Adrenal suppression secondary to inhaled fluticasone propionate

BACKGROUND

Inhaled glucocorticoids are the medical treatment of choice in many of patients with asthma. Fluticasone propionate is an inhaled glucocorticoid with little systemic bioavailability via the oral route and infrequent association with systemic adverse effects at the recommended dosage.

OBJECTIVE

To report a case of adrenal suppression and exogenous glucocorticoid excess from inhaled fluticasone propionate.

METHODS

A 9-year-old girl with a previous history of episodic asthma was placed on 550 microg of fluticasone propionate daily for severe labile asthma diagnosed by history and methacholine challenge. The patient returned 6 months later with complaints of increased appetite, nausea, and feeling "hot and flushed." On physical exam she had stigmata of Cushing's syndrome. The patient subsequently developed orthostatic hypotension and moderate dehydration following a viral illness. After a long taper of fluticasone propionate the patient' s adrenal function returned to normal and she had no acute or chronic exacerbations of her asthma.

RESULTS

Her 8 AM cortisol was undetectable with an ACTH of 21 pg/mL. The serum prolactin, TSH, free thyroxine, insulin-like growth factor I, and renin activity were all normal. An MRI study of her head was also normal. Repeat methacholine challenges while receiving a much smaller dose fluticasone propionate showed a significant decrease in airway reactivity.

CONCLUSION

Adrenal suppression can occur from inhaled fluticasone propionate at a dosage less than has been previously reported.

[Systemic therapy in the treatment concept of atopic eczema. Reliable treatment methods and experimental developments]

Our therapeutic approach to atopic eczema consists of a continuous topical dermatological basic therapy in combination with an antiinflammatory therapy in phases of exacerbations. In the treatment of exacerbated atopic eczema, systemic agents are added to achieve effective control more rapidly or to induce remissions in cases refractory to standard therapy. Antihistamines to control the pruritus, as well as antibiotics and acyclovir for antimicrobial superinfections are often used. In many patients exacerbations can be successfully controlled with phototherapy, especially with UVA1 light. The use of systemic immunosuppressants, like glucocorticosteroids, cyclosporine or azathioprine generally can be avoided and is a therapeutic alternative only in few selected cases. In the last years promising new experimental treatments have evolved, which could become therapeutic alternatives for the future.

Clinical efficacy of an antiallergic drug on otitis media with effusion in association with allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

The effect of azelastine hydrochloride (AZ), an oral antiallergic drug, was evaluated in patients displaying otitis media with effusion (OME) accompanying allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A total of 53 patients diagnosed with OME accompanied by symptomatic perennial allergic rhinitis were randomized to receive in an open fashion 2 mg of AZ in combination with 750 mg of S-carboxymethyl cysteine (SCMC) per day, or 750 mg of SCMC only (controls) for 8 weeks. Efficacy was assessed according to the global improvement rating (GIR) of six nasal or four ear symptoms or signs.

RESULTS

Patients treated with AZ and SCMC had superior improvements in their nasal symptom GIRs compared to controls overall across the 8 week trial, but not in their ear symptom GIRs. However, the clinical course of patients treated with AZ and SCMC tended to be better than that of patients treated with SCMC only, and the nasal and ear symptom GIRs were significantly correlated in the AZ-treated group.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that AZ may not provide direct efficacy on the ear symptoms in OME patients with allergic rhinitis, but that there might be a possibility of its indirect efficacy in the patients in part by relieving the allergic rhinitis.

A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled parallel study of loteprednol etabonate 0.2% in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of loteprednol etabonate (LE) 0.2% in reducing the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel group multicenter study of 6 weeks duration.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 135 patients with signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis participated.

INTERVENTION

All patients received either LE 0.2% or placebo (vehicle) four times a day in both eyes for 42 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Bulbar conjunctival injection (primary sign) and itching (primary symptom) over the first 2 weeks of treatment was measured.

RESULTS

A reduction in severity was seen in both LE and placebo groups for bulbar conjunctival injection (1.5 vs. 1.0 units on a 0-3 scale) and itching (3.4 vs. 3.0 units on a 0-4 scale) over the first 2 weeks. The treatment effect by these measures was -0.5 and -0.4 units in favor of LE (P < or = 0.008). Resolution (i.e., the proportion of patients with signs or symptoms no longer present) at day 14 strongly favored LE-treated patients (36% and 15%; 58% and 38%, for injection and itching, respectively). Both treatments were well tolerated. One patient in each treatment group (1 of 67 and 1 of 68, respectively) had an elevation of intraocular pressure of 10 mmHg or greater during the 6 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Loteprednol etabonate 0.2% was more effective than placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Loteprednol etabonate 0.2% had a safety profile comparable to placebo.

