Search

Purpose: To investigate the in vivo efficacy of epinastine cream in type I allergic models. Methods: The dose, timing, and antiallergic effect of epinastine cream on the conjunctiva were evaluated postapplication to the eyelid skin of guinea pigs with histamine- or ovalbumin-induced allergic conjunctivitis. Additionally, we assessed its antiallergic effects on the skin postapplication to the dorsal skin of guinea pigs with ovalbumin-induced passive cutaneous anaphylaxis. Efficacy was estimated by determining the amount of dye that leaked from conjunctival or dorsal skin tissue vessels as a measure of vascular permeability, scoring the severity of allergic symptoms, and observing the scratching behaviors using clinical parameters. Results: In the histamine-induced conjunctivitis model, epinastine cream strongly inhibited conjunctival vascular permeability in a dose-dependent manner. The inhibitory effect of 0.5% epinastine cream 24 h postapplication was significantly higher than that of 0.1% epinastine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 8 h postadministration. Additionally, the 0.5% epinastine cream inhibited conjunctival vascular permeability 15 min postapplication, and the effect was sustained over 24 h. Furthermore, the 0.5% epinastine cream effectively suppressed clinical symptom scores and exhibited ameliorated scratching bouts in conjunctival allergic reactions in the experimental allergic conjunctivitis model. Additionally, it significantly inhibited vascular permeability in skin allergic reactions in the passive cutaneous anaphylaxis model. Conclusions: The results suggest that epinastine cream is a strong, long-lasting, and skin-penetrating inhibitor of type I allergic reactions. The 0.5% epinastine cream applied once daily could be a promising, potent, and long-acting therapeutic agent for allergic conjunctivitis.

Cetirizine, a second-generation antihistamine, and diphenhydramine, a first-generation antihistamine, are among the most widely used anti-allergic drugs. In addition to longer duration of action and less incidence of sedative side effects, recent clinical studies also indicate a higher potency of cetirizine than diphenhydramine in the treatment or prevention of allergic disorders. In the present study, using the differential-interference contrast (DIC) microscopy, we examined the effects of cetirizine and diphenhydramine (1 μM to 1 mM) on the degranulation from rat peritoneal mast cells. Using fluorescence imaging of a water-soluble dye, lucifer yellow, we also examined their effects on the deformation of the plasma membrane. At relatively higher concentrations (100 μM, 1 mM), both cetirizine and diphenhydramine significantly reduced the numbers of degranulating mast cells. Of note, at 1 mM, cetirizine more markedly reduced the number than diphenhydramine, almost entirely suppressing the degranulation of mast cells. Additionally, 1 mM cetirizine and levocetirizine, another second-generation antihistamine, almost totally inhibited the process of exocytosis in mast cells and washed out the trapping of the lucifer yellow on the cell surface, while diphenhydramine and chlorpheniramine, another first-generation antihistamine, did not. This study provided in vitro evidence for the first time that cetirizine more potently inhibited the process of exocytosis in mast cells than diphenhydramine, indicating its higher potency as a mast cell-stabilizer. Such mast cell-stabilizing property of cetirizine could be ascribed to its counteracting effect on the plasma membrane deformation in degranulating mast cells.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is prevalent, and many patients present with moderate-to-severe symptomatic disease. The majority of patients are not satisfied with their AR treatment, despite the use of concurrent medications. These gaps underscore the need for treatment with more effective options for moderate-to-severe AR. The authors' objective was to review systematically the efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of AR. The primary outcomes studied were nasal, ocular, and total symptoms. Other outcomes included time to onset and of AR control, quality of life, and safety. Searches of PubMed and Cochrane databases were conducted on May 14, 2020, with no date restrictions, to identify publications reporting data on MP-AzeFlu. Clinical studies of any phase were included. Studies were excluded if they were not in English, were review articles, did not discuss the safety and efficacy of MP-AzeFlu for AR symptoms. Treatment of AR with MP-AzeFlu results in effective, sustained relief of nasal and ocular symptoms, and faster onset and time to control compared with intranasal azelastine or fluticasone propionate. Long-term use of MP-AzeFlu was safe, with benefits in children, adults, and adults aged ≥65 years. Other treatment options, including fluticasone propionate and azelastine alone or the combination of intranasal corticosteroids and oral antihistamine, do not provide the same level of efficacy as MP-AzeFlu in terms of rapid and sustained relief of the entire AR symptom complex. Furthermore, MP-AzeFlu significantly improves patient quality of life. MP-AzeFlu is a currently available combination that may satisfy all these patient needs and expectations., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: Olopatadine hydrochloride is an antihistamine and mast cell stabilizer available as oral, intranasal and ocular preparations. Most of the practical applications of olopatadine therapy focus on the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis via intranasal and ocular routes. Areas covered: This article was created from a comprehensive literature search with information taken from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical trials of children and adults. The articles that have been selected, evaluate the use of intranasal and ocular antihistamines and their role in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Expert opinion: Olopatadine is significantly more effective than placebos in relieving the symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. It can function both as a viable alternative or addition to first line therapies such as intranasal steroids and oral antihistamines.

ASTERIA I was a 40-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous omalizumab as add-on therapy for 24 weeks in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria/spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU) who remained symptomatic despite H1 antihistamine treatment at licensed doses. Patients aged 12-75 years with CIU/CSU who remained symptomatic despite treatment with approved doses of H1 antihistamines were randomized (1:1:1:1) in a double-blind manner to subcutaneous omalizumab 75 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 24 weeks followed by 16 weeks of follow-up. The primary end point was change from baseline in weekly itch severity score (ISS) at week 12. Among randomized patients (N=319: placebo n=80, omalizumab 75 mg n=78, 150 mg n=80, 300 mg n=81), 262 (82.1%) completed the study. Compared with placebo (n=80), mean weekly ISS was reduced from baseline to week 12 by an additional 2.96 points (95% confidence interval (CI): -4.71 to -1.21; P=0.0010), 2.95 points (95% CI: -4.72 to -1.18; P=0.0012), and 5.80 points (95% CI: -7.49 to -4.10; P<0.0001) in the omalizumab 75-mg (n=77), 150-mg (n=80), and 300-mg groups (n=81), respectively. The omalizumab 300-mg group met all nine secondary end points, including a significant decrease in the duration of time to reach minimally important difference response (⩾5-point decrease) in weekly ISS (P<0.0001) and higher percentages of patients with well-controlled symptoms (urticaria activity score over 7 days (UAS7) ⩽6: 51.9% vs. 11.3%; P<0.0001) and complete response (UAS7=0: 35.8% vs. 8.8%; P<0.0001) versus placebo. During the 24-week treatment period, 2 (2.9%), 3 (3.4%), 0, and 4 (5.0%) patients in the omalizumab 75-mg, 150-mg, 300-mg, and placebo groups, respectively, experienced a serious adverse event. Omalizumab 300 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks reduced weekly ISS and other symptom scores versus placebo in CIU/CSU patients who remained symptomatic despite treatment with approved doses of H1 antihistamines.

