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.     

Mizolastine therapy also has an effect on nasal blockade in perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Background Mizolastine is a new, nonsedating antihistamine with additional anti-inflammatory properties, providing relief in allergic rhinitis and urticaria. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of 10 mg o.d. mizolastine given to patients with perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
Methods This double-blind, placebo-controlled study involved 257 patients suffering from the disease for more than 10 years. They were allocated, after a 1-week placebo run-in, to receive mizolastine (n = 133) or placebo (n = 124) for 4 weeks.
Results Mizolastine-treated patients showed significantly greater alleviation of nasal symptoms, with a mean decrease of 36% compared with pretreatment score, compared to a mean decrease of 10% in placebo patients (P<0.001). Nasal blockade responded favorably to mizolastine compared to placebo and was associated with a significant reduction in rhinoscopy findings (P=0.030). Likewise, the mean ocular symptom score decreased 40% in mizolastine-treated patients compared to 7% in the placebo group (P<0.003). The safety profile of mizolastine was satisfactory and similar to that of placebo.
Conclusions In patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, mizolastine is a safe and potent treatment. Mizolastine's pronounced effect on nasal blockade could possibly be linked to its anti-inflammatory properties.     

Efficacy of mizolastine, a new antihistamine, compared with placebo in the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria

A two-centre, double-blind, randomized, placebo (P)-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted in the UK to examine the efficacy and safety of mizolastine (M), a new H₁-receptor antagonist, as a once-daily 10-mg dose in chronic idiopathic urticaria. Fifty-six outpatients (M: n = 28; P: n = 28) with a mean age of 38 ± 15 years, a duration of disease of more than 3 years, and symptoms of urticaria at least twice a week in the absence of treatment were recruited. After a single-blind placebo run-in period, patients were allocated to one of two treatment groups and were evaluated after 7 and 28 days. The main characteristics (age, duration of disease, number of urticarial episodes, and total score) of the two groups were comparable at inclusion. Mizolastine was shown to improve the urticaria symptoms: at the end of the study, mizolastine produced a significantly greater decrease in the global symptom score comprising itch, wheals, and erythema (M: 2.1 ± 2.1 vs P: 0.4 ± 2.0; P = 0.002). The patient-rated global discomfort from symptoms measured by visual analog scale was significantly improved with mizolastine (M: 31.4 ± 36.7) compared to placebo (P: 5.4 ± 27.6; P = 0.003), with respectively more M responders (74.1%) than P responders (28.6%, P = 0.001), a responder being a patient with a ≥50% decrease in VAS. Premature dropouts due to lack of efficacy and loss to follow-up mainly occurred at the first evaluation (day 7) and were more often observed in patients in the placebo group ( n = 17) than in the mizolastine group ( n = 8) ( P = 0.031). No serious adverse events were recorded. Somnolence was reported in two mizolastine patients, one of whom discontinued the study. Thus, mizolastine may be considered a new treatment option for the symptoms of chronic urticaria.     

Can an antihistamine delay appearance of hay fever symptoms when given prior to pollen season?

Mizolastine is a new, nonsedating antihistamine providing satisfactory symptom relief in allergic conditions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the onset of hay fever symptoms could be delayed in patients known to suffer seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms if mizolastine was given before the pollen season. This double-blind study involved 342 patients, randomly allocated to once-daily 10 mg mizolastine ( n = 115), once-daily 120 mg terfenadine ( n = 116), or placebo ( n = 111) groups. All patients started treatment on 1 May, before the onset of the grass pollen season. The prophylactic effect of test drugs was assessed on their ability to delay the time to the first hay fever crisis of the season, which was defined by the occurrence of one of the following events: use of rescue medication, study withdrawal because of treatment failure, or total diary symptom score over 18. Active treatments prolonged the time to the first crisis by approximately 1 week (mizolastine 55 days, terfenadine 57 days) in comparison with placebo (50 days) (survival curve analysis: Logrank test, P = 0.01; Wilcoxon test, P = 0.03). Tolerability was satisfactory and comparable between groups. Thus, mizolastine can be safely used to delay and to treat symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis.     

