Comparison of the effects of terfenadine with fexofenadine on nasal provocation tests with allergen

BACKGROUND: Fexofenadine, the hydrochloride salt of terfenadine active metabolite, is a nonsedative, noncardiotoxic antihistamine derivative for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the effects of terfenadine and fexofenadine on nasal provocation tests with allergen. METHODS: A preliminary provocation test (screening phase) was performed in 25 patients with a history of seasonal allergic rhinitis to grass pollen to determine the combined nasal reaction threshold, which was defined as 2 of the 3 following criteria: (1) at least a 40% decrease in peak nasal inspiratory flow and/or a 30% decrease in minimal cross-sectional area as measured by acoustic rhinometry, nasal secretions of 0.5 g, and 5 to 10 sneezes per minute. Patients were then included into a double-blind, randomized, 2-way crossover study to receive terfenadine or fexofenadine 120 mg 2 hours before provocation. Rhinorrhea, sneezing, peak nasal flow, and minimal nasal cross-sectional area, as well as symptom scores for nasal congestion and itchiness, were recorded at each allergen concentration up to the reaction threshold. The whole study was performed out of allergy season. RESULTS: Fexofenadine was as potent as terfenadine in limiting pruritus and nasal congestion. Rhinorrhea and sneezing were better controlled by fexofenadine than by terfenadine. Overall, the allergen concentration necessary to reach the combined reaction threshold was increased after treatment with both drugs. Comparison between screening and each treatment phase indicated that the shift in allergen concentration to reach the reaction threshold was significantly greater after fexofenadine than after terfenadine (P =. 033). CONCLUSION: After oral administration, fexofenadine provided better protection than terfenadine against the immediate allergic reaction.     

In vivo and in vitro effects of antihistamines on mast cell mediator release: a potentially important property in the treatment of allergic disease

A nasal antigen challenge model of allergic individuals was used to evaluate whether antihistamines could inhibit human mast cell and basophil mediator release in vivo. In placebo-controlled trials, topically applied azatadine base, a tricyclic antihistamine with in vitro antirelease action, effectively reduced symptoms and mediator levels in nasal lavage fluids after antigen challenge, suggesting mast cell inhibition. Both terfenadine and cetirizine, systemically administered antihistamines, were clinically effective in reducing sneezing and changes in vascular permeability. Only terfenadine significantly reduced histamine in antigen-induced nasal secretions. However, cetirizine did reduce the level of leukotriene C4 in these fluids. These results indicate that some antihistamines may be capable of suppressing mediator release from nasal mast cells. The significance of this property in those compounds' overall clinical effect is unclear because of their other concomitant activities.     

Tryptase in nasal lavage fluid after local allergen challenge: Relationship to histamine levels and TAME-esterase activity

The activation of mast cells is generally considered to be an important trigger mechanism in the immediate allergic response. This study focused on the determination of three markers of mast cell activation after an allergen challenge. Nasal allergen challenges were performed in 25 subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis using three allergen doses increasing in 10-fold steps in a standardised nasal lavage model for the subsequent recovery of the markers of mast cell activation. The levels of histamine and tryptase in the nasal lavage fluid were determined using radioimmunoassays, while the TAME-esterase activity was determined using a radiochemical technique. The nasal symptoms obtained on challenge were assessed using a scoring technique. The allergen challenge resulted in significant increases in the levels of all three markers, tryptase, histamine and TAME-esterase. In the individual measurements after the challenges there was a highly significant correlation between the TAME-esterase levels and the tryptase levels (r = 0.71; P less than 0.001), while the generation of histamine and tryptase was not significantly correlated. When comparing the cumulative generation of the three markers, significant correlations were found between all three. Allergen challenges in six non-allergic controls using the same technique did not result in any increase in tryptase levels. The findings suggest that the determination of tryptase in nasal lavage fluid may be a valuable indicator of mast cell activation in the upper airways.     