Background: Both selective H1-antihistamine (SAH) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) have been shown to be effective in treating patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), but it is still uncertain which treatment option is optimal. This meta-analysis was aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of SAH and LTRA for SAR., Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for all eligible studies that compared the efficacy and safety of SAH and LTRA for SAR up to September 7, 2014. The pooled mean difference (MD), odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a fixed- or random-effects model., Results: Nine studies with 5781 SAR patients were included. The results showed that SAH is superior to LTRA in terms of the daytime eye symptoms score (DESS) and composite symptoms score (CSS) for SAR (MD = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.10, P = 0.000, I2 = 99%; MD = 0.03, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.05, P = 0.010, I2 = 98%), whereas LTRA overmatched SAH with respect to the night-time symptoms score (NSS) (MD = -0.04, 95% CI, -0.05 to -0.02, P = 0.000, I2 = 97%). Additionally, the results of subgroup analysis indicated that the dose, duration and gender of the patients might impact the comparisons of the effects of SAH and LTRA on their efficacy for SAR., Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggested that SAH and LTRA have similar effects and safety for SAR, but SAH is more appropriate for daytime nasal symptoms (congestion, rhinorrhea, pruritus and sneezing), while LTRA is better suited for nighttime symptoms (difficulty going to sleep, nighttime awakenings, and nasal congestion on awakening), respectively. Meanwhile, the dose, duration and gender of patients may influence the anti-SAR effects of SAH and LTRA.

Background: Epinastine hydrochloride is a selective histamine H1 receptor antagonist that also inhibits IgE receptor-mediated histamine release from mast cells., Objective: To show the superiority of epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution (epinastine) to placebo ophthalmic solution (placebo) and noninferiority to olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution (olopatadine) for cedar pollen antigen-induced ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia., Methods: The study was conducted in ophthalmologically asymptomatic adult volunteers with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen challenge test. Subjects were randomized into 3 groups (n = 87) to evaluate superiority to placebo (visits 4 to 6) and 2 groups (n = 86) to evaluate noninferiority to olopatadine (visit 7). At each visit, a single administration of the study medication was instilled at 15 minutes (visit 4), 4 hours (visit 5), 8 hours (visit 6), and 4 hours (visit 7) before the conjunctival allergen challenge test. Ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia of allergic conjunctivitis were assessed after the conjunctival allergen challenge test., Results: For the primary end point, epinastine showed superiority to placebo for the inhibition of ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia induced at 4 hours after the dose (equivalent to 4-times-daily dosing). For the secondary end points, epinastine significantly inhibited itching and conjunctival hyperemia induced at 15 minutes and 8 hours after the dose (equivalent to 2-times-daily dosing) compared with placebo. In addition, epinastine demonstrated noninferiority to olopatadine for ocular itching and conjunctival hyperemia. No adverse drug reactions or serious adverse events were reported throughout the study, indicating that epinastine has a good safety profile., Conclusion: Epinastine is effective and safe for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01363700., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) and associated congestion adversely affect patients' lives. The intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) is effective for AR symptoms including nasal congestion, and the intranasal decongestant oxymetazoline (OXY) is effective against nasal congestion, but the combination has not been fully studied. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of the combination of MFNS and OXY for the relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms., Methods: This phase 2 controlled clinical trial randomized adolescent and adult subjects (≥12 years; 2-year SAR) to MFNS q.d. (200 μg) + 3 sprays/nostril of OXY 0.05% (MFNS + OXY3); MFNS q.d. + 1 spray/nostril of OXY (MFNS + OXY1); MFNS q.d.; OXY b.i.d.; or placebo for 15 days, with 1-week follow-up. Coprimary end points were change from baseline in morning/evening (A.M./P.M.) instantaneous (NOW) total nasal symptom score (TNSS) over days 1-15 and AUC (AUC[0-4 hr]) change from baseline in day 1 congestion., Results: In 705 subjects, both combinations reduced A.M./P.M. NOW TNSS over days 1-15 significantly more than OXY b.i.d. or placebo (p ≤ 0.002). Mean standardized AUC(0-4 hr) day 1 congestion change from baseline was significantly greater in combination and OXY b.i.d. groups (MFNS + OXY3, -0.92; MFNS + OXY1, -0.80; OXY b.i.d., -1.06) versus placebo (-0.57) and MFNS q.d. (-0.63). Combinations and MFNS q.d. were significantly effective for A.M./P.M. NOW TNSS over each weekly period; OXY b.i.d. was superior to placebo in week 1. Adverse events (AEs) were few and similar across treatments; one MFNS q.d. and one placebo subject experienced a serious AE, with neither considered treatment related., Conclusion: Combining MFNS with OXY relieves SAR symptoms, including congestion, with faster onset of action than MFNS q.d. and better sustained efficacy than OXY b.i.d.

Background: A therapeutic role for histamine H(3) receptor antagonism in allergic rhinitis has been proposed and may be complimentary to the well-known benefits of H(1) receptor antagonism. Combined H(1)/H(3) blockade has therefore been investigated as a novel therapeutic approach that may enhance symptom relief, particularly nasal blockage., Methods: Two novel H(1)/H(3) dual receptor antagonists were investigated in phase I and II safety and efficacy studies. One molecule (GSK1004723) was designed for intranasal administration as a suspension or solution and the other molecule (GSK835726) for oral administration. In phase I and II studies, both molecules were compared with an active control and/or placebo in randomised studies. In phase II studies, efficacy was assessed in an environmental allergen challenge chamber (ECC). Subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis were exposed to allergen to induce symptoms. Efficacy and safety was measured over 4, 7 and 20-24 h post-dose. The endpoints included total nasal symptom score and nasal blockage., Results: Intranasal suspension of GSK1004723 and oral GSK835726 were well tolerated. Single-dose intranasal suspensions of GSK1004723 (220, 1,100 μg) failed to demonstrate clinically significant attenuation of symptoms of allergic rhinitis induced in the ECC. Single (10, 50, 100 mg) and 3-day repeat (10 mg) dose oral GSK835726 demonstrated clinically significant attenuation of symptoms in the ECC comparable to cetirizine 10 mg. Three-day repeat dosing of the intranasal solution GSK1004723 1,000 μg also demonstrated a statistically significant attenuation of nasal symptoms, but was less than seen with cetirizine and GSK835726 and caused initial nasal discomfort., Conclusions: Combined H(1)/H(3) antagonism did not show differentiation from H(1) antagonism in reducing total nasal symptom score or nasal blockage., (Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

H1-antihistamines are inverse agonists that combine with and stabilize inactive conformation of H1-receptors. Thus they interfere with actions of histamine at H1-receptors. They are widely used for treatment of allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, urticaria, coughs, colds and insomnia. H1-antihistamines are classified as older 'first generation' and newer 'second generation'. First generation H1-antihistamines have poor receptor H1-receptor selectivity, and cross blood-brain-barrier. They have a lot of adverse events such as anti-muscarinic, anti-α-adrenergic, anti-serotonin, and sedative effects. In contrast, second generation H1-antihistamines were highly selective for the histamine H1-receptor, do not cross the blood brain barrier, and have minimal adverse events. The risks of first-generation H1-antihistamines have been clearly underestimated, particularly when purchased as nonprescribed over the counter medications by public. This review summarizes current literature to evaluate antihistamines including their mechanism, indications and side-effects.