Mizolastine

Mizolastine is a second generation antihistamine agent with high affinity and specificity for histamine H(1) receptors. Mizolastine has demonstrated antiallergic effects in animals and healthy volunteers and anti-inflammatory activity in animal models. Double-blind trials have shown mizolastine to be significantly more effective than placebo and as effective as other second generation antihistamine agents, such as loratadine or cetirizine, in the management of patients with perennial or seasonal allergic rhinitis and in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Available data also suggest that prophylactic administration of mizolastine is significantly more effective than placebo and as effective as prophylactic terfenadine in delaying the onset of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Mizolastine 10 mg/day is generally well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being drowsiness (7%), fatigue (2%), increased appetite (2%) and dry mouth (2%). In volunteers and patients the incidence of prolonged QT(c) interval was similar in mizolastine and placebo recipients, although mizolastine is contraindicated in those with cardiac disease or hepatic impairment or in those receiving erythromycin, ketoconazole or class I or III antiarrhythmic agents. Tests of psychomotor function in volunteers revealed no impairment after single doses of mizolastine 相似文献   

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.     

Comparison of the efficacy, safety, and onset of action of mizolastine, cetirizine, and placebo in the management of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. MIZOCET Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Mizolastine is a potent and selective H1-receptor antagonist with additional anti-allergic properties. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this European multicenter, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the efficacy of mizolastine 10 mg (n = 122), cetirizine 10 mg (n = 125), and placebo (n = 128) once daily for 28 days in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR), with focus on the onset of action. METHODS: Symptoms were evaluated by the investigator using a total symptom score (TS) and by the patient (first week). Responders (R) were patients with a TS decrease of at least 50%. Safety was assessed according to the spontaneous reporting of adverse events. RESULTS: Both mizolastine and cetirizine were effective in relieving the symptoms of SAR. After 7 days of treatment, the improvement in TS and responder's rate were significantly (P < .05) greater in patients treated with mizolastine (TS change versus baseline, mean +/- SD: -6.40 +/- 5.71; R: 55%) and cetirizine (TS change versus baseline: -6.24 +/- 5.24; R: 53%) than with placebo (TS change versus baseline: -4.11 +/- 5.91; R: 40%). Both drugs acted rapidly, within 2 hours of the first intake. During the first 3 days, mizolastine relieved symptoms more effectively than cetirizine, the difference being significant on the second (P = .027) and third (P = .050) day. Both mizolastine and cetirizine were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Mizolastine 10 mg once daily is at least as effective as cetirizine in relieving symptoms of SAR, onset of action is rapid with clinical effect evident within 2 hours.     

Clinical advantages of dual activity in allergic rhinitis

Symptoms of allergic rhinitis include sneezing; itching of the eyes, nose, and throat; nasal obstruction; and rhinorrhoea; they may be seasonal or perennial, depending on the causative allergen. The major symptom of perennial allergic rhinitis is nasal obstruction. Sneezing and rhinorrhoea are often present, but are less troublesome than in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Symptom relief is a priority in allergic rhinitis because patients have a severely impaired quality of life. The nasal vascular system is complex. Histamine acts on postcapillary venules during both the immediate and late phase of reactivity and causes plasma extravasation. Other inflammatory mediators can also induce this reaction. Thus, histamine antagonists that also have some additional antiallergic properties have advantages in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Mizolastine is a second-generation antihistamine that has been shown, in experimental studies, to possess 5-lipoxygenase inhibitory properties in addition to its H₁-receptor antagonistic activity. In the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, mizolastine 10 mg/day has been shown to be effective in reducing nasal and ocular symptoms. It has been shown to be significantly more effective than placebo with a greater percentage of responders. Another study has shown that symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis in mizolastine-treated patients were reduced more significantly than in cetirizine-treated patients on the second and third days of treatment. In perennial allergic rhinitis, mizolastine significantly improved symptoms of nasal obstruction compared with placebo and also significantly reduced nasal membrane colour, nasal secretions, and mucosal swelling as shown by rhinoscopy. These effects were maintained over a 5-month treatment period. Mizolastine has also been shown to be at least as effective as loratadine, and in one trial even superior in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.     