Inhibition of tryptase release from human colon mast cells by histamine receptor antagonists

The main objective of this study was to investigate the ability of histamine receptor antagonists to modulate tryptase release from human colon mast cells induced by histamine. Enzymatically dispersed cells from human colon were challenged with histamine in the absence or presence of the histamine receptor antagonists, and the tryptase release was determined. It was found that histamine induced tryptase release from colon mast cells was inhibited by up to approximately 61.5% and 24% by the H1 histamine receptor antagonist terfenadine and the H2 histamine receptor antagonist cimetidine, respectively, when histamine and its antagonists were added to cells at the same time. The H3 histamine receptor antagonist clobenpropit had no effect on histamine induced tryptase release from colon mast cells at all concentrations tested. Preincubation of terfenadine, cimetidine or clobenpropit with cells for 20 minutes before challenging with histamine did not enhance the ability of these antihistamines to inhibit histamine induced tryptase release. Apart from terfenadine at 100 microg/ml, the antagonists themselves did not stimulate tryptase release from colon mast cells following both 15 minutes and 35 minutes incubation periods. It was concluded that H1 and H2 histamine receptor antagonists were able to inhibit histamine induced tryptase release from colon mast cells. This not only added some new data to our hypothesis of self-amplification mechanisms of mast cell degranulation, but also suggested that combining these two types of antihistamine drugs could be useful for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).     

Effect of terfenadine on nasal, eustachian tube, and pulmonary function after provocative intranasal histamine challenge.

Previous studies have documented that intranasal histamine challenge results in nasal and eustachian tube obstruction (ETO) in human volunteers. The purpose of the present study was to assess the effect of pretreatment with terfenadine, a nonsedating antihistamine on the pathophysiologic consequences of intranasal histamine challenge. Fifteen subjects with allergic rhinitis were challenged intranasally with saline and increasing histamine doses (0.01, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, and 10.0 mg) before pretreatment (baseline) and after 1 week of pretreatment with terfenadine, 60 mg b.i.d., terfenadine, 120 mg b.i.d., and placebo. Nasal conductance as measured by posterior rhinomanometry showed a dose-dependent, monotonic decrease following sequential administration of the histamine solutions, but there were no apparent differences in the average responses among the four challenge sessions. The frequency of ETO after histamine challenge was decreased by pretreatment with both doses of terfenadine, although this was not significant. Histamine-induced sneezing and rhinorrhea, but not congestion, were significantly reduced by terfenadine pretreatment. There was no evidence of extension of the histamine effects to the lower airway. The results of the present study suggest that terfenadine, a nonsedating antihistamine, had a favorable effect on sneezing and rhinorrhea after provocative intranasal histamine challenge, but did not significantly attenuate the subjective or objective nasal and ET obstructive responses.     

Heparin attenuates symptoms and mast cell degranulation induced by AMP nasal provocation

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that inhaled heparin attenuated the airway responses to allergen, exercise, and AMP bronchial provocation, possibly through an inhibition of mast cell activation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide the evidence of in vivo inhibition of human mast cell activation by heparin in a noninvasive model. METHODS: Nine atopic and 6 nonatopic subjects received placebo and unfractionated heparin sodium (5000 IU/mL) 15 minutes before an AMP nasal provocation in a double-blind crossover study design. The nasal lavage was collected from these subjects before or 3, 5, 15, or 30 minutes after the AMP nasal challenge, and concentrations of histamine and tryptase in the nasal lavage were measured. RESULTS: AMP nasal provocation produced considerable sneezing and induced a transient increase in histamine and tryptase release, with peak values achieved at 3 to 5 minutes after the challenge in all atopic subjects. Compared with placebo, inhaled heparin significantly attenuated the release of histamine and tryptase induced by AMP challenge (P=.012 and.004, respectively). Moreover, the AMP-induced sneezing was also inhibited by pretreatment with heparin (P=.016). In nonatopic subjects, AMP did not induce a significant increase in histamine and tryptase release on placebo-treated or heparin-treated days. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that AMP nasal provocation and AMP bronchial provocation cause mast cell mediator release in a similar fashion. In addition, the data support the hypothesis that inhaled heparin plays a protective role against AMP provocation by inhibition of mast cell activation.     