Comparison of the efficacy of budesonide and fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray for once daily treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids, such as budesonide and fluticasone propionate, are widely prescribed in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. Once daily budesonide dry powder and fluticasone propionate aqueous suspension have been found to provide similar efficacy in controlling symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of treatment with once daily budesonide aqueous nasal spray.

METHODS

This study involved a multicenter, blinded, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial of adults with perrenial allergic rhinitis. Patients (n = 273) recorded daily nasal symptoms for 8 to 14 days (baseline) and 6 weeks (treatment).

RESULTS

Budesonide decreased combined symptoms to a significantly greater extent than did fluticasone (P =.03); both treatments significantly decreased mean combined nasal symptoms scores compared with placebo. Of the 3 nasal symptoms assessed (ie, nasal blockage, runny nose, and sneezing), nasal blockage was significantly (P =. 009) more decreased with budesonide compared with fluticasone. Both treatments also significantly improved runny nose and sneezing compared with placebo. Improvement in combined nasal symptom scores of the budesonide-treated group reached statistical significance within 36 hours compared with placebo (P =.01); in those patients treated with fluticasone, significant improvement compared with placebo was first observed within 60 hours. Adverse events were mild and transient.

CONCLUSIONS

Once daily budesonide aqueous nasal spray, 256 microgram, was significantly better in controlling the symptoms of perrenial allergic rhinitis than once daily fluticasone propionate, 200 microgram, especially nasal blockage. Both treatments were superior to placebo. Budesonide may have a faster onset of action than fluticasone.

Comparative study between fluticasone propionate and cetirizine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Among the most frequently used drugs in the treatment of allergic rhinitis we have to mention topical nasal corticosteroids and H1 antihistamines used both systemically and topically. The present study focused the effectiveness and tolerability of cetirizine and fluticasone propionate in seasonal allergic rhinitis. 54 patients, divided into three homogeneous groups, underwent the following different treatments: Group 1: Placebo of fluticasone (2 puff per nostril once daily by aerosol) + cetirizine (10 mg/die per os) for 60 days. Group 2: Fluticasone (100 mg per nostril once daily by aerosol) + placebo of cetirizine (per os) for 60 days. Group 3: Cetirizine (10 mg/die per os) for 60 days + fluticasone (100 mg per nostril once daily by aerosol) for 20 days. The patients reported nasal symptoms (sneezing, obstruction, itching, rhinorrea) on a clinical diary. ECP levels in nasal secretions were investigated in all patients to determine the anti-inflammatory activity of both treatments. Cetirizine resulted very effective in the treatment of sneezing, itching and acqueous rhinorrea whereas not much effective on nasal obstruction. On the contrary, fluticasone, which acted effectively on nasal obstruction, resulted inefficacious on the other symptoms. The third group of patients achieved the best results on all four symptoms, including obstruction, which continued even after interrupting the treatment with fluticasone. The ECP levels were significantly reduced by both treatments. The side effects in all 3 groups were rare and not serious. From these results we can assert that the synergic action of the two drugs, achieves the best effectiveness, that the fluticasone treatment can be limited to 20 days cycles and finally that both molecules are well tolerated.

Immune thrombocytopenia due to Tranilast (Rizaben): detection of drug-dependent platelet-associated IgG

Tranilast (Rizaben)-induced thrombocytopenia occurring in a 17-year-old man was reported. After withdrawal of the drug, he recovered within a week with oral prednisolone administration. Serological examination revealed no anti-platelet antibody, but platelet-associated IgG (PAIgG) was found. After incubation of peripheral blood of the patient with the drug in vitro, the level of PAIgG was significantly increased. These findings suggest the presence of a drug-dependent anti-platelet IgG in the patient's serum. This is the first report of immune thrombocytopenia caused by Tranilast. Our method for detecting drug-dependent platelet antibody in vitro is safe and useful for diagnosing drug-induced thrombocytopenia.