Concomitant montelukast and loratadine as treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Nasal challenge studies have suggested histamine and cysteinyl leukotrienes are important proinflammatory mediators in allergic rhinitis. This study was designed to determine the efficacy of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist, administered alone or concomitantly with loratadine, an H(1)-receptor antagonist, in seasonal allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of concomitant use of montelukast and loratadine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: In this multicenter (N = 12) double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled 2-week trial, 460 men and women, aged 15 to 75 years, with spring seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomly allocated to receive 1 of the following 5 treatments: montelukast 10 or 20 mg, loratadine 10 mg, montelukast 10 mg with loratadine 10 mg, or placebo, once daily in the evening. The primary end point was daytime nasal symptoms score (average of congestion, rhinorrhea, itching, and sneezing). Other end points were eye symptoms, nighttime symptoms, individual daytime nasal symptoms, global evaluations (patient's and physician's), and rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life scores. RESULTS: Concomitant montelukast with loratadine improved the primary end point significantly (P <.001) compared with placebo and each agent alone. Compared with placebo, montelukast with loratadine also significantly improved eye symptoms, nighttime symptoms, individual daytime nasal symptoms, global evaluations, and quality of life. Montelukast alone and loratadine alone caused modest improvements in rhinitis end points. All treatments were similarly well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant montelukast with loratadine provided effective treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis and associated eye symptoms with a safety profile comparable with placebo.     

Effect of once-daily fluticasone furoate nasal spray on nasal symptoms in adults and adolescents with perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Fluticasone furoate is a novel enhanced-affinity glucocorticoid for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of intranasal fluticasone furoate with those of vehicle placebo nasal spray in adult and adolescent patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). METHODS: After screening (7-14 days), patients 12 years and older with confirmed PAR were randomized to receive fluticasone furoate, 110 microg once daily, or placebo once daily intranasally for 4 weeks in this double-blind, multicenter study. The primary end point was mean change from baseline during the entire treatment period in daily reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), recorded on diary cards by patients, using a 4-point categorical scale. RESULTS: The mean reduction from baseline during the treatment period in daily rTNSS was significantly greater in fluticasone furoate recipients than in placebo recipients (P = .005). This finding was supported by significantly greater mean reductions in morning rTNSS and evening rTNSS (P = .004 and P = .011, respectively). A significantly greater mean reduction in instantaneous morning predose TNSS with fluticasone furoate compared with placebo (P = .006) confirmed the efficacy of once-daily administration. Fluticasone furoate was also significantly more effective than placebo in overall response to therapy (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Fluticasone furoate nasal spray, 110 microg once daily, effectively relieved nasal symptoms of PAR in adults and adolescents 12 years and older.     

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of ebastine 20 mg compared to loratadine 10 mg and placebo in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: Few randomized studies have compared the efficacy of ebastine and loratadine in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed on data from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials comparing the efficacy of ebastine 20 mg once daily versus loratadine 10 mg once daily in the symptomatic treatment of SAR symptoms. Primary efficacy variable was the mean change in the overall mean daily reflective total symptom score (TSS), i.e. the sum of five rhinitis symptom scores: nasal discharge, nasal congestion, nasal itching, sneezing and total eye symptoms (itchy/watery eyes) over the first 2 weeks of treatment compared to baseline. RESULTS: There were 2,089 patients in the population analyzed: 749, 739 and 601 patients in the ebastine 20 mg, loratadine 10 mg and placebo groups, respectively. Compared to baseline, overall mean daily reflective TSS over the first 2 weeks of treatment was -3.61 (35.4% reduction from baseline) in the ebastine group, -3.05 (29.0% reduction) in the loratadine group and -2.30 (22.7% reduction) in the placebo group. Statistically significant differences in the mean change from baseline were found when comparing ebastine and loratadine (p<0.001), ebastine and placebo (p<0.0001), and loratadine and placebo (p<0.0001). The global effect (i.e. the difference in overall mean daily reflective TSS over the first 2 weeks of treatment) of ebastine compared with loratadine over the first 2 weeks of treatment was -0.56 (95% confidence interval, CI, -0.86 to -0.26), and it was sustained during the whole (4-week) period studied. The global effects of ebastine and loratadine compared with placebo were -1.30 (95% CI, -1.61 to -0.99) and -0.74 (95% CI, -1.05 to -0.43), respectively. Secondary variables (reflective and snapshot individual symptom scores) showed the same trend. Conclusions: This meta-analysis confirms that ebastine 20 mg has a good efficacy profile, inducing a greater decrease from baseline in mean rhinitis symptom scores than loratadine 10 mg or placebo.     