Humoral and cellular responses to histamine and pollen allergen in a skin chamber model: effect of mizolastine.

BACKGROUND: Mizolastine is a new non-sedative antihistamine and antiallergic drug proven to be effective and safe in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria. OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively explore the time course of mediator release and cell recruitment during allergen challenge and the effects of mizolastine on the event, using the skin chamber model. METHODS: Twelve pollen-sensitive patients (23+/-6 years) were included in a double-blind crossover study. Patients received 10 mg mizolastine or placebo once daily in the first 4-day period and, after a 3-week washout period, vice-versa in the crossover period. On day 4 of each period, a non-invasive in vivo skin chamber technique was used to determine the alteration of vascular permeability, mast cell mediator release, the release of soluble intercellular adhesion molecule -1(sICAM-1) in skin sites challenged with exogenous histamine or grass pollen allergen extract, over an 8-hour period. RESULTS: Challenge with allergen-induced significant mast cell activation, as indicated by the release of histamine, tryptase and LTC4, in chamber fluids 2 hours after initiation of the allergic reaction and during the following 6 hours. Both exogenous histamine and allergen induced significant vasodilatation, which was sustained during the 8-hour challenge, as indicated by the accumulation of protein in the chamber fluids. Likewise, both histamine and allergen induced the release of significant amounts of ICAM-1 throughout the 8-hour period. Mizolastine significantly inhibited the histamine- and allergen-induced extravasation (after 2 hours, P = .003; after 8 hours, P = .009; after 2 hours, P = .044; after 8 hours, P = .003 respectively) and the histamine- and allergen-induced--ICAM-1 release (after 2 hours, P = .004; after 8 hours, P = .05; after 2 hours, P = .03 respectively). CONCLUSION: Mizolastine strongly inhibited the local response to histamine in this skin chamber model with, of interest, inhibition of the release of the soluble adhesion-molecule ICAM-1.     

Effect of salbutamol on nasal symptoms and mast cell degranulation induced by adenosine 5'' monophosphate nasal challenge

BACKGROUND: In addition to its well-known functional agonism at the level of beta(2) adrenergic receptors on airways smooth muscle cells, salbutamol appears to have additional protective effects, possibly through an inhibition of mast cell activation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to provide the first evidence in vivo of inhibition of human mast cell activation by salbutamol. METHODS: Nine atopic subjects received placebo and salbutamol (5 mg/mL) 15 min before an adenosine 5' monophosphate (AMP) nasal provocation in a double-blind crossover study design. The nasal lavage was collected from these subjects prior to or 3, 5, 15 or 30 min after the AMP nasal challenge, and concentrations of histamine and tryptase in the nasal lavage were measured. RESULTS: AMP nasal provocation produced considerable sneezing and induced a transient increase in histamine and tryptase release with peak values achieved at 3 min after the challenge in all the subjects studied. Compared with placebo, salbutamol significantly attenuated the release of histamine and tryptase induced by AMP challenge (P=0.048 and 0.020, respectively). Moreover, the AMP-induced sneezing was also inhibited by pre-treatment with salbutamol (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal salbutamol attenuates nasal symptoms and inhibits histamine and tryptase release caused by AMP nasal provocation thus supporting the hypothesis that salbutamol may play an additional protective role in the airways by inhibiting mast cell activation.     

The significance and technical aspects of quantitative measurements of inflammatory mediators in allergic rhinitis

The pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis induced by various inhalant allergens through an IgE mediated mechanism, has been well demonstrated. The participation of many important inflammatory cells and mediators released by these cells in the human nasal allergic reaction provides insight into the relationship between the responsiveness to allergen exposure and nasal symptoms of allergic rhinitis. This paper summarizes our previous studies on some important mediators in the nasal secretions of atopic patients during different phases after nasal allergen challenge and during natural allergen exposure. The microsuction technique proves to be an especially useful and reliable nasal sampling method permitting quantitative analysis of important mediators such as histamine, tryptase, leukotriene C4 and eosinophil cationic protein in nasal secretions. The measurement of these mediators during allergic reactions provides accurate data on the activity of some important inflammatory cells (i.e., mast cells, basophils, and eosinophils) and their responses to therapy.     

