the entire treatment period compared with placebo. Absolute changes from baseline were 3.64 and 2.47 for levocetirizine and placebo, respectively. Individual symptom scores showed statistically significant (P < or = 0.01) differences in favour of levocetirizine for all study time-points. Nasal congestion was unexpectedly significantly improved (P < 0.001). The incidence of reported adverse events was comparable between treatment and placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Levocetirizine 5 mg/day is an effective and well-tolerated treatment of PAR. In addition, levocetirizine is effective for the relief of nasal congestion.     

Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in patients with an unsatisfactory response to loratadine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of azelastine nasal spray, desloratadine, and the combination of azelastine nasal spray plus loratadine compared with placebo in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis who had an unsatisfactory response to loratadine. METHODS: This was a 2-week, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study in patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Following a 1-week, open-label lead-in period, during which the patients received loratadine 10 mg daily, those patients who met the symptom qualification criteria (<25% to 33% improvement taking loratadine) were randomized to treatment with azelastine nasal spray 2 sprays per nostril, twice daily, azelastine nasal spray 2 sprays per nostril, twice daily, plus loratadine 10 mg daily, desloratadine 5 mg daily plus placebo (saline) nasal spray, or placebo (saline) nasal spray/placebo capsules. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to day 14 in the total nasal symptom score, consisting of runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion symptom scores recorded twice daily (AM and PM) in patient diary cards. RESULTS: A total of 428 patients with an unsatisfactory response to loratadine completed the double-blind treatment period. After 2 weeks of treatment, azelastine nasal spray (P < 0.001), azelastine nasal spray plus loratadine (P < 0.001), and desloratadine (P = 0.039) significantly improved the total nasal symptom score compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Azelastine nasal spray is an effective treatment for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis who do not respond to loratadine and is an alternative to switching to another oral antihistamine or to using multiple antihistamines.     

Efficacy and safety of levocetirizine on symptoms and health-related quality of life of children with perennial allergic rhinitis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This randomized study examined the efficacy and safety of levocetirizine in pediatric patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) was also investigated, which is particularly relevant in children because of the effects of rhinitis on learning, social activities, and comorbidity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of levocetirizine on the Total 4 Symptoms Score, the 50% response rate, the Pediatric Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ), and investigators' global evaluation of symptom improvement. METHODS: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trial of levocetirizine, 5 mg once daily for 4 weeks, in 306 children with perennial allergic rhinitis aged 6 to 12 years. There were 154 children in the levocetirizine arm and 152 in the placebo group who completed daily diary cards, and the PRQLQ and investigators' global evaluations were conducted at 3 visits. RESULTS: The levocetirizine group showed a significant improvement in 2-week and 4-week Total 4 Symptoms Score compared with placebo (P = .001 and P = .008, respectively). The 50% response rate for the first 2 weeks was 12.3% for the levocetirizine group compared with 3.9% for the placebo group (P = .01). The investigators' global evaluation also favored levocetirizine, because 57.1% of the children in the levocetirizine group were considered markedly or moderately improved compared with 44.7% in the placebo group. Levocetirizine also provided a significantly greater HRQL improvement than placebo at 2 weeks (P = .01), and the frequency of adverse events did not differ significantly from those seen in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: The study confirmed the efficacy of levocetirizine in relieving symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis in children between 6 and 12 years of age. A HRQL benefit greater than placebo was shown. The treatment was well tolerated.     

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%).