Effects of bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine on histamine-induced wheal-and flare-response, sedation, and psychomotor performance

Although many antihistamines are now in clinical use, few studies directly compare their pharmacodynamic and sedative activities in humans in vivo. We designed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study to compare the inhibitory effects of bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine on histamine-induced flare-and-wheal response. Systemic sedative effects and impaired psychomotor activities by these drugs were also evaluated. Bepotastine (10 mg twice a day), cetirizine (10 mg once a day), fexofenadine (60 mg twice a day), and olopatadine (5 mg twice a day) or placebo was given in a double-blind manner to seven healthy volunteers before histamine challenge by iontophoresis. At 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h following the oral administration of these drugs, histamine iontophoresis-induced wheal-and-flare response was measured. Sedative effects by the drugs were also evaluated by a visual analogue scale for subjective sedation, and by word processor test for psychomotor activity. Each volunteer was tested with all of the drugs (including placebo), administered in a random order with a washout period of at least 1 week. Histamine iontophoresis induced marked wheal-and-flare response in all participants. Bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine yielded significant reduction of histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response compared to placebo (P < 0.01). Among the drugs, olopatadine and cetirizine suppressed most markedly and persistently histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response, while bepotastine and fexofenadine produced a significant, but less persistent suppression. Olopatadine, fexofenadine, and cetirizine showed a significant systemic sedative effect in this order with bepotastine showing the least sedative effect. Moreover, olopatadine affected psychomotor performance most markedly, which was followed by fexofenadine and cetirizine. These results indicate that bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine inhibit histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response of humans in vivo and induce a variable systemic sedative effect and impaired psychomotor activity. Although olopatadine and cetirizine showed the strongest and most persistent suppression of histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response, olopatadine showed a considerable sedative effect with impaired psychomotor performance.     

Comparison of the potency of antihistamines

ABSTRACT: First- and second-generation antihistamines have proven effective in the management of patients with urticaria and allergic rhinitis; however, the efficacy of first-generation antihistamines has been compromised by undesirable side effects such as sedation, dry mouth, and blurred vision. Second-generation antihistamines, on the other hand, are less sedating and have fewer side effects than first-generation agents. Recently second-generation agents have been compared for their pharmacologic activities using an epicutaneous histamine-induced wheal and flare model in normal volunteers. Cetirizine was found to be superior to epinastine, ebastine, fexofenadine, terfenadine, loratadine, and placebo in inhibiting the wheal and flare response. Epinastine had the fastest onset of action at 30 minutes and terfenadine proved to be superior to its metabolite fexofenadine.     

Rapid effects of olopatadine hydrochloride on the histamine-induced skin responses

Olopatadine hydrochloride is one of the second-generation nonsedating antihistamines that are used for treating allergic disorders such as urticaria, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. We examined the inhibitory effects of this drug on the flare and wheal responses induced by histamine iontophoresis at 30, 60, and 90 min after oral administration in a double-blind, cross-over, and placebo-controlled study. Olopatadine hydrochloride significantly inhibited the histamine-induced flare and wheal responses as early as 60 min after oral administration when compared with placebo. Significant inihibitory effects of olopatadine hydrochloride on the itch responses were seen at 90 min after administration. Thus, olopatadine hydrochloride exhibited a very rapid and potent antihistamine effect on the histamine-induced skin responses.     

Suppression of wheal and flare in histamine test by the main H1 antihistamines commercialized in Brazil