Effect of intranasal fluticasone proprionate on the immediate and late allergic reaction and nasal hyperreactivity in patients with a house dust mite allergy

Background Patients with perennial allergic rhinitis develop nasal symptoms not only after allergen exposure, but generally also after non-specific stimuli. Objective To evaluate the effect of 2 week's treatment with fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) on the nasal clinical response, inflammatory mediators and nasal hyperreactivity. Methods Twenty-four rhinitis patients allergic to house dust mite (HDM). participated in a douhle-blind. placebo-controlled crossover study. After 2 week's treatment with placebo or 200 μg FPANS twice daily, patients were challenged with HDM extract. Symptoms were recorded and nasal lavages were collected for up to 9.5 h after challenge. Nasal hyperreaclivity was determined by histamine challenge 24 h later. Results Because of a carry-over effect for the immediate symptom score, for this variable only the data from the first treatment period were used. FPANS treatment resulted in a significant decrease of nasal symptoms with 70%. 69% and 63% after 100. 1000 and 10000 Biological Units (BU)/mL of HDM extract respectively. Active treatment resulted in a 76% decrease of the late-phase symptoms. FPANS treatment significantly reduced albumin influx after HDM 1000 BU/mL with 62% and tended to reduce tryptase release after HDM 1000 BU ml. (P 0.0629). During the late phase FPANS treatment reduced albumin influx with 67% and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) release with 83%. No effect of FPANS was seen on histamine levels. FPANS significantly decreased histamine-induced symptom score with 34%, secretion with 32%, and sneezes with 41%. Conclusion FPANS significantly inhibits the immediate and late allergic response, and nasal hyperreactivity, probably by suppressing mast cells and eosinophils in the nasal mucosa.     

The effect of local hyperthermia on allergen-induced nasal congestion and mediator release

Background: Local hyperthermia reduces mast cell degranulation, the severity of acute lung injury, and exercise-induced asthma and decreases symptoms of rhinitis. We have investigated the effect of local hyperthermia on mast cell degranulation and symptom generation in allergic rhinitis to assess its effect and mechanism of action within the nose.Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, 10 subjects with rhinitis were treated for 30 minutes with local hyperthermia or placebo, which was followed 30 minutes later by nasal allergen challenge. During the first two visits nasal lavages were performed to assess vascular leakage and mediator release. During the last two visits nasal airway resistance, the number of sneezes, and mucus secretion were monitored.Results: Local hyperthermia significantly reduced both nasal airway resistance (p < 0.05) and vascular leakage (p < 0.02) but had no significant effect on the number of sneezes, on mucus secretion, or on tryptase release.Conclusion: Local hyperthermia reduces allergen provoked nasal blockage and vascular leakage but has no effect on sneezing, rhinorrhea, or tryptase release. Nasal blockage occurs predominantly via newly formed lipid mediators and kinins, whereas sneezing and rhinorrhea occur predominantly via preformed mediators. We propose that local hyperthermia inhibits newly formed mediator production or release or reduces the sensitivity of the vasculature to inflammatory mediators in general. Further investigation into the mechanisms and potential uses of local hyperthermia is warranted.     

Suppression of the early and late cutaneous allergic responses using fexofenadine and montelukast.