Mometasone furoate. A review of its intranasal use in allergic rhinitis

Mometasone furoate is a synthetic corticosteroid which has been evaluated for intranasal use in the treatment of adults and children with allergic rhinitis. In several large, well-controlled clinical trials, mometasone furoate 200 micrograms administered once daily as an aqueous intranasal spray was significantly more effective than placebo in controlling the symptoms associated with moderate to severe seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis. Mometasone furoate was as effective as twice-daily beclomethasone dipropionate or once-daily fluticasone propionate in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis, and was as effective as twice-daily beclomethasone dipropionate and slightly more effective than once-daily oral loratadine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Mometasone furoate was also as effective as twice-daily beclomethasone dipropionate or once-daily budesonide, and significantly more effective than placebo in the prophylaxis of seasonal allergic rhinitis. The onset of action of mometasone furoate was approximately 7 hours in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Mometasone furoate was as well tolerated as beclomethasone dipropionate, fluticasone propionate and budesonide in clinical trials, with an overall incidence of adverse events similar to placebo. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and of limited duration. The most common adverse events associated with mometasone furoate therapy were nasal irritation and/or burning, headache, epistaxis and pharyngitis. Intranasal or oral mometasone furoate had no detectable effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function in studies of < or = 1 year in duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Mometasone furoate is a well tolerated intranasal corticosteroid with minimal systemic activity and an onset of action of < or = 7 hours. It is effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis and the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis in patients with moderate to severe symptoms.

Treatment of common ocular allergic disorders; a comparison of lodoxamide and NAAGA

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Lodoxamide tromethamine and N-acetyl-aspartyl glutamic acid (NAAGA) are mast cell stabilisers, both of which have been shown to be effective in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. The aim of this study was to compare the two compounds in patients with common ocular allergic disorders.

METHODS

73 patients participated in a double masked, randomised multicentre study. Diagnoses were chronic allergic conjunctivitis, vernal conjunctivitis, seasonal and atopic conjunctivitis. 36 patients were treated with lodoxamide 0.1% and 37 with NAAGA 4.9%, the drops being instilled four times daily for up to 56 days.

RESULTS

The overall opinion of the physicians and the patients was in favour of lodoxamide at day 10 of the study. At this time, 86% of lodoxamide treated and 49% of NAAGA treated patients considered they had improved. The patients' opinion favoured lodoxamide at day 28 and both physicians' and patients' evaluations were in favour of lodoxamide at day 42. Evaluation of signs and symptoms indicated superiority of lodoxamide at days 42 and 56. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

While both lodoxamide and NAAGA treatments are associated with clinical improvements in patients with allergic conjunctivitis, lodoxamide may have an earlier onset of action.

Onset of action, effectiveness and tolerance of levocabastine and nedocromil in topical therapy of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The Deutsche Rhinitis-Studiengruppe

This study evaluated the effectiviness and the onset of action of levocabastine (CAS 79547-78-7) nasal spray and eyedrops as well as of nedocromil (CAS 69049-74-7) nasal spray and eyedrops in practical relevant circumstances. The study was designed as an open observational study with parallel groups in 10 centres and comprised 102 patients. All patients presented with seasonal allergic rhinitis and evidenced conjunctival symptoms requiring therapy. The patients as well as the investigators were required to rate the symptoms using symptom scores in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the used drugs. The effectiveness according to symptom scores did not differ significantly between investigator's and patient's judgment. Onset of action was within the first hour in 81.6% of the patients treated with levocabastine and in 82.9% of the patients treated with nedocromil. Symptoms were evaluated on a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 100. The use of both substances reduced the severity of the reported symptoms by 50% within the first hour. Thus, no significant difference in the onset of action could be observed even though a later onset of action was expected of the stabiliser of mast cell membranes. Both drugs were tolerated well.

Effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray versus oral prednisone on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate is a glucocorticoid with negligible oral bioavailability and very low intranasal bioavailability that is used as an intranasal spray for the treatment of rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA)axis effects of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FP ANS) compared with oral prednisone and placebo by using a 6-hour cosyntropin infusion test.

METHODS

In a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled parallel-group study, 105 adult patients with allergic rhinitis were randomly assigned to receive FP ANS 200 microg once daily, FP ANS 400 microg twice daily, oral prednisone 7.5 mg once daily, oral prednisone 15 mg once daily, or placebo. HPA-axis function was assessed at the screening visit and after 4 weeks of treatment by measuring morning plasma cortisol concentrations and poststimulation concentrations of plasma and urinary cortisol.