Background:Several dermatoses are mediated by histamine, such as urticaria, angioedema, and papular urticaria. There are no Brazilian studies comparing the potency of antihistamines.Objectives:To evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of the main commercial brand and generic H1 antihistamines, regarding the suppression of the wheal and flare to the histamine test.Methods:A quasi-experimental, open study with 10 healthy adults submitted to the histamine test on the ventral aspect of the forearms. After 20 minutes, wheal and flares were measured. The tests were performed after two hours of intake of dexchlorpheniramine, hydroxyzine, levocetirizine, fexofenadine, cetirizine, loratadine, ebastine, desloratadine, epinastine and rupatadine, as well as generics of loratadine, cetirizine and fexofenadine.Results:All antihistamines presented a reduction in the wheal compared to the control (p <0.02), as well as in the flare, except for rupatadine (p = 0.70). In the internal comparison, cetirizine, fexofenadine, epinastine, levocetirizine, dexchlorpheniramine and hydroxyzine were the most potent, with no difference between them (p > 0.1). As for halo, cetirizine, epinastine, hydroxyzine and fexofenadine were the most potent, with no difference between them (p > 0.1). The most common adverse effect was drowsiness, which was more prevalent among first-generation drugs (p < 0.01). Generic loratadine, fexofenadine and cetirizine halos were higher than their controls (p >0.03)..Study limitations:A single-center study evaluating only aspects related to histamine.Conclusions:Brazilian commercial antihistamines presented different profiles of inhibition of wheal and flares in the histamine test, as well as adverse effects. Generic loratadine, fexofenadine and cetirizine presented larger flares than brand drugs.     

Evaluation of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine and levocetirizine during a 24‐h period: A double‐blind,randomized, cross‐over,placebo‐controlled comparison in skin responses induced by histamine iontophoresis

The antihistamine effects of olopatadine and levocetirizine, in standard‐dose application described in their information (5 mg twice a day for olopatadine; 5 mg once daily for levocetirizine), were examined from 11.5 to 24 h after application. The test was designed in a double‐blind, randomized, cross‐over, placebo‐controlled study of 12 healthy volunteers on histamine‐induced flare and wheal response using an iontophoresis technique. The suppressive effect of olopatadine on the wheals induced by a 0.1‐mA histamine iontophoresis lasted for 24 h after dosing. Both drugs inhibited flare induced by histamine iontophoresis almost completely until 24 h after the first administration. Suppression of the 0.2‐mA‐induced wheal response by levocetirizine, taken once daily, decreased with time, although 0.1‐mA‐induced flare was almost completely suppressed by the drug. Olopatadine completely suppressed even the wheal response induced by a 0.2‐mA histamine iontophoresis. Compared with the placebo, the two drugs significantly suppressed the subjective itching assessed by visual analog scale at all intervals. There were no significant differences in subjective drowsiness and objective cognitive function between drug‐ and placebo‐treated subjects. These results demonstrate that olopatadine seems to be more potent than levocetirizine when administrated in a standard dose. In conclusion, mild to moderate urticaria could be controlled by standard application as described in their information. On the other hand, severe urticaria could be managed by a standard application of olopatadine, but levocetirizine may need an additional dose to control severe urticaria.     

Evaluation of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine,cetirizine and fexofenadine during a 24 h period: a double-blind,randomized, crossover,placebo-controlled comparison in skin responses induced by histamine iontophoresis

Potency of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine, cetirizine and fexofenadine in standard-dose application were compared from 11.5 to 24 h after application. The test was designed in a double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled study of ten healthy volunteers on histamine-induced flare and wheal response using an iontophoresis technique. The suppressive effect of olopatadine on the wheals induced by a 0.1-mA histamine iontophoresis lasted for 24 h after dosing. Fexofenadine administered using the same regimen was the least effective among three drugs tested. Suppression of the wheal response by cetirizine, taken once-daily, decreased with time. Olopatadine completely suppressed even the wheal response induced by a 0.2-mA histamine iontophoresis, although fexofenadine and cetirizine were less effective on the wheals induced by the same histamine challenge. There were no significant differences in subjective drowsiness and objective cognitive function between drug- and placebo-treated subjects. These results demonstrate that olopatadine is the most potent antihistamine among the three H(1)-blockers when administered in a standard dosage.     