BACKGROUND: The relative contribution of histamine and the cysteinyl leukotrienes to the early and late cutaneous allergic responses (ECAR and LCAR) can be studied using antagonists of these mediators. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative suppression of the ECARs and LCARs using standard doses of an H1-receptor antagonist, a cysteinyl leukotriene1-receptor antagonist, and the two antagonists administered concurrently. METHODS: We carried out a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study in 12 highly allergic participants. Intradermal tests with standardized allergen, and with histamine phosphate, LTD4, and saline controls were performed on 5 different test days as follows: pretreatment baseline and at steady state immediately after the seventh and last dose of a 1-week course of treatment with once-daily fexofenadine, 120 mg; montelukast, 10 mg; fexofenadine and montelukast administered concurrently; or placebo. On each test day, the skin test results were read at intervals from 0.25 to 24 hours after the intradermal injections were performed. RESULTS: After allergen injection, compared with baseline, all treatment regimens significantly decreased the ECAR and LCAR. After allergen injection, compared with placebo, fexofenadine significantly decreased the ECAR and the LCAR from 0.25 to 2 hours and at 8 hours. Montelukast did not significantly decrease the ECAR or LCAR. Fexofenadine and montelukast administered concurrently were not more effective than fexofenadine alone at any time. In the control skin tests, compared with placebo, fexofenadine, but not montelukast, significantly decreased the histamine-induced response, and montelukast, but not fexofenadine, significantly decreased the LTD4-induced response. CONCLUSIONS: Fexofenadine and montelukast administered concurrently were not significantly more effective than fexofenadine alone in decreasing the ECAR and LCAR. Montelukast does not need to be discontinued before allergen skin testing. Further studies of the effect of concurrent treatment with higher doses of a histamine antagonist and a leukotriene modifier on the allergic response in the skin are needed.     

Tryptase in nasal fluid is a useful marker of allergic rhinitis

Tryptase is a mast cell-specific marker of degranulation. To investigate the possible diagnostic value of tryptase in allergic rhinitis, we measured the levels in both serum and native nasal fluid with a sandwich RIA-assay (Pharmacia). Twenty-three allergic patients and five patients with chronic ethmoidal sinusitis were included. Eighteen of the 23 allergic patients were tested within the pollen season or had perennial rhinitis; the remainder were tested at least 1 month out of the pollen season. None of the patients had detectable serum tryptase (>0.1 ng/ml). Also patients with chronic ethmoidal sinusitis showed no tryptase in nasal fluid. One of seven allergic patients tested out of season had slightly increased nasal tryptase of 1.8 ng/ml. In patients with active nasal allergy, the tryptase in nasal fluid ranged from 6.4 ng/ml to 640 ng/ml with a mean of 101 ng/ml and SD 173. These results show a clear distinction between active and non-active nasal allergy and other non-mast-cell-related nasal disease. Further, nasal tryptase release by natural allergen exposure is even higher than that observed in allergen challenge tests.     

The effects of the nasal antihistamines olopatadine and azelastine in nasal allergen provocation.

BACKGROUND: Olopatadine, an antihistamine used in allergic conjunctivitis, is under development as a nasal preparation for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of olopatadine in suppressing symptoms and biomarkers of the immediate reaction induced by nasal allergen provocation and to compare olopatadine with azelastine in the same model. METHODS: The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins University institutional review board, and all subjects gave written consent. We studied 20 asymptomatic subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis. The study had 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phases that evaluated 2 concentrations of olopatadine, 0.1% and 0.2%. In a third exploratory phase, olopatadine, 0.1%, was compared with topical azelastine, 0.1%, in a patient-masked design. Efficacy variables were the allergen-induced sneezes, other clinical symptoms, and the levels of histamine, tryptase, albumin, lysozyme, and cysteinyl-leukotrienes (third study only) in nasal lavage fluids. RESULTS: Both concentrations of olopatadine produced significant inhibition of all nasal symptoms, compared with placebo. Olopatadine, 0.1%, inhibited lysozyme levels, but olopatadine, 0.2%, inhibited histamine, albumin, and lysozyme. The effects of olopatadine, 0.1%, were comparable to those of azelastine, 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine, at 0.1% and 0.2% concentrations, was effective in suppressing allergen-induced nasal symptoms. At 0.2%, olopatadine provided evidence suggestive of inhibition of mast cell degranulation.     

Nasal histamine release following hyperosmolar and allergen challenge

Allergic rhinitis is characterised by symptoms of sneezing, itching of the nose with watery secretions, and nasal obstruction. We have previously shown that patients can have the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis confirmed by nasal provocation tests and assessment of nasal inspiratory peak flow (NIPF) after specific allergen or hyperosmolar challenge. We now show that histamine is released into the nasal lavage fluid in response to such challenges. Saline lavage alone results in detectable histamine levels in the order of 5 ng/ml, but in the presence of allergen (HDM) there is a significant increase in histamine release in atopics but not in control subjects. With hyperosmolar challenge, atopics showed a biphasic response in that histamine release was increased with 1.8% and 3.6% saline but returned to baseline with 5.4% and 7.2% saline, then showing a further increase with 9.0% saline. This raises the possibility of two populations of responsive mast cells. Hyperosmolar challenge leads to symptoms of nasal itch and sneezing as well as histamine release in atopics but not in controls. This suggests that hyperosmolar challenge can be used as a simple diagnostic test for allergic rhinitis and may provide a model for nasal hyper-reactivity.     

Effects of topical treatment with H1 and H2 antagonists on clinical symptoms and nasal vascular reactions in patients with allergic rhinitis

Fifteen asymptomatic subjects with allergic rhinitis participated in a double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled study. The subjects were pretreated intranasally with a single dose of a selective H1 receptor antagonist, levocabastine, and/or selective H2 receptor antagonist, ranitidine, prior to a nasal allergen challenge. The nasal symptoms obtained at the challenge were assessed using a scoring technique 15 min after the allergen exposure. The nasal airway resistance was determined twice prior to and once after the allergen challenge using anterior rhinomanometry. The nasal mucosal blood flow was determined before and 15 min after allergen challenge using the 133Xe wash-out technique. After pretreatment with the H1 antagonist there was a statistically significant reduction in the number of sneezes and rhinorrhea compared to pretreatment with placebo. Pretreatment with the H2 receptor significantly decreased the rhinorrhea but not the sneeze. The nasal blockage was unaffected by both the H1 and the H2 antagonists. Pretreatment with the H1 and/or the H2 antagonists inhibited the reduction in the nasal mucosal blood flow induced by the allergen challenge to a significant degree. The present findings suggest that topical treatment with the highly selective histamine antagonist, levocabastine, inhibits allergen-induced reflex-mediated symptoms. H1 and H2 receptors do not appear to be involved in the regulation of the tone of the capacitance vessels. This indicates that a more complex mechanism participates in the induction of nasal blockage than the direct effect of histamine on H1 and H2 receptors on the capacitance vessels of the nasal mucosa alone. Both H1 and H2 receptors are of importance for the regulation of nasal mucosal blood flow during the allergic reaction.     

In vivo and ex vivo inhibitory effects of loratadine on histamine release in patients with allergic rhinitis

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vivo and ex vivo effects of the H.-antagonist loratadine on histamine release.
Methods The study was designed as a double-blind, crossover trial. Ten patients with allergic rhinitis due to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus were treated with loratadine (10 mg daily p.o.) and with placebo for 1 week, with a 2-week interval between the two treatments. Nasal lavages with saline solution were done before and after challenge with the relevant allergen at the end of treatments with loratadine and placebo. Venous blood was taken after treatments, and basophil histamine release induced by anti-IgE (10 μg/ml), N-formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine (fMLP, 1 μM). and Ca²⁺ ionophore A23187 (1 μM) was evaluated by ati automated fluorometric method.
Results Treatment with loratadine attenuated early antigen-tnduced nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea. and itching. Nasal symptoms were accompanied by a significant histamine release in the nasal lavages collected 5 min after stimulation when the patients received placebo (median 4 ng/ml, range 1-28; P<0.05). After treatment with loratadine, histamine release in the 5-min postchallenge lavages was almost abrogated (median 0.5 ng/ml, range 0-3; P<0.01 vs placebo). Median anti-IgE-induced histamine release from basophils was 41.9% (range 27.8-79.2) after placebo and 30.0% (range 1.7-73.3, P < 0.05) after loratadine. Active treatment exerted an inhibitory effect also on basophil histamine release induced by fMLP and Ca²⁺ ionophore A23187.
Conclusions Treatment for 1 week with loratadine reduces allergen-mduced nasal symptoms and inhibits in vivo and ex vivo histamine release in patients with allergic rhinitis.     