Allergies are a widespread group of diseases of civilization and most patients are still undertreated. Since histamine is considered to be the most important mediator in allergies such as allergic rhinitis and urticaria, the most commonly used drugs to treat these disorders are antihistamines acting on the histamine 1 (H1) receptor. The currently available antihistamines, however, have significant differences in their effects and safety profiles. Furthermore, the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma initiative calls for additional desirable properties of antihistamines. Here, we review the profile of rupatadine, a new dual platelet-activating factor and H1-receptor antagonist that fulfils these criteria and therefore offers an excellent option for the treatment of allergic diseases.

Oral bepotastine is a second-generation histamine H(1) receptor antagonist that also suppresses some allergic inflammatory processes. Numerous short- and long-term clinical trials and surveillance studies have shown that twice-daily bepotastine is an effective and generally well tolerated antihistamine in the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis, chronic urticaria or pruritus associated with skin conditions (eczema/dermatitis, prurigo or pruritus cutaneus). Bepotastine 20 mg/day was significantly more effective than terfenadine 120 mg/day in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis, as evaluated by the final global improvement rating and several other endpoints in a phase III trial. In phase III trials in patients with chronic urticaria, bepotastine 20 mg/day was more effective than placebo in improving levels of itching and eruption, and as effective as terfenadine 120 mg/day with regard to the final global improvement rating and other endpoints. In a noncomparative trial in patients with pruritus associated with skin diseases, the majority of bepotastine recipients in the overall population, as well as in the specific skin disease subgroups (eczema/dermatitis, prurigo or pruritus cutaneus), had a final global improvement rating of moderate or greater. Bepotastine was generally well tolerated in adult and paediatric patients with allergic conditions.

Suppression of left ventricular (LV) remodeling secondary to heart failure seems critical to improve the prognosis of hemodialysis (HD) patients. This is a retrospective study on the relationship of an antiallergic drug and antihistamines with LV hypertrophy. A total of 149 patients (88 males and 61 females) were entered in the study. Mean age was 66.7 years and mean duration of dialysis 14.4 years. Twenty-three patients received oral treatment with an antiallergic drug or second-generation antihistamines, 3 with the antiallergic drug and 20 with antihistamines. The multivariate analysis using LV mass index (LVMI) as the objective variable extracted the following independent factors: male sex, erythropoietin (EPO)/w, uric acid (UA), total cholesterol, antihistamines, antiallergic drug, and calcium channel blocker (CCB), with a standard regression coefficient of 0.187, 0.196, 0.212, -0.262, -0.215, -0.149 and -0.173, respectively. This study suggests a suppressive role of second-generation antihistamines on LV remodeling. Male sex, high-dose EPO/w, and elevated UA were considered as aggravating factors, and CCB as a suppressive factor.

Background: Various trials showed benefit of the prophylactic agent ketotifen in prevention of recurrent wheezing in young children, but no such clinical trial with loratadine or comparison trial is available., Objective: To study the efficacy and safety of loratadine syrup compared with ketotifen and placebo in prevention of recurrent wheezing in young children., Material and Method: Randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial on 90 recurrent wheezing children aged less than 6 years old was done. Children were randomized to receive loratadine, ketotifen syrup, or placebo with dose of 0.25 cc/kg once a day for four months. Blood biochemistry (CBC, LFT) and EKG were performed pre and post treatment period. Assessment of symptoms--wheezing and night cough including use of bronchodilators was done daily via patient diary card. Subjects were asked to do monthly visits to the clinic for physical examination. At those visits, the doctors questioned the patients about adverse event., Result: Of the 90 children enrolled, 12 dropped out. Thus, 27 children remained in the loratadine, 26 in the placebo, and 25 in the ketotifen group. The demographic data were comparable among the three treatment groups. It was noted that wheezing decreased significantly at 2 months in the ketotifen (p = 0.008) and at 3 months in the loratadine (p = 0.029) but not in the placebo group. Coughing at night decreased significantly at 3 months in both the loratadine (p = 0.005) and the ketotifen (p = 0.036) group. The use of bronchodilator drug was significantly decreased at 2 months in the ketotifen (p = 0.028) and placebo (p = 0.025) group, and at 3 months in the loratadine (p = 0.009) group. Only a few patients had mild adverse events in all groups., Conclusion: Loratadine and ketotifen are safe and effective significantly in prevention of recurrent wheezing in young children.

Like any other drugs, antiallergic medications can be associated with large inter- and intraindividual variability in their disposition. The best-documented examples belong to the H1 antihistamines. Variable drugs are more likely to show unpredictable therapeutic response with both increased risks of side effects and subtherapeutic dosing in individual subjects. This article will review the main factors contributing to intervariability in pharmacokinetics with a special emphasis on gender differences, genetic polymorphism, and food habits.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Aerius to seasonal allergic rhinitis., Method: Using randomized, controlled method, treatment group 40 cases, oral administration Aerius 5 mg/d for 12 days; control group 35 cases, oral administration Aerius 5 mg/d for 12 days, investigating their efficacy and safety., Result: The total effective rate of treatment group was 92.50%, while control group was 85.71%, there was significant difference between them (P<0.05). Significant improvements of seasonal allergic rhinitis nasal obstruction were seen in treatment group after using Aerius (P<0.05). The incidence of side effect of treatment group was 2.50%., Conclusion: Aerius is safe and can effectively reduction in nasal and nonnasal symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Background: Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic allergic reaction, which can be life-threatening. H(1)-antihistamines are commonly used as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of anaphylaxis. We sought to assess the benefits and harm of H(1)-antihistamines in the treatment of anaphylaxis., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2006); EMBASE (1966 to June 2006); CINAHL (1982 to June 2006) and ISI Web of Science (1945 to July 2006). We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and international experts in anaphylaxis in an attempt to locate unpublished material. Randomized and quasi-randomized-controlled trials comparing H(1)-antihistamines with placebo or no intervention were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion., Results: We found no studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria., Conclusions: Based on this review, we are unable to make any recommendations for clinical practice. Randomized-controlled trials are needed, although these are likely to prove challenging to design and execute.