Treatment of Urticaria

Urticaria is a cutaneous syndrome characterized by dermal edema (wheal) and erythema (flare) that blanches with pressure. The lesions typically last less than 24 hours and are usually pruritic. In 1983, Christensen and Maibach summarized the theory behind the use of histamine H₁ receptor antagonists (antihistamines) in clinical dermatology. These agents remain the mainstay of treatment for urticaria. This article reviews the medical literature on the effectiveness of antihistamines in urticarial syndromes, including acute, chronic idiopathic and the physical urticarias. Older antihistamines, such as chlorpheniramine and hydroxyzine, are effective in the treatment of urticarias, but they also have marked sedative and anticholinergic effects. Newer nonsedating antihistamines (second-generation antihistamines) have been developed that have reduced adverse effects because they do not cross the blood-brain barrier; these agents (acrivastine, cetirizine, loratadine, mizolastine, fexofenadine, ebastine, azelastine and epinastine) cause significantly less sedation and psychomotor impairment than their older counterparts. A review of the literature reveals that there are few studies which document the efficacy of second-generation antihistamines in the treatment of acute urticaria, a biologic entity that usually resolves within 3 weeks. We did not identify controlled studies that suggested superiority of any antihistamine in the treatment of acute urticaria. Loratadine or cetirizine, and possibly mizolastine, appear to be treatments of choice for chronic idiopathic urticaria. For symptomatic dermatographism, the combination of an antihistamine and an H₂ antagonist, e.g. chlorpheniramine and cimetidine, appears to be effective. Very few studies have been conducted on the use of antihistamines in the treatment of cold, cholinergic, and pressure urticaria. Antihistamines are the mainstay of urticarial therapy. This evidence-based review suggests that there are efficacy differences between newer, nonsedating antihistamines and older agents in some forms of the disorder. Clearly, further well-controlled clinical trials in larger numbers of patients are needed to clarify the role of these agents in the treatment of urticaria.     

Effects of acrivastine, loratadine and cetirizine on histamine-induced wheal and flare responses

It is accepted that studies evaluating histamine-induced wheal and flare reactions in the skin represent a simple and reliable method for demonstrating pharmacodynamic activity and pharmacokinetics of the H1-receptor antagonists. In this study, the effects of single oral doses of acrivastine (8 mg), loratadine (10 mg) and cetirizine (10 mg) on the histamine-induced wheal and flare reactions were compared in 60 healthy volunteers. The wheal and flare responses were produced by prick test using 1% histamine solution. Measurements were performed before the ingestion of antihistamines (baseline values) and afterwards at 15, 30, 90, 240, 360 min and 24 h. The values obtained for each antihistamine were compared with each other and with baseline values. Cetirizine was found to be superior to acrivastine and loratadine for the suppression of wheal and flare responses at 240, 360 min and 24 h (P < 0.05) and acrivastine was superior to the other two antihistamines for the suppression of flare response at 30 min (P < 0.05). Our results indicate that a single dose of cetirizine provides a more effective and long acting suppression on wheal and flare reactions in urticaria when compared to acrivastine and loratadine.     

Inhibitory effects of oral prednisolone and fexofenadine on skin responses by prick tests with histamine and compound 48/80

The prick test is a useful skin test for diagnosing immediate hypersensitivity response. Sometimes it is necessary to perform prick tests on patients who have already received antihistamines or corticosteroids. It is, however, occasionally uncertain whether the results of prick tests are reliable. In this study, the inhibitory effects of prednisolone (10 mg/day) and fexofenadine (120 mg/day) on the response to prick tests induced with histamine and compound 48/80 were examined. During a 7-day-continual drug administration, prick tests were performed 8 h after drug administration. The inhibitory effects of fexofenadine on both the histamine- and compound 48/80-induced skin responses were exhibited on the 1st day and persisted from 24 to 36 h after the final administration. The histamine-induced wheal responses were not inhibited by prednisolone, while the compound 48/80-induced flare and wheal responses were significantly inhibited on the 5th day of drug administration. These responses returned to the baseline level 24 h after the last drug administration. Thus, the results of skin tests performed during administration of antihistamines and corticosteroids should be carefully interpreted.     

Effects of cetirizine and epinastine on the skin response to histamine iontophoresis

Epinastine and cetirizine are second-generation, nonsedating and long-lasting antihistamines that are now frequently used for the allergic disorders. We have examined the inhibitory effects of these two drugs on the histamine-induced flare and wheal responses using iontophoresis at 1, 2, 4, 8 and 24 h after the oral administration by a double-blind, cross-over and placebo-controlled study. Both cetirizine and epinastine significantly inhibited the histamine-induced flare and wheal responses at 2 h after the oral administration when compared with placebo. The inhibitory effects of cetirizine and epinastine on the flare response lasted long until at 24 h, however, epinastine was less potent than cetirizine. The inhibitory effects on the wheal response was also clearly and significantly evident at 2-8 h by cetirizine and epinastine. At 24 h cetirizine only showed the significant inhibition on the histamine-induced wheal response. In contrast, epinastine seemed to exhibit the inhibitory capacity earlier than did cetirizine. The inhibitory action of the drugs on the histamine-induced wheal response peaked at 4 h after the oral administration. The histamine-induced itch sensation was also markedly or completely suppressed at 2-8 h by the drugs. Thus, both drugs exhibited the potent and long-lasting antihistamine activity on the skin responses induced by histamine iontophoresis.     

Desloratadine for Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria

Chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) is a disabling affliction that considerably limits patients' daily activities and interferes with sleep. Clinical studies have shown that histamine H1-receptor antagonists (antihistamines) are highly effective for inhibiting the hives/wheals and pruritus associated with CIU, as well as improving patients' quality of life. Desloratadine is a rapid-acting, once-daily, nonsedating selective H1-receptor antagonist/inverse receptor agonist with proven clinical efficacy in patients with CIU. It has 10-20 times the in vivo H1 receptor-binding affinity of loratadine, its parent compound, and 52-194 times the H1 receptor-binding affinity of cetirizine, ebastine, loratadine, and fexofenadine. Desloratadine displays linear pharmacokinetics after oral administration. Age and sex have no apparent effect on the drug's metabolism and elimination, and food does not affect its bioavailability or absorption. Desloratadine also exerts anti-inflammatory effects via mechanisms that are independent of H1-receptor antagonism. Results from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of 6 weeks' duration in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe CIU indicate that desloratadine significantly minimizes the severity of pruritus, reduces the number and size of hives, and improves disease-impaired sleep and daily activities. Improvements were noted after a single dose of desloratadine and were maintained over 6 weeks of treatment. Desloratadine was safe and well tolerated in clinical trials of patients with CIU. The adverse effect profile of desloratadine in adults, as well as in children aged from 6 months to 11 years, is comparable to that of placebo. Evaluations of cognitive and psychomotor performance in adults indicate no impairment of function with dosages of desloratadine 5 mg/day. In conclusion, desloratadine is an important therapeutic option for prompt and enduring symptom relief in patients with moderate-to-severe CIU. In addition to efficacy and safety, desloratadine affords a convenient administration regimen, rapid onset of action, and an absence of drug-drug or drug-food interactions. Other important prescribing considerations are that, unlike all first-generation and some second-generation antihistamines, desloratadine is nonsedating at its clinically approved dosage and does not impair psychomotor function.     

Second- and third-generation antihistamines in the treatment of urticaria

ABSTRACT: Chronic urticaria is mainly idiopathic in nature and can be difficult to treat. While less responsive to antihistamine therapy than acute urticaria, antihistamines still play a key role in the management of symptomatology. While many of the antihistamines still commonly used to treat urticaria are first generation H₁ antagonists (e.g., diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine), the more recently developed second-generation agents (e.g., loratadine, cetirizine) and their metabolites—the third-generation antihistamines (e.g., fexofenadine, norastemizole, descarboxyloratadine)—possess many of the desirable clinical effects of the first-generation agents with a more tolerable side effect profile. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each of the various second- and third-generation agents available, and presents some of the data showing the differences among these agents in the treatment of chronic urticaria.     

Effects of olopatadine hydrochloride, an antihistamine drug, on skin inflammation induced by repeated topical application of oxazolone in mice

BACKGROUND: Olopatadine hydrochloride (olopatadine) is one of the second-generation antihistamines, which is prescribed for allergic disorders such as rhinitis, urticaria and eczema dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the possible anti-inflammatory effect of olopatadine on the chronic contact hypersensitivity response to repeated topical application of oxazolone in mice. METHODS: The preventive and therapeutic effects of oral olopatadine were quantified by measurements of ear swelling, cytokine protein and mRNA expression in the ear lesion, and were compared with those of topical betamethasone 17-valerate (betamethasone). RESULTS: The ear receiving repeated applications of oxazolone exhibited erythema, oedema and abrasion. Both preventive and therapeutic administration of olopatadine (10 mg kg(-1) day(-1)) significantly inhibited the ear swelling and the increased production of interleukin (IL)-4, IL-1beta, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and nerve growth factor. In the histopathological analysis, olopatadine ameliorated epidermal hyperplasia and infiltration of inflammatory cells. Consistent with these results, olopatadine significantly reduced the increased expression of interferon-gamma and IL-4 mRNA. Although betamethasone (0.012 mg ear(-1) day(-1)) showed similar activities to olopatadine against these responses, it caused atrophy of the ear skin. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that olopatadine is an antihistamine agent having inhibitory activities against chronic inflammatory dermatitis, possibly resulting from its diminishing effect on elevated cytokines.     

Use and safety of antihistamines in children

ABSTRACT: Although first-generation antihistamines remain popular for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and urticaria in children, second- and third-generation antihistamines hold clear advantages over the first-generation agents, especially for the pediatric patient. The less frequent dosing schedule of the second- and third-generation agents makes administration easier for the parent. With less sedation and lower risk of adverse effects, the safety profile of second- and third-generation agents appears superior to that of first-generation agents. After briefly discussing the use of first-generation antihistamines, the pharmacokinetics, safety, and use of the newer antihistamines loratadine, cetirizine, and fexofenadine in the pediatric patient are reviewed.     

Quantitative time course study of the skin response to histamine and the effect of H1 blockers. A 3-week crossover double-blind comparative trial of cetirizine and terfenadine

A controlled, randomized, double-blind, crossover study was performed in 10 healthy volunteers to compare changes of cutaneous blood flow values (CBFV) determined by laser Doppler flowmetry before and after intake of a capsule containing either 10 mg cetirizine or 60 mg terfenadine. After the determination of the initial response to the anti-H1 agents, drugs were taken daily (cetirizine 10 mg, terfenadine 120 mg) over a 3-week period and the cutaneous response to histamine and saline was evaluated weekly, exactly 4 h after the last drug intake. The following significant variations were observed (analysis of variance for repeated measurements, p less than 0.05): (1) there is a decrease of histamine-induced wheal and flare under antihistamines (anti-H1), cetirizine being more potent than terfenadine; (2) CBFV, measured on the usual flare area, i.e. at 1 cm of the site of agonist injection, decreased after drug intake. There was a gradual increase of the CBFV inhibition over the 3-week follow-up, cetirizine being more effective than terfenadine, and (3) at the site of agonist injection, reduction of the edematous wheal was associated with significant increases of CBFV after drug intake. This quantitative pharmacologic in vivo assay on the agonist action indicates that at lower doses, cetirizine has a significantly higher anti-H1 activity than terfenadine and that this effect is maintained over a 3-week period. There was no tachyphylaxis.     

Comparison of Efficacy,Safety and Cost-effectiveness of Rupatadine and Olopatadine in Patients of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Randomized,Double-blind,Comparative, Parallel Group Trial

Objective:To compare efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria.Results:Both the drugs significantly reduced the MTSS, number of wheals, size of wheal, scale for interference of wheals with sleep, but olopatadine was found to be superior. In olopatadine group, there was significantly higher reduction in MTSS (p = 0.01), Number of wheals (P < 0.05), Size of wheals (p < 0.05), Scale for intensity of erythema (p < 0.05) and change in eosinopils count (p = 0.015) than that of rupatadine. Incidence of adverse effects was found to be less in olopatadine group when compared with rupatadine group. Cost effectiveness ratio was less in olopatadine group as compared to rupatadine group throughout the treatment.Conclusions:Olopatadine is a better choice in chronic spontaneous urticaria in comparison to rupatadine due to its better efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness profile.     

Pharmacology of Antihistamines

H_1-antihistamines, the mainstay of treatment for urticaria, were developed from anticholinergic drugs more than 70 years ago. They act as inverse agonists rather than antagonists of histamine H₁-receptors which are members of the G-protein family. The older first generation H_1-antihistamines penetrate readily into the brain to cause sedation, drowsiness, fatigue and impaired concentration and memory causing detrimental effects on learning and examination performance in children and on impairment of the ability of adults to work and drive. Their use should be discouraged. The newer second-generation H₁-antihistamines are safer, cause less sedation and are more efficacious. Three drugs widely used for symptomatic relief in urticaria, desloratadine, levocetirizine and fexofenadine are highlighted in this review. Of these levocetirizine and fexofenadine are the most potent in humans in vivo. However, levocetirizine may cause somnolence in susceptible individuals, whereas fexofenadine has a relatively short duration of action and may be required to be given twice daily for all round daily protection. Although desloratadine is less potent, it has the advantages of rarely causing somnolence and having a long duration of action.     