Montelukast for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial performed in the spring

BACKGROUND: Cysteinyl leukotrienes are important proinflammatory mediators believed to have a role in allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist, for treating patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: After a 3- to 5-day, single-blind placebo run-in period, 1302 male and female patients (aged 15-81 years) with active allergic rhinitis symptoms were randomly assigned to receive montelukast 10 mg (n = 348), loratadine 10 mg (n = 602), or placebo (n = 352) administered once daily at bedtime for 2 weeks during the spring allergy season. RESULTS: Mean patient characteristics and symptom scores at baseline were similar for the three treatment groups. The primary end-point, daytime nasal symptoms score (mean of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, nasal pruritus, and sneezing scores; 0-3 scale), improved from baseline during treatment by (least squares mean, 95% confidence interval) - 0.37 (- 0.43, - 0.31), - 0.47 (- 0.52, - 0.43), and - 0.24 (- 0.29, - 0.18) in the montelukast, loratadine, and placebo groups, respectively (P < or = 0.001 comparing each active treatment with placebo). Mean changes from baseline in all other diary-based scores, including night-time and eye symptom scores, were significantly greater for each active treatment than for placebo. The rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life overall score improved significantly with montelukast and with loratadine as compared with placebo. Montelukast and loratadine showed a safety profile comparable to that of placebo. CONCLUSION: Montelukast is well tolerated and provides improvements in daytime and night-time symptoms, as well as quality of life parameters, for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.     

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Ciclesonide is an intranasal corticosteroid approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life benefits of intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, for the treatment of perennial AR (PAR). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults and adolescents with at least a 2-year history of PAR received intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg, or placebo once daily for 6 weeks. Patient-evaluated total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs), physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity scores, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were evaluated. RESULTS: Patient baseline characteristics were similar in the ciclesonide (n = 238) and placebo (n = 233) groups and were consistent with moderate PAR severity. Ciclesonide therapy significantly reduced average morning and evening reflective TNSSs compared with placebo (P < .001) and significantly reduced average morning and evening instantaneous TNSSs (P = .001) over 6 weeks of treatment. At the end point, a greater decrease from baseline was observed in physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity for the ciclesonide group compared with the placebo group (P = .051). An appreciable improvement in combined Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores at the end point was also observed in the ciclesonide group (P = .01 vs placebo). The frequency of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, intranasal ciclesonide treatment was associated with significant reductions in nasal symptoms and appreciable improvements in health-related quality of life in adult and adolescent patients with PAR. Ciclesonide was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo.     

Lack of subsensitivity to mizolastine over 8-week treatment

Mizolastine is a new, nonsedating antihistamine providing satisfactory symptom relief in allergic rhinitis and urticaria. The purpose of this study was to use the wheal and flare skin reactions model to assess the maintenance of the pharmacodynamic effect of mizolastine, administered for 2 months. This double-blind, parallel-group study involved 60 atopic patients randomly allocated, after a J-week placebo run-in, to once-daily 10 mg mizolastine ( n =29) or placebo ( n =31) groups. Treatment continued for 8 weeks. Pricks tests were performed in duplicate with histamine chlorhydrate (10 mg/ml), codeine phosphate (9%), and five increasing concentrations (1–500 reactivity index/ml) of standardized allergen extracts (grass pollen or mites) at days 0,7,28,42, and 56. After 7 days of treatment, inhibition of histamine-induced wheal was -76% and +20%, respectively, with mizolastine and placebo ( P =0.0001), in comparison with baseline; inhibition of flare was -86% and +5%, respectively, with mizolastine and placebo ( P =0.0001). Suppression was maintained to a similar extent throughout the study. Results were consistent between histamine-, codeine-, and allergen-induced tests. Safety was satisfactory in both groups. This study confirms mizolastine as a potent antihistamine which does not induce subsensitivity when taken for 81 weeks, and which can be safely recommended in allergic conditions.     

Comparison of once-daily ebastine 20 mg, ebastine 10 mg, loratadine 10 mg, and placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Background: Ebastine and loratadine are 2 nonsedating second-generation H₁ antihistamines with once-daily dosing. Objective: We compared the efficacy and safety of ebastine 20 mg and 10 mg, loratadine 10 mg, and placebo administered once daily for 4 weeks in controlling the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Methods: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group study, 565 patients with ragweed SAR, ages 12 to 70 years, received either ebastine 20 mg, ebastine 10 mg, loratadine 10 mg, or placebo once daily for 4 weeks. Patients recorded morning and evening reflective scores (past 12 hours) as well as snapshot scores (at time of recording) for nasal discharge, congestion, sneezing, itching, and total eye symptoms. Total symptom score (TSS) is the sum of these 5 scores. Results: Ebastine 20 mg produced significantly greater (P < .05) reductions from baseline compared with loratadine 10 mg over the entire treatment period in the mean daily reflective (42.5% vs 36.3%) and mean morning snapshot (40.3% vs 31.3%) TSS. The overall improvement in daily reflective and morning snapshot TSS was comparable between ebastine 10 mg and loratadine 10 mg and significantly better than placebo (P < .05). The total percent of patients with adverse events was similar among all 4 treatment groups (P = .78). Conclusion: Ebastine 20 mg given once daily was significantly superior to loratadine 10 mg given once daily at improving the rhinitis total symptom score throughout the day and at awakening over a 4-week period. Ebastine 20 mg and 10 mg doses were both efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of SAR. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000;105:1101-7.)     

Clinical benefits of combination treatment with mometasone furoate nasal spray and loratadine vs monotherapy with mometasone furoate in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal corticosteroids and nonsedating antihistamines are the drug classes most often prescribed to treat allergic rhinitis (AR). Treatment guidelines recommend a combination of these agents for moderate-to-severe AR. However, clinical studies have found that combining an antihistamine with an intranasal corticosteroid provides few or no advantages over monotherapy with an intranasal corticosteroid. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NS) plus loratadine with that of monotherapy with the individual agents in patients 12 years and older with at least a 2-year history of seasonal AR. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical study, 702 patients were randomized to receive mometasone furoate NS, 200 microg, plus loratadine, 10 mg (n = 169); mometasone furoate NS, 200 microg (n = 176); loratadine, 10 mg (n = 181); or placebo (n = 176) once daily for 15 days. Primary efficacy variables were total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and total symptom score (TSS) as recorded on diary cards. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed between mometasone furoate NS plus loratadine and mometasone furoate NS monotherapy for the primary efficacy variables. For TNSS and TSS, all 3 active drug therapies were more effective than placebo (P < or = .02). Both mometasone furoate NS treatment regimens were more effective than loratadine or placebo for TNSS (P < .01 for both) and TSS (P < or = .03 for both), whereas loratadine was more effective than placebo for TNSS only (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with mometasone furoate NS and loratadine provided benefits similar to monotherapy with mometasone furoate NS for the symptoms of seasonal AR. Therefore, mometasone furoate NS monotherapy was shown to be an effective treatment for seasonal AR.     

Efficacy and tolerability of montelukast alone or in combination with loratadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial performed in the fall.