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, international, dose-ranging study investigated the effect of treatment with rupatadine 5, 10 and 20 mg once daily for 4 weeks on symptoms and interference with daily activities and sleep in 12-65 years-old patients with moderate-to-severe chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). Rupatadine 10 and 20 mg significantly reduced pruritus severity by 62.05% and 71.87% respectively, from baseline, over a period of 4 weeks compared to reduction with placebo by 46.59% (p < 0.05). Linear trends were noted for reductions in mean number of wheals and interference with daily activities and sleep with rupatadine 10 and 20 mg over the 4-week treatment period. The two most frequently reported AEs were somnolence (2.90% for placebo, 4.29% for 5 mg-, 5.41% for 10 mg- and 21.43% for 20 mg-rupatadine-treated group) and headache (4.35% for placebo, 2.86% for 5 mg-, 4.05% for 10 mg- and 4.29% for 20 mg-rupatadine-treated group). These findings suggest that rupatadine 10 and 20 mg is a fast-acting, efficacious and safe treatment for the management of patients with moderate-to-severe CIU. Rupatadine decreased pruritus severity, in a dose- and time-dependent manner.

Introduction: First-generation H1-receptor antagonists are popularly used for alleviating allergy and cold symptoms, but these antihistaminics cause drowsiness and sedation. Such side effects could impair performance and, thus, could be the cause or a factor in accidents. Therefore, the prevalence of these antagonists was evaluated in aviation accident pilot fatalities., Methods: The Civil Aerospace Medical Institute's (CAMI's) Toxicology Database was examined for the presence of the first-generation antihistamines in pilot fatalities of civil aircraft accidents that occurred during a 16-yr (1990-2005) period., Results: Of 5383 fatal aviation accidents from which CAMI received specimens, there were 338 accidents wherein pilot fatalities (cases) were found to contain brompheniramine, chlorpheniramine, diphenhydramine, doxylamine, pheniramine, phenyltoloxamine, promethazine, and triprolidine. Of the 338 accidents, 304 were general aviation accidents, and 175 of the 338 pilots held private pilot airman certificates. Antihistamines were detected alone in 103 fatalities (1 antihistamine in 94 and 2 antihistamines in 9), while other drug(s) and/or ethanol were also present in an additional 235 fatalities. The antihistamines were found in approximately 4 and 11% of the fatalities/accidents in 1990 and in 2004, respectively. The use of antihistamine(s) was determined by the National Transportation Safety Board to be the cause of 13 and a factor in 50 of the 338 accidents., Conclusions: There was an overall increasing trend in the use of antihistamines by aviators during the 16-yr span. Blood levels of the antihistaminics were in the sub-therapeutic to toxic range. Findings from this study will be useful in investigating future accidents involving antihistamines.

This is a case report of a woman of 38 years old, studied and analyzed at the service of allergy and immunology with clinical manifestations of allergic rhinitis; studies of laboratory, cabinet and intradermal test were made to corroborate this diagnosis and the treatment with specific hyposensitization, oral antihistaminines and inhaled steroids was started. Two years later the patient referred urinary retention without important antecedents, so, a peripheral anticholinergic syndrome (PAS) was suspected, a urodynamic test study was carried out consisting in a uroflujometry, static and dynamic urethral profile, cystometry, flow pressure study and electromyography, which diagnosed low urinary obstruction (functional) and vesical sphincter pseudodysfunction, demonstrating the PAS associated with oral antihistamines.

Introduction: In the treatment of any disease, it is advantageous if the concentration of the administered drug is highest in the target organ. It follows that, if possible, diseases of the conjunctiva should primarily be treated with eye drops., Aims: The author investigated the effect of an eye drop with selective H1-receptor antagonist properties, on children suffering from acute seasonal conjunctivitis., Method: During the first experiment 20 children (suffering from acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis) had received Emadine eye drop (containing emedastine difumarate, an H1 antihistamine agent). The severity of the itching of the eye and the grade of hyperemia of the conjunctiva were scored on scales ranging 0 to 4 (score 4 representing the most severe symptoms). In the second experiment 232 other children had received this eye drop during two pollen seasons and the author investigated its effectiveness and side effects., Results: The conjunctival itching decreased within less than 3 minutes significantly, and the redness was also reduced in an average of 8 minutes. In the second experiment none of the 232 children had to change this drug because of its ineffectiveness or side effects., Conclusions: Emadine eye drop decreases the itching and the redness of the conjunctiva very quickly and effectively. It is usable even for three-year-old patients, and it keeps its effectiveness during the long-term treatment, too.

Allergic rhinitis is one of the most common chronic disorders in children. It is also one of the most common causes of absence from school. This study reports on the efficacy and safety of a twice-daily oral dose of fexofenadine HCl 30 mg in Asian children aged 6-11 years diagnosed with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis. A total of 100 children with a history of allergic rhinitis for more than one year and a positive prick skin test response to at least one of the common aeroallergens in Thailand were enrolled in this multi-center, open-label, non comparative study. The severity of individual symptoms such as sneezing, rhinitis, etc. and adverse events were recorded in diary cards by the patients in form of scores as well as by the investigator at each visit. The total symptom score (TSS) with or without blocked nose at baseline, week 1 and week 2 was recorded. The TSS was defined as the sum of the individual symptom scores except for the nasal blockage score, as nasal blockage was not expected to respond to antihistamine treatment. Only patients with a total symptom score > or = 6 were included in the study. There was a statistically significant improvement at p < 0.01 for the TSS with or without blocked nose and for each symptom score such as blocked nose, sneezing, rhinorrhea, itchy nose/palate and/or throat, and itchy/watery/red eyes from baseline to week 1 and week 2. Additionally, there was a statistically significant improvement between week 1 and week 2 for itchy nose/palate and/or throat and itchy/watery/red eyes (p < 0.05). The Kappa measure of agreement was statistically significant at p < 0.001 between investigator's and patient's/parent's assessment, indicating the same degree of satisfaction with the overall effectiveness of the treatment. Fexofenadine 30 mg bid is effective in reducing the total symptom score of allergic rhinitis including blocked nose and is generally well tolerated. It is not cardiotoxic and is safe for pediatric patients as young as 6 years of age.

In a previous study, cetirizine and fexofenadine similarly relieved seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in the first 5 hours, but cetirizine was more effective at 21-24 hours postdose. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the response to treatment between 5 and 12 hours. Eligible ragweed allergic subjects were exposed to pollen in the Environmental Exposure Unit and randomized (n = 599) to a single dose of cetirizine, 10 mg; fexofenadine, 180 mg; or placebo (2.5:2.5:1). The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in total symptom severity complex (TSSC) score at 12 hours postdose. TSSC score was the sum of self-rated scores (0 = absent to 3 = severe) for runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose/palate/throat, and itchy/watery eyes, recorded half-hourly. Mean baseline TSSC scores were similar: 9.2, cetirizine and fexofenadine; 8.9, placebo. Reductions in TSSC scores from baseline were 4.3 at 12 hours and 5.0 overall (i.e., average over 5-12 hours postdose) for cetirizine and 3.4 and 4.4, respectively, for fexofenadine. Cetirizine produced a 26% greater reduction in TSSC at 12 hours (p = 0.001) and 14% greater reduction in TSSC overall (p = 0.006) compared with fexofenadine. Cetirizine and fexofenadine reduced TSSC scores (p < 0.001) and individual symptoms (p < 0.05) more than placebo. However, cetirizine was more effective than fexofenadine (p < 0.05) for runny nose and sneezing (12 hours and overall), itchy/watery eyes (12 hours), and itchy nose/throat/palate (overall). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and somnolence were similar among groups: cetirizine, 25.3 and 0.8%, respectively; fexofenadine, 29.6 and 0%, respectively; placebo, 35.0 and 0%, respectively. In conclusion, cetirizine produced greater relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms than fexofenadine at 12 hours postdose and over the 5- to 12-hour postdose period.

Abuse and addiction of histaminergic agonists and antagonists were investigated. The withdrawal signs may become after using drugs such as L-histidine, histamine-N-methyl, promethazine, pheniramine, astemizole, etc. Some medicines which include these active metabolites could lead to dependence cause different side effects. This case suggests that pheniramine abuse also could to dependence. We should pay attention to trend of pheniramine and other histaminergic drugs dependence and need to regulate the market by law more severely.

Background: The aim of this study is to establish the efficacy and safety of rupatadine vs ebastine and placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Rupatadine is a new second generation H(1)-antihistamine with once-daily dosing that may provide better control of symptoms than the currently used H(1)-receptor blockers because of its dual pharmacological profile (anti-PAF and anti-H(1))., Methods: In a multicentre study, 250 patients with SAR were included in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group and placebo-controlled study. Patients received either rupatadine 10 mg, ebastine 10 mg or placebo once daily for 2 weeks. The main efficacy outcome was based on the patient's record of severity of nasal symptoms (sneezing, nasal itching, runny nose and nasal obstruction) and nonnasal symptoms (conjunctival itching, tearing and pharyngeal itching). The daily total symptom score (DTSS) was the mean of the DSS recorded for each of the seven symptoms assessed, and the mean DTSS (mDTSS) was the mean of the DTSS values for each study day., Results: Significant differences in mDTSS were detected between rupatadine and placebo (33% lower for rupatadine group; P = 0.005) after 2 weeks of treatment. The TSS for rupatadine were 22% lower than for ebastine, although the differences were not statistically significant. No serious adverse events were reported during the study period., Conclusions: Rupatadine 10 mg once daily was clearly superior to placebo in alleviating the symptoms of SAR over a 2-week period. In comparison with ebastine, rupatadine shows a trend towards a better profile as regard several secondary efficacy variables.

Introduction: Dimethindene maleate, the active substance of the extended-release Fenistil 24 capsule, is a first-generation histamine receptor antagonist, which is marketed in 10 European countries. In Hungary approximately 200,000 boxes are sold yearly from this product, which is mainly used for treatment of symptoms associated with allergic diseases (urticaria, itch, hay fever) The aim of the present study was to gather information with the help of medical doctors about the indications, efficacy and primarily the safety of use, observed side effects and frequency of adverse events associated with this product., Method: During the study 4574 questionnaires were evaluated out of the 5578 filled by 249 doctors. Responses were included into the evaluation only if the address and type of polyclinic of the doctor filling the questionnaire, indication of the use of the product could be precisely identified and the patient returned for control visit at least once., Results: Based on the study results in Hungary in most cases the product is prescribed according to the indications and dosing schedule given in the SPC. In this study participating doctors found the drug to be effective in 95% of cases. Unexpected, new adverse events were not observed during the study. Approximately 22% of patients reported adverse events, tiredness and sleepiness being the most frequent ones. Occurrence of sedative adverse events was more frequent among those who were prone to tiredness (51 vs. 17%). The adverse events most frequently were reported 10-12 hours after intake. The average length of treatment was 4 weeks or less. The medicine is taken usually at night, before going to sleep., Conclusions: In Hungary in most cases the product is prescribed according to the indications and dosing schedule given in the current approved Summary of Product Characteristics.

There is published evidence that cetirizine has a longer duration of effect than fexofenadine. This study compared duration of effect and other measures of efficacy of cetirizine, 10 mg; fexofenadine, 180 mg; and placebo in allergic subjects exposed to pollen in the Environmental Exposure Unit. Eligible subjects (n = 575) were exposed to ragweed pollen (day 1, 7 hours; day 2, 5 hours) and randomized in double-blind fashion to once-daily cetirizine, 10 mg; fexofenadine, 180 mg; or placebo. The total symptom severity complex (TSSC) score, the primary efficacy variable, was based on four rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms rated at 20-minute intervals. Treatment evaluation was divided into three periods: period 1 TSSC, average of 15 scores obtained 0-5 hours after the first dose; period 2 TSSC, average of 9 scores obtained 21-24 hours after the first dose; and period 3 TSSC, average of 6 scores obtained 0-2 hours after the second dose. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline TSSC at period 2. Baseline TSSC was the final pretreatment score on day 1 and was 9.7 for cetirizine, 9.8 for fexofenadine, and 9.7 for placebo. For the primary efficacy end point, the reduction in baseline TSSC at period 2 was greater for cetirizine (-3.6) compared with fexofenadine (-2.7; p < 0.001) and placebo (-2.0; p < 0.001), representing a 33% greater reduction for cetirizine versus fexofenadine. Cetirizine continued to reduce TSSC more than fexofenadine (-5.2 versus -4.6; p = 0.017) and placebo (-3.9; p < 0.001) (period 3). Similar efficacy was observed in period 1 for both active treatments. Treatment-related adverse events were similar in all groups with an incidence of somnolence of 1.3% for both active medications. In conclusion, cetirizine produced a 33% greater reduction in SAR symptoms over the 21- to 24-hour interval after the first dose and for 40 minutes after the second dose, indicating a superior and longer duration of effect, which is relevant because both are once-daily medications. Onset of action was comparable and both treatments were safe and well tolerated.

Background: Several drugs for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis and its symptoms have been investigated since some years ago. These drugs are: steroidal-type immunoregulators, immunotherapy and antihistamines. Because of first generation of the last ones originated several side effects, pharmacological research was oriented to the search of formulas with the same of higher efficacy, but with fewer effects on central nervous system., Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of epinastine 10 mg plus pseudoephedrine 120 mg vs loratadine 5 mg plus pseudoephedrine 120 mg, twice a day, in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis., Material and Methods: A comparative, random, open, prospective, longitudinal and multicenter study was made in 62 patients with an average age of 26.17 +/- 9.75 years (13-56 years) with diagnosis of perennial allergic rhinitis, who attended to external consultation of the different departments of allergy of the participant institutions. All patients were submitted to: complete clinical history, physical exploration, measurement of vital signs, nasal exploration, qualification of allergic symptoms and record of daily symptoms. Moreover, washout during a week and pharmacological treatment was given during two weeks. Symptoms referred by patient and findings of physical exploration during the different visits, as well as rhinoscopic findings, were assessed by a scale of five parameters of rhinitis. Tolerance grade of drugs was assessed based on frequency and severity of side effects., Results: According to the basal clinical assessment symptoms qualification of patients of groups of epinastine and loratadine was of 9.12 +/- 2.78 and 7.90 +/- 2.7, respectively. Seven side effects appeared: three cases of somnolence, one of sickness and one of anxiety in patients of group of loratadine and one case of somnolence and one of dysmenorrhea in the subjects of group of epinestine. Although it did not have statistically significant difference, it is clinically important for patients. Frequency of side effects was higher in the loratadine group., Conclusion: Both drugs are efficient for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

The treatment of allergic rhinitis has been revolutionized by the introduction of topical nasal steroids, which are one of the commonest prescriptions from otolaryngology departments. With so many different sprays available on the market, the literature was reviewed for the efficacy, side-effect profile and relative cost of each product and the following conclusions made: (1) A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids and oral antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis showed a clear benefit in favour of intranasal steroids in relieving nasal symptoms. (2) There is no clear evidence to support the suggestion that one steroid spray is more effective than another in the treatment of seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis. (3) All the sprays have a similar side-effect profile; the commonest being epistaxis with a reported incidence between 17 and 23 per cent. In all the clinical trials, the placebo spray had an appreciable rate of epistaxis of between 10 to 15 per cent. (4) Fluticasone causes a reduction in endogenous cortisol secretion but no significant adrenal suppression was seen with triamcinolone, beclomethasone, budesonide or mometasone. (5) There is little evidence that skeletal growth is restricted by the administration of topical nasal steroid sprays. (6) There is considerable variation in the daily cost of each spray. Beclomethasone, dexamethasone and budesonide are significantly cheaper than fluticasone, mometasone or triamcinolone.

Background: Ketotifen blocks histamine H(1) receptors, stabilises mast cells, and prevents eosinophil accumulation. These multiple, pharmacological mechanisms provided the rationale for assessing the efficacy and safety of ketotifen 0.025% eye drops in subjects with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) in an environmental setting., Methods: This was a double masked, randomised, multicentre trial conducted in Australia. Subjects were randomly assigned to ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution, placebo (as vehicle), or levocabastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic suspension, twice daily in each eye for a 4 week period. Subjects were assessed at follow up (days 5-8) and termination (days 25-31) visits. The primary efficacy variable was the responder rate, based on the subjects' assessment of global efficacy at the follow up visit., Results: 519 subjects were randomised to treatment. At the follow up visit, the responder rate, based on subjects' assessment of global efficacy, was significantly greater in the ketotifen group (49.5%) than in the placebo group (33.0%) for subjects with a positive diagnostic test for pollen allergy (p = 0.02). The investigators' assessment of responder rates also showed that ketotifen was superior to placebo (p = 0.001). Ketotifen produced a significantly better outcome than levocabastine (p<0.05) for relief of signs and symptoms of SAC, at both the follow up and the termination visit. The type and frequency of adverse events were similar across treatment groups., Conclusions: In an environmental setting, ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution was well tolerated and effective in reducing the signs and symptoms of SAC, and in preventing their recurrence. Ketotifen consistently showed the best efficacy in comparison with both placebo and levocabastine. These results indicate that ketotifen eye drops are a valuable treatment option for this condition.

Background: Ketotifen fumarate is a topical antiallergic combination mast-cell stabilizer and antihistamine indicated for the temporary prevention of ocular itching due to allergic conjunctivitis. Desloratadine is a systemic antihistamine indicated for the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of ketotifen 0.025% ophthalmic solution instilled in the eye, desloratadine 5-mg tablets taken orally, and their combination for prevention of the signs and symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, as induced by the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model., Methods: This was a randomized, double-masked, placebo- and active-controlled, single-center clinical trial. At visit l, the dose of allergen necessary to elicit a qualifying allergic reaction was determined for subjects meeting the entry criteria. At visit 2, the allergen dose determined at visit 1 was confirmed, and all subjects who had a qualifying ocular and nasal allergic reaction were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: ketotifen ophthalmic solution and placebo tablet, desloratadine tablet and placebo eyedrop, or ketotifen and desloratadine. Subjects were instructed to instill 1 drop into each eye twice daily and take 1 tablet with water once daily at the same time as the morning eyedrop for approximately 4 weeks. At visit 3, subjects brought in their medication and were given 1 drop of the eyedrop bilaterally and 1 tablet with water. Bilateral CAC was performed 2 hours after administration of medication. Using standardized scales, subjects rated ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes after CAC; ocular tearing and eyelid swelling at 10, 15, and 20 minutes after CAC; and nasal signs and symptoms (sneezing, rhinorrhea and postnasal drip, pruritus, and nasal congestion) at 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 minutes after CAC. The investigator graded ocular redness and chemosis at 10, 15, and 20 minutes after CAC. At all visits, subjects were offered an anti-allergy eyedrop to relieve any immediate ocular discomfort caused by CAC., Results: One hundred two subjects were screened-82 (55 women, 27 men; mean age, 42.8 years [range, 21-70 years]) were randomized to treatment, and 80 completed the study. Subjects in the group that received ketotifen (n = 27) and the group that received ketotifen with desloratadine (n = 26) had significantly lower mean itching scores compared with those in the group that received desloratadine alone (n = 27) at all time points (P

Objective: To investigate the therapeutic efficacy of fexofenadine hydrochloride (Allegra(R) tablets), an antihistaminic launched in 2001, in patients with cedar pollinosis by dividing them into two groups for comparison, i.e. the early-treatment group in which treatment was started before the initial day of the pollen scattering, and the therapeutic-treatment group in which treatment was started after the initial day of the pollen scattering., Methods: Early-treatment group: patients who visited the hospital before the initial day of cedar pollen scattering were orally given one tablet of the drug twice daily. Therapeutic-treatment group: patients who visited the hospital after the initial day of cedar pollen scattering were orally given one tablet of the drug twice daily. The total number of cases in which the efficacy evaluation was possible was 37 cases (19 cases of the early-treatment group and 18 cases of the therapeutic-treatment group) after application of exclusion criteria., Results: The useful rate of moderately effective or better against sneeze was 90% in the early-treatment group, and 78% in the therapeutic-treatment group, and there was a significant difference between both groups. The degree of satisfaction in the early-treatment group was 3.8 points, and 4.2 points in the therapeutic-treatment group, and the therapeutic-treatment group showed a higher score, but there was no significant difference between both groups. As adverse reaction, there was only one case of mild dizziness (2.7%), and no other adverse reactions such as sleepiness were observed., Conclusions: It was suggested that fexofenadine hydrochloride administered in patients with cedar pollinosis from before substantial pollen scattering might control their symptoms to mild ones, and might control worsening of their symptoms after the substantial pollen scattering, and, therefore, the drug was considered to be useful in early therapy.

Old generation H1-type antihistamines are the standard therapeutic option for acquired cold urticaria (ACU), but adverse effects are common. New antihistamines are well tolerated but efficacy is often poor. The present study aims to evaluate efficacy and safety of cinnarizine in the treatment of ACU patients intolerant to old antihistamines and resistant to new drugs. We studied 14 patients (4 males and 10 females). Mean duration of the disease was 48.9 (range 7-102) months. Cold cube test was positive in 78.6 % of patients. Cold urticaria was idiopathic in 10 (71.4 %) patients. Cryoglobulins were detected in the serum of 4 cases (28.6 %). Cinnarizine (25 mg t.i.d.) was administered for 3 months, and then it was gently tapered off and stopped within 2 months. A complete or good response was obtained in 8 (57.1 %) and 2 (14.3 %) patients, respectively. Only two patients were unresponsive (21.4 %). Tapering off or stopping cinnarizine was followed by the relapse of cold urticaria in 7 cases (50.0 %). These patients were amenable to a second treatment cycle. Six patients (42.9 %) had a persistent remission. A patient interrupted the therapy because of severe vertigo. Three patients reported mild and transitory adverse effects including epigastralgia, weight gain and drowsiness. In conclusion, cinnarizine at high doses may be considered as an effective and well-tolerated treatment for ACU.

Desloratadine, the active metabolite of loratadine, is a new antihistamine. Because of its anti allergy properties, desloratidine has an affinity for histamine receptors 25 to 100 times greater to those of the usual antihistamines, coupled with a capacity to inhibit the production of pro-inflammatory mediators. When evaluated in healthy volunteers, the half life of desloratadine has been estimated at 27 hours, which is comparable with a night time length of action. Many clinical studies made with patients suffering with allergic rhinitis or chronic idiopathic urticaria have shown a rapid symptom reduction, lasting 24 hours after first taking. This action was correlated with an improvement in socio-professional activity, sleep and quality of life in general. In patients suffering from allergic rhinitis, rhinomanometry showed a significant improvement in nasal congestion by desloratadine. The clinical advantages of desloratadine on antihistamines taken previously were measured in a study made on almost 48,000 patients, of whom 91% found its efficacity satisfactory. By its powerful action, coupled with an excellent tolerance profile, desloratadine represents a real therapeutic advance for allergic patients.

Background: H1-antihistamines are widely used to relieve symptoms of allergic disorders. A few skins reactions to H1-antihistamines have been described in the literature. We report the first case of cutaneous drug eruption as fixed drug eruption with 2 antihistamines of the same chemical family: cetirizine and hydroxyzine., Case Report: A 73 year-old man was admitted because of a third cutaneous eruption with the same morphologic features of the same sites as before. The first and second eruption appeared after 4 hours of cetirizine intake, the third eruption appeared after 4 hours of hydroxyzine intake. Healing was obtained after stopping the medication. Histology showed induced drug reaction. Patch tests with cetirizine and hydroxyzine were negative, except false positivity with dimethylsulfoxide vehicles., Discussion: The diagnosis of cutaneous drug eruption as non pigmenting fixed drug eruption related to cetirizine and hydroxyzine was retained. Allergy to both H1 antihistamines can be explained by the fact that they've got the same chemical node that is piperazine, and by the fact that cetirizine is the main metabolite of hydroxyzine. Oral test provocation was omitted because the patient had already reexposed himself to the drugs. To identify the drug responsible for fixed drug eruption, peroral provocation tests are the most valuable method, but carry the risk of a strong reaction. Some authors use patch tests, but their positivity is inconstant. Their interest in fixed drug eruption is undergoing assessment.

Background: Diphenhydramine may be associated with excess risk of injury relative to nonsedating H1-receptor antagonists., Objective: This study sought to compare the risk of injury in patients exposed to diphenhydramine with the risk of injury in patients exposed to loratadine., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of injury was carried out in 12,106 patients whose initial antihistamine prescription was for diphenhydramine and in 24,968 patients whose initial antihistamine prescription was for loratadine. Data were taken from a health care claims database that included employees, dependents, and retirees who filed claims from January 1991 through December 1998. Rates of six serious injuries in the diphenhydramine cohort after and before the first prescription were compared with rates in the loratadine cohort after and before the first prescription., Results: In the 30 days after the first antihistamine prescription, the rate of all injuries was 308 per 1,000 person-years in the diphenhydramine cohort versus 137 per 1,000 person-years in the loratadine cohort. The rate ratio estimate adjusted for age and gender using Poisson regression was 2.27 (95% confidence limits [CL] 1.93, 2.66). In the corresponding 30 days of the preceding year, the injury rates in the diphenhydramine and loratadine cohorts were 128 and 125 per 1,000 person-years, and the adjusted rate ratio was 1.02 (CL 0.83, 1.26). Thus, the cohorts appeared to have similar preprescription injury rates. The differences between the cohorts declined with time from prescription: For all injuries, the estimated percentage decline in the rate ratio was 4.1% per day (CL 3.3, 4.9), and the estimated time from the initial prescription until the diphenhydramine cohort returned to baseline risk was 32.3 days (CL 26.9, 37.6)., Conclusions: If these associations are causal, the percentage of the injuries attributable to diphenhydramine was 55% (CL 41, 65), implying a substantial number of excess injuries and costs incurred as the result of diphenhydramine use. The high use rates of this drug and the high incidence of injury suggest that further study of the association between injury and type of antihistamine is needed.

Background: Mizolastine is a nonsedating H1 histamine receptor antagonist with additional antiallergic properties currently marketed in Europe for the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and urticaria., Objective: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mizolastine in PAR compared with loratadine and placebo., Methods: After a 1-week placebo run-in period, 428 adult PAR patients received placebo (146 of 428), mizolastine 10 mg (141 of 428), or loratadine 10 mg (141 of 428) once daily for 28 days. Symptoms were evaluated by patients and physicians using a total nasal score, evaluating itching, rhinorrhea, nasal blockade, and sneezing severity., Results: Mizolastine treatment resulted in a significantly greater decrease in patient-rated total nasal score than placebo after 2 weeks (D14; -42%, P < 0.001) and at the end of the treatment period (-46%, P = 0.01), and significantly greater than that observed with loratadine at D14 (P = 0.031). No significant difference in change in total nasal score was observed between loratadine and placebo at 2- and 4-week visits. The global safety was satisfactory and the incidence of adverse events was similar in the three treatment groups., Conclusions: Mizolastine provides effective symptom relief in PAR together with a satisfactory safety profile. Improvement with mizolastine was significantly greater than placebo throughout the study despite a large placebo effect. Also mizolastine's effects were greater those observed with loratadine after 2 weeks of treatment.

