Current therapeutical strategies for allergic rhinitis

Introduction: Allergic rhinitis is a common condition with increasing prevalence and is associated with several comorbid disorders such as bronchial asthma and atopic dermatitis. If allergen avoidance is not possible, allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causal treatment option.

Areas covered: This review focuses on current treatments and the future outlook for allergic rhinitis. Pharmacotherapy includes mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, glucocorticosteroids (GCSs), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and nasal decongestants. Nasal GCSs are currently regarded as the most effective treatment and are considered first-line therapy together with non-sedating antihistamines. The new formulation MP29-02 combines the nasal GCS fluticasone propionate with azelastine in one single spray and has achieved greater improvements than those under monotherapy with modern GCSs or antihistamines. Furthermore, this review discusses allergen immunotherapy alone and in combination with modern monoclonal antibodies.

Expert opinion: Despite the variety of medications for allergic rhinitis, ranging from general symptomatic agents like GCSs or decongestants, to more specific ones like histamine receptor or leukotriene blockers, to causal therapy like immunotherapy, many patients still experience treatment failures or unsatisfactory results. The ultimate goal may be to endotype every downstream pathway separately in order to offer patients individualized, targeted therapy with specific antibodies against the respective pathway.     

Treatment principles of atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is today the most common, chronic inflammatory skin disease among children in developed countries. Its cumulative prevalence varies from 20% in northern Europe and the USA to approximately 5% in Mediterranean countries. As a chronic disease it puts a special demand on treatment. There is no curative therapy, but competent guidance on treatment principles can control the disease in most, if not all children. This article summarizes the evidence-based knowledge that relates to the treatment of atopic eczema. It also gives advice and opinions on prophylactic measures as these are the focus of interest from most parents. LEARNING OBJECTIVE: This article should enable you to give advice and guidance to parents of children with AD, including what is necessary for diagnosis, what is of value and importance considering allergies and allergological investigations, allergen exposure, prophylactic measures, diets and indoor environment. Finally, you should be able to explain the diversity of treatment principles for parents.     

Comparatice effects of loratadine and selected antihistamines on sleep-waking patterns in the cat

The central effects of the new antihistamine loratadine and three reference antihistamine agents were studied in the cat. As a sensitive measure of drug action on the central nervous system (CNS) we evaluated changes in sleep-waking patterns. For comparison, diphenhydramine was studied as an example of an antihistamine having potent central effects; astemizole and terfennadine were used as examples of new agents claimed to be free of CNS effects. Diphenhydramine, given at 3 mg/kg p.o., increased spindle sleep, i.e., the electrophysiological correlate of drowsiness, and suppressed rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. In addition, cats displayed unusual sleep postures during the various sleep stages. Loratadine had little or no effect on the various features of sleep-waking patterns over a broad dose range (3 and 30 mg/kg p.o.). Astemizole, at 30 mg/kg p.p., significantly increased wakefulness and reduced both slow-wave sleep and REM. No significant changes of the sleep patterns occurred after the low dose of 3 mg/kg. Terfenadine reduced REM duration at 30 mg/kg p.o. but had no effects on sleep patterns at 3 mg/kg. The cat appeared to be a sensitive animal model to the central action of antihistamines since the reference drug diphenhydramine affected sleep-waking patterns at a dose that closely approximates the dose requirements for adverse CNS effects in man. Under the same conditions, loratadine was free of central actions at a dose range far above that effective either therapeutically or in standard tests in other animal species. Astemizole and terfenadine seemed to be devoid of CNS effects at doses similar to those effective as antihistamines in man, but they produced some central actions at higher doses. Comparing the clinically effective doses of the antihistamines examined, loratadine appears to be the least liable to produce adverse effects on the CNS function.     

A multicentre study of loratadine, clemastine and placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

This multicentre, double-blind, randomized parallel-group study compared 3 weeks' treatment with either loratadine (Clarityn) 10 mg once daily, or clemastine (Tavegyl) 1 mg twice daily, and placebo in outpatients with active perennial allergic rhinitis. 155 patients were evaluated for efficacy and safety. Grading of four nasal and three non-nasal symptoms, rhinoscopy signs, and therapeutic response was performed on treatment days 6, 13, and 20. Patients recorded daily symptoms and possible adverse experiences in a diary, also indicating when symptoms of active rhinitis were relieved. Loratadine and clemastine were statistically significantly superior to placebo throughout the study (P less than 0.05), based on assessment of patients' nasal and eye symptoms, patients' diary scores, rhinoscopy signs of symptoms, and onset of relief. The loratadine group showed a statistically significantly (P less than 0.05) faster onset of relief of symptoms compared with the group treated with clemastine. Concerning nasal stuffiness, loratadine was significantly (P less than 0.05) superior to clemastine after 1 week's treatment. Reports of adverse reactions showed that significantly (P less than 0.05) more patients complained of sedation in the clemastine than in the loratadine group. Regarding other adverse experiences and laboratory tests, the three treatment groups were statistically comparable (P less than 0.05). The study showed that compared with placebo both loratadine and clemastine were effective in relieving nasal and eye symptoms in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Loratadine was safe and well tolerated and was significantly less sedative than clemastine; loratadine may therefore possess an advantage in clinical use in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.     

Reduction of side-effects from ultrarush immunotherapy with honeybee venom by pretreatment with fexofenadine: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy with Hymenoptera venoms is highly effective but causes allergic side-effects frequently, especially when honeybee venom is used. Therefore, our objective was to investigate the effect of pretreatment with the antihistamine fexofenadine on the incidence of allergic side-effects during ultrarush immunotherapy with bee venom. METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 57 patients with a history of systemic allergic reactions to honeybee stings and positive diagnostic tests (skin tests, serum specific IgE to honeybee venom) were investigated. Bee venom immunotherapy was started with an ultrarush protocol and patients were randomized to pretreatment with either fexofenadine 180 mg or placebo on days 1, 8, 22, and 50 of the protocol. Local and systemic allergic side-effects were registered. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients completed the study, 28 on fexofenadine and 26 on placebo pretreatment. On day 1, large local reactions were significantly reduced in both extension and duration by fexofenadine pretreatment (P<0.025). Systemic allergic side-effects on the whole were not reduced. However, the symptoms pruritus, urticaria, and angioedema occurred less frequently with fexofenadine (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment with fexofenadine during venom immunotherapy reduces local allergic reactions and generalized symptoms of the urticaria and angioedema type.     

Perennial rhinitis in the under 4s: A difficult problem to treat safely and effectively? A comparison of intranasal fluticasone propionate and ketotifen in the treatment of 2–4‐year‐old children with perennial rhinitis

To compare the safety and efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) and oral ketotifen in children aged 2-4 years with perennial rhinitis. A randomized, multicentre, double-blind, double dummy, placebo-controlled study. Paediatric patients between the ages of 2-4 years with perennial rhinitis. Rhinitis symptoms score (parent-rated), clinical evaluation of symptoms (investigator-rated) and adverse event profiles during the treatment period. Patients treated with FPANS had a significant reduction in both the total night-time rhinitis symptom assessment for weeks 4-6 (p-value 0.036), and the total daytime rhinitis symptom score over the same period (p-value 0.049). Generally, except for nasal itching/rubbing over weeks 1-3, the patients taking FPANS had lower recorded symptom scores for all individual symptoms measured. Nasal blockage, in particular, was significantly reduced over the 4-6 week period (p-value 0.027). The overall investigator-rated clinical evaluation showed substantial improvement or improvement in nine of 12 of the children taking FPANS compared with four of 14 taking ketotifen. Finally, there were no reports of serious adverse events, the incidence of drug-related adverse events was low and there was no statistical difference between the groups. FPANS may be an appropriate treatment to control the symptoms of rhinitis in children between 2 and 4 years old.