Once-daily desloratadine improves the signs and symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: Chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) is the most common type of chronic urticaria, and pruritus is the most prominent symptom. Antihistamines are the first-line treatment for CIU. Sedation and anticholinergic adverse effects are often experienced with the first-generation antihistamines and there is a risk of cardiovascular adverse effects and drug interactions with some second-generation agents. Hence, new treatment options are needed. Desloratadine is a new, potent, nonsedating antihistamine that has an excellent cardiovascular safety profile. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to determine the efficacy and safety of desloratadine in the treatment of moderate-to-severe CIU. A total of 190 patients, aged 12-79 years, with at least a 6-week history of CIU and who were currently experiencing a flare of at least moderate severity, were randomly assigned to therapy with desloratadine 5 mg or placebo once daily for 6 weeks. Twice daily, patients rated the severity of CIU symptoms (pruritus, number of hives, and size of largest hive), as well as the impact of CIU symptoms on sleep and daily activity. Patients and investigators jointly evaluated therapeutic response and overall condition. Safety evaluations included the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, and changes from baseline in vital signs, laboratory parameters, and ECG intervals. RESULTS: Desloratadine was superior to placebo in controlling pruritus and total symptoms after the first dose and maintained this superiority to the end of the study. Measures of sleep, daily activity, therapeutic response, and global CIU status were also significantly better with desloratadine after the first dose; these clinical benefits were also maintained throughout the 6-week study. No significant adverse events occured. CONCLUSIONS: Desloratadine 5 mg daily is a safe and effective treatment for CIU with significant benefits within 24 h and maintained through the treatment period.     

Video-optical monitoring of wheal and flare reactions

Background/aims: In order to monitor the dynamics of experimentally-induced cutaneous inflammation in humans, we developed an objective, computerized video-optical method for wheal and flare area determination.
Methods: The method was used for evaluation of PAF-acether-induced experimental inflammations on the volar aspect of the forearms of human volunteers. The study design was double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled. Repeated measurements can be performed, e.g., with intervals of 1 min to reveal the time-course of the inflammatory reaction. In the present study, the effect of topical application of creams containing 3 different concentrations of the putative anti-inflammatory drug sodium sucrose-sulphate (SoS) on cutaneous inflammation was investigated.
Results: 30 min after intracutaneous PAF-acether injection, a statistically significantly increased (p<0.05) wheal area was found in skin sites treated by either 1%, 3% and 9% SoS cream, whereas no influence of sucrose-sulphate could be demonstrated on the flare area. The reduction of the wheal area was significantly faster in the SoS-treated areas than in the placebo (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Computerized video-optical quantification of acute skin inflammatory reactions may be a suitable experimental tool for objective dynamic monitoring of both wheal and flare reactions and hence for quantification of the effect of anti-inflammatory drugs in humans. Topical application of SoS surprisingly increased PAF-acether-induced skin oedema (wheal), significantly whereas no effect was found on the flare reaction. No concentration-related effect of SoS could be shown.     

The effect of fexofenadine hydrochloride on productivity and quality of life in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria

The present study examined the impact of once-daily fexofenadine hydrochloride (HCl) 180 mg on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in subjects with chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind. parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Subjects completed the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire at baseline and at weeks 2 and 4. The primary HRQL end point was mean change from baseline to week 4 in total DLQI score. Subjects in the fexofenadine HCl treatment group (n = 163) experienced significantly greater improvements in mean total DLQI score (P = .0219) and in the individual domains of symptoms and feelings (P = .0119) and personal relationships (P = .0091) compared with those in the placebo group (n = 91). Subjects who received fexofenadine HCl experienced less work productivity impairment, overall work impairment, and activity impairment than those who received placebo. The results indicated that once-daily fexofenadine HCl 180 mg improved the HRQL of subjects with CIU, as assessed by change in total DLQI score.