The paradoxical acute exacerbation of pre-existing chronic idiopathic urticaria accompanied by intense generalized pruritus, facial oedema, and dyspnoea in a 36-year-old-woman 3-4 h after a single oral dose of 10 mg cetirizine (Zyrtec tablets), suggested the presence of an underlying intolerance reaction. However, a type I hypersensitivity reaction also had to be excluded. Detailed allergy testing supported the view that the patient had suffered an intolerance reaction to cetirizine. This is the third known case of most probably a nonallergic generalized urticaria following the administration of cetirizine, a drug with extensive usage worldwide. However a type I sensitization to cetirizine is indeed possible, as has been demonstrated in this research with the verification of cetirizine-specific IgE antibodies in one of the control sera.

Drugs administrated to pregnant women must be carefully monitored. Prevention of dietary sensitization in foetus via the mother is still discussed. However, it must not induce any dietary deficiency to both the mother and the foetus. Environmental prevention is also controversial. Asthmatic pregnant women must be treated because under- or non treatment is more dangerous for both the woman and the foetus compared to eventual drug side effect. Asthma must be treated with inhaled glucocorticosteroid in order to be stabilized because giving birth is the only moment which can not be interrupted. Antihistamine-H1 which can be used during pregnancy are dexchlorpheniramine for the first and second third and cetirizine during the last third of the pregnancy.

Background: Allergic rhinitis affects 20 million of people in United States and a higher figure all around the world., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fexofenadine compared with certirizine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis., Material and Method: It was carried out a prospective, double blind, comparative, randomized and multicentric study in patients with allergic rhinitis, with ages between 12 and 65 years. In the first phase, placebo was administered during three days to all the patients; and then, they were randomly allocated to receive fexofenadine 120 mg or cetirizine 10 mg in one dose a day during 14 days. Laboratory and cabinet tests at the beginning and at the end were performed to value security, as well as a global evaluation of the researcher to estimate effectiveness., Results: 176 patients were included, 63.6% were women, average age was 27 years (+/- 12), 47.7% received fexofenadine and 52.2%, cetirizine. There was not significant difference in parameters of effectiveness nor of security in the studied group., Conclusion: The results of the present study confirm the efficacy and safety of the antihistaminic fexofenadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

An observer blind clinical study was carried out among 64 Nigerian patients with allergic rhinitis to assess the efficacy and tolerance of loratadine a new generation H1 antihistamine. Patients were allotted randomly to receive treatment for 1 week with either loratadine + Vit. C (group A), chlorpheniramine + Vit. C (group B), or Vit. C alone (group C). Assessment was by subjective symptom scoring of three nasal symptoms namely; sneezing, rhinorrhoea and nasal blockage. Difference between pre treatment and post treatment mean symptom scores was used as degree of improvement for statistical analysis and this formed the primary efficacy parameter. Adverse effects namely; anticholinergic effects, gastrointestinal effects and drowsiness were assessed following treatment. The results showed that loratadine was significantly better than Vit. C. alone (P = 0.0002) and chlorpheniramine was also significantly better than Vit. C. alone (P = 0.039). However, loratadine was significantly better than chlorpheniramine P = 0.046. Drowsiness was noted in 19.2% of patients on loratadine compared with 57.1% of patients on chlorpheniramine. lt is concluded that though both loratadine and chlorpheniramine were effective in the relief of symptoms of allergic rhinitis in Nigerian patients, loratadine was significantly more effective with minimal sedating effect.

Background: Fexofenadine is the active metabolite of the non-sedating anti-histamine terfenadine. Pre-licensing clinical trials in over 6000 patients suggested it was effective and well tolerated., Objective: To assess the tolerability and safety of fexofenadine immediately after its availability on the UK market in March 1997., Methods: Post-marketing non-interventional observational cohort study using the methodology of prescription-event monitoring. Exposure data derived from dispensed prescription details supplied in confidence by the Prescription Pricing Authority. Outcome data derived from questionnaires returned by general practitioners (GPs) in England between March and August 1997., Results: Of the 35,817 questionnaires sent, 18,238 (50.9%) were returned, of which 16,638 contained useful data. These included 40% male (mean age 36+/-19 years) and 59% female (mean age 39+/-19 years). Most common indications were allergic rhinitis (55%), not specified (28%), urticaria, pruritus or rash (10%) and other indications (7%). There were 40 reports of adverse drug reactions in 27 patients. Less than 2% of patients stopped the drug because of side effects. Events reported after exposure to fexofenadine were uncommon and already reported in clinical trials. There were eight reports of possible cardiac side effects (palpitations, three; chest pain, three; arrhythmia, one; and chest tightness, one). None was felt to be serious. There were no drug interactions reported. None of the 30 deaths was related to fexofenadine. None of the three adverse outcomes from the 47 pregnancies reported was related to fexofenadine., Conclusion: Within the limitations for an observational cohort study, fexofenadine was found to be well tolerated and safe in 16,638 users in general practice in England.

Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lodoxamide 0.1% ophthalmic solution with levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension, each given four times daily (QID) for three months to patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC)., Methods: The study was conducted multinationally according to a triple-masked parallel design in 95 VKC patients, with assessments at baseline then monthly during the three months of treatment. The primary efficacy variables were a Physician's Clinical Judgement Scale and a Patient's Overall Judgement Scale of improvements from baseline. Signs and symptoms of VKC were also assessed., Results: Both primary efficacy variables showed significantly greater overall improvement of VKC from baseline with lodoxamide than levocabastine. The superiority of lodoxamide was demonstrated by the Physician's Clinical Judgement Scale at months 2 and 3, with a trend, at month 1, and by the Patient's Overall Judgement Scale at months 1, 2 and 3. All signs and symptoms of VKC improved significantly from baseline at all time points, regardless of treatment (p<0.001). However, relative to levocabastine, conjunctival discharge, photophobia and lacrimation were significantly reduced by lodoxamide at months 1, 2 and 3, itching at months 2 and 3, and bulbar conjunctiva at month 3. The temporal improvement of superior tarsal papillae did not differ significantly between treatments. Both were well tolerated., Conclusions: Lodoxamide 0.1% and levocabastine 0.05% eye drops, instilled four times daily for three months, were effective, safe and well tolerated by patients with VKC, but lodoxamide was significantly superior to levocabastine.