BACKGROUND: Histamine and cysteinyl leukotrienes seem to be important mediators of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of montelukast, loratadine, and combination therapy with montelukast and loratadine for treating patients with fall seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: After a 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 907 male and female patients aged 15 to 82 years were randomized to 1 of 4 treatments: montelukast 10 mg (n = 155), loratadine 10 mg (n = 301), combination montelukast 10 mg and loratadine 10 mg (n = 302), or placebo (n = 149), administered once daily at bedtime for 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the daytime nasal symptoms score (mean of congestion, rhinorrhea, pruritus, and sneezing). RESULTS: Mean symptom scores at baseline were similar for the four treatment groups. For each of the three active treatments, the difference was significant for the mean change from baseline compared with placebo (P < or = 0.001). However, the effect of montelukast/loratadine compared with loratadine alone, the primary comparison, was not significantly different. Differences for each therapy alone compared with placebo were also significant for most secondary endpoints, including nighttime symptom scores, eye symptoms scores, and rhinitis-specific quality of life. Differences for montelukast/loratadine compared with each therapy alone generally showed numerical superiority, and a few endpoints showed differences that were statistically significant. All active treatments showed a safety profile generally similar to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Montelukast alone or in combination with loratadine is well tolerated and provides clinical and quality-of-life benefits for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.     

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of montelukast for treating perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) is a persistent allergic inflammation of the upper respiratory tract due to year-round allergen exposure. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast for the treatment of PAR. METHODS: Protocol 265 was a 2-arm study performed during the winter. After a placebo run-in period, adults with perennial allergen sensitivity and active symptoms of PAR were randomized to receive 10 mg of montelukast (n=1002) or placebo (n=990) once daily during a 6-week, double-blind, active-treatment period. The primary end point was the daytime nasal symptoms score, defined as the average of scores for nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and sneezing rated daily by patients. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in PAR symptoms were seen in patients treated with montelukast. Their daytime nasal symptoms scores were reduced during treatment compared with those of the placebo group: the difference between treatments in least squares mean change from baseline was -0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to -0.04; P < .001). Montelukast treatment also improved global evaluations of allergic rhinitis by patients and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores: differences vs the placebo group were -0.15 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.04; P < .01) and -0.15 (95% CI, -0.24 to -0.06; P < .001), respectively. Other end points that showed statistically significant improvement with montelukast treatment were nighttime symptoms and each of the 4 nasal symptoms (congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching). The treatment effects of montelukast were stable and persistent during the entire 6 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSION: Montelukast provided statistically significant relief of PAR symptoms during 6 weeks of treatment.     

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   

Long-term safety and efficacy of intranasal ciclesonide in adult and adolescent patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Ciclesonide is a corticosteroid in development for allergic rhinitis that has been shown to be safe and effective in seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) trials of up to 6 weeks in duration. However, the long-term safety and efficacy of ciclesonide are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the long-term safety of intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, in patients with PAR. METHODS: Patients (> or = 12 years old) with a 2-year or longer history of PAR were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive ciclesonide, 200 microg, or placebo once daily in the morning for up to 52 weeks. Spontaneous and elicited adverse events were monitored throughout the study. Ear, nose, and throat examinations were performed to evaluate local tolerability. Additionally, 24-hour urinary free cortisol level, morning plasma cortisol level, intraocular pressure, and lens opacification were monitored to evaluate the systemic safety of intranasal ciclesonide. Ciclesonide efficacy was determined by measuring 24-hour reflective total nasal symptom scores. RESULTS: No clinically relevant differences were observed between the ciclesonide and placebo groups in adverse events, ear, nose, and throat examinations, or 24-hour urinary free or morning plasma cortisol levels. Similarly, no clinically relevant differences were found between treatment groups in intraocular pressure, visual acuity, or lens opacification. With regard to efficacy, ciclesonide achieved a significantly greater reduction in 24-hour reflective total nasal symptom score compared with placebo over more than 52 weeks (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In this study, intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, was safe and effective for the long-term treatment of PAR, with no evidence of tachyphylaxis.