Nasal ocular reflexes and eye symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic patients often complain of eye symptoms during the allergy season. A possible mechanism for these eye symptoms is a nasal ocular reflex. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate eye symptoms after nasal allergen challenge. METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, clinical trial, 20 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were challenged in 1 nostril with antigen, and the response was monitored in both nostrils and in both eyes. Symptoms were recorded. Filter paper disks (intranasally) and Schirmer strips (intraocularly) were used for collecting secretions, which were subsequently eluted for the measurement of histamine and albumin levels. Patients were treated once topically at the site of challenge with azelastine or placebo. RESULTS: After placebo treatment, ipsilateral nasal challenge caused nasal symptoms and an increase in secretion weights; both were blocked by treatment with azelastine. Histamine and albumin levels increased only at the site of nasal challenge. Azelastine pretreatment inhibited the increase in albumin but not histamine levels. Symptoms of itchy and watery eyes increased significantly compared with symptoms with sham challenge after nasal allergen and were blocked by azelastine use. Ocular secretion weights increased bilaterally after placebo use and were not inhibited by azelastine use. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal allergen challenge releases histamine at the site of the challenge, which probably initiates a nasonasal and a nasal ocular reflex. This reflex is reduced by an H1-receptor antagonist applied at the site of the challenge. The eye symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis probably arise, in part, from a naso-ocular reflex.     

Increase of albumin, eosinophil cationic protein, histamine, leukotrienes and mast cell tryptase in nasal lavage fluid after challenge with inhalant allergen extract

Allergic rhinitis patients underwent nasal challenge with allergen extract. Before and up to 10 h after nasal provocation, nasal lavage was performed every hour. In about one-third of the patients a biphasic influx of albumin was observed: an initial increase of albumin within 30 min after provocation and a 2nd peak 6–8 h after provocation. Allergen-induced changes in histamine levels were less pronounced than those of albumin, but with some patients biphasic responses were also seen. Increased leukotriene formation mainly occurred within one hour after allergen provocation.From nasal washings of some patients, mast cell tryptase and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) were estimated. Whereas tryptase was released within one hour after nasal provocation, significant ECP release started 3 h later.     

Antiallergic activity of loratadine, a non-sedating antihistamine

Loratadine is a new non-sedating antihistamine. The present studies compared loratadine and terfenadine, another non-sedating antihistamine, for their ability to inhibit the bronchial response to histamine and other autacoids which have been implicated as contributing to the symptoms of an allergic reaction. In addition, the two antihistamines were evaluated in models of immunologically mediated allergic reactions. Loratadine is a more potent inhibitor of histamine-induced bronchospasm in guinea pigs than is terfenadine. Both antihistamines exhibit marked antiserotonin activity at doses 10 times their antihistamine ED50 values. In contrast, loratadine and terfenadine produce little or no inhibition of the bronchial responses to methacholine, leukotriene C4 or platelet-activating factor. An allergic bronchospasm in guinea pigs is inhibited by loratadine (ED50 = 0.40 mg/kg, p.o.) and terfenadine (ED50 = 1.7 mg/kg, p.o.). The bronchospasm associated with allergic anaphylaxis in rats is significantly inhibited by 10 mg/kg, p.o. loratadine and 30 mg/kg, p.o. terfenadine. Loratadine exhibits antiallergy activity in vitro. At micromolar concentrations, loratadine inhibits the release of histamine from Con A and A23187-stimulated rat peritoneal mast cells and the release of histamine and leukotriene C4 from a Con A-stimulated cloned murine mast cell line.