RESULTS

There was no evidence of altered HPA-axis response to cosyntropin by the end of treatment with FP ANS 200 microg once daily or FP ANS 400 microg twice daily when compared with placebo. In contrast, 4 weeks of treatment with oral prednisone 7.5 or 15 mg once daily was associated with significant (p < 0.05 vs placebo) reduction in HPA-axis function, as evidenced by lower plasma cortisol concentrations (area under the plasma concentration-time curve and peak concentrations) after cosyntropin stimulation and reduced mean 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion. FP ANS 400 microg twice daily and both prednisone regimens were associated with a significant (p < 0.05 vs placebo) reduction in mean morning plasma cortisol concentrations.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that a 4-week course of FP ANS at four times the recommended dose does not suppress adrenal function in response to a 6-hour cosyntropin stimulation test.

Brompheniramine maleate: a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison with terfenadine for symptoms of allergic rhinitis

This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel study comparing the effectiveness, at recommended doses, of an extended-release formulation of brompheniramine maleate and terfenadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Subjects with symptoms of seasonal and/or perennial allergic rhinitis received brompheniramine 12 mg (n = 106), 8 mg (n = 105), terfenadine 60 mg (n = 106), or placebo (n = 53) twice daily for 14 days. On treatment days 3, 7, and 14, symptom severity ratings (i.e., rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal congestion, itchy nose, eyes or throat, excessive tearing, postnasal drip) were completed by the physician; subjects and physicians each completed a global efficacy evaluation. Brompheniramine 12 mg and 8 mg and terfenadine were more effective than placebo (p < or = 0.05) on the physicians' global: brompheniramine 12 mg was more effective than terfenadine (p < or = 0.05) on days 7 and 14 and brompheniramine 8 mg on day 3. On the subjects' global evaluation, brompheniramine 12 mg and 8 mg and terfenadine were more effective than placebo (p < or = 0.05); brompheniramine 12 mg was more effective than terfenadine (p < or = 0.05) on days 7 and 14 and brompheniramine 8 mg on day 3. In general, brompheniramine 8 mg was comparable to terfenadine. On days 3 and 7, the total symptom and total nasal symptom severity scores for subjects receiving brompheniramine 12 mg were significantly more improved than for placebo (p < 0.05); terfenadine was not different from placebo; brompheniramine 12 mg was significantly better than terfenadine on day 7 (p < 0.05) for reducing total symptom severity and on days 3, 7, and 14 for reducing total nasal symptom severity. Adverse experiences were reported by 155 (41.9%) of the 370 subjects enrolled in the study. The overall rate of adverse experiences in the brompheniramine 12 mg treatment group (57.5%) was significantly greater (p < 0.05) than for brompheniramine 8 mg (38.1%), terfenadine (31.1%), and placebo (39.6%). In conclusion, an extended-release formulation of brompheniramine 12 mg or 8 mg bid alleviates allergic rhinitis symptoms and brompheniramine 12 mg provides significantly better relief of these symptoms than terfenadine 60 mg bid.

Subjective and objective assessments in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis: effects of therapy with mometasone furoate nasal spray

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of topical nasal steroid therapy for allergic rhinitis is usually evaluated by patient and clinician assessments of subjective symptom changes in diaries and at clinical interviews.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to complement the subjective measures with objective measures of nasal cytology, biochemistry, and function.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized study patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) 12 years of age or older received 200 microg mometasone furoate nasal spray (n = 80) or placebo spray (n = 41) once daily for 2 weeks. Subjective assessments by clinician and patient comprised symptom/sign scores and overall therapeutic response evaluations. Objective measures included nasal cytology, nasal biochemistry, nasal airway resistance (NAR), mucociliary clearance, and olfactory functions.

RESULTS

Mometasone furoate produced a significantly greater decrease than placebo in subjective measures of SAR for total symptom score (-46% vs -30%, p < 0.05), total nasal score (-47% vs -30%, p < 0.024), individual nasal symptom scores, and overall therapeutic response. The objective measures of eosinophil, basophil, and neutrophil counts and mucociliary clearance were significantly better in mometasone furoate- than in placebo-treated patients. Similarly, within-treatment statistically significant improvements were produced by mometasone furoate but not by placebo sprays for levels of eosinophilic cationic protein, tryptase and albumin, NAR, and odor identification. Significant positive correlations were found between NAR and nasal stuffiness and between eosinophils, basophils, and neutrophils and both eosinophilic cationic protein and albumin.

CONCLUSION

Subjective measures of SAR were significantly improved in the mometasone furoate group by comparison with placebo-treated patients. Objective assessments supported the subjective findings because within-treatment measures were frequently significantly improved after mometasone furoate treatment but not after placebo treatment.

Comparative efficacy and safety of once-daily versus twice-daily loratadine-pseudoephedrine combinations versus placebo in seasonal allergic rhinitis

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of Claritin-D 24 Hour (once daily) with that of Claritin-D 12 Hour (twice daily) and placebo in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 469 patients with moderate-to-severe SAR symptoms were treated for 2 weeks with one of the following: Claritin-D 24 Hour (a combination tablet formulation of loratadine 10 mg in the coating and pseudoephedrine sulfate 240 mg in an extended-release core), Claritin-D 12 Hour (a combination tablet formulation of loratadine 5 mg in the tablet coating and 120 mg pseudoephedrine sulfate, 60 mg in the coating and 60 mg in the core), or placebo. Claritin-D 24 Hour and Claritin-D 12 Hour were consistently superior to placebo (P < 0.01) in reducing total, nasal, and nonnasal symptom scores. Patients in the Claritin-D 24 Hour and Claritin-D 12 Hour groups also had significantly greater (P </= 0.05) relief of rhinorrhea and nasal stuffiness as compared with placebo. Insomnia was reported significantly more often (P < 0.01) in Claritin-D 12 Hour (15%) patients compared with Claritin-D 24 Hour (4%) and placebo (2%) patients. Dry mouth was reported significantly more often (P < 0.05) in Claritin-D 24 Hour (13%) and Claritin-D 12 Hour (13%) groups compared with placebo (4%). Claritin-D 24 Hour has efficacy comparable to Claritin-D 12 Hour in relieving allergic rhinitis symptoms while producing significantly less insomnia.

Combined analysis of two studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge model to evaluate olopatadine hydrochloride, a new ophthalmic antiallergic agent with dual activity

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride and to determine its optimal concentration and the onset and duration of action for treating allergic conjunctivitis. Olopatadine is a new topical ophthalmic antiallergic agent that demonstrates activity as both an antihistamine and a mast cell stabilizer. Two double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, contralateral eye comparison studies were conducted using the conjunctival allergen challenge model.

METHODS

A total of 169 subjects received 0.05% or 0.1% olopatadine. Study subjects were healthy adult men and women with a history of active allergic conjunctivitis within the previous two seasons but not receiving current treatment. With an allergen dose that produced signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis at visits 1 and 2, the conjunctival allergen challenge was performed 27 minutes after study drug administration at the third visit (onset-of-action challenge) and at 8 hours after study drug administration at the fourth visit (duration-of-action challenge). Olopatadine was administered in one eye and placebo in the opposite eye. Itching and redness were scored for both eyes at 3, 10, and 20 minutes after the conjunctival allergen challenge.

RESULTS

Both 0.05% and 0.1% concentrations of olopatadine were significantly (P < .05) more effective than placebo in inhibiting itching and redness at all evaluations when administered 27 minutes or 8 hours before the conjunctival allergen challenge. There were no serious or drug-related ocular or nonocular adverse events in either study.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate the rapid and prolonged (at least 8 hours) ocular antiallergic action of olopatadine.

Cetirizine, loratadine, or placebo in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis: effects after controlled ragweed pollen challenge in an environmental exposure unit

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis affects nearly one in 10 Americans. Cetirizine is a newer once-daily selective H1-antagonist. In traditional clinical trials, cetirizine has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria.

OBJECTIVE

To better characterize the efficacy and onset of action of cetirizine in a more controlled but clinically relevant setting, this agent was compared with loratadine and placebo in patients with symptomatic seasonal allergic rhinitis undergoing controlled pollen challenge in an environmental exposure unit (EEU).

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. After screening, patients were exposed to ragweed pollen (primed) in the EEU (up to six exposures), and those with qualifying symptom scores were randomized to controlled pollen exposure (two periods of 5.5 to 6.5 hours over 2 days) and once-daily treatment with 10 mg cetirizine (n = 67), 10 mg loratadine (n = 67), or placebo (n = 68). The mean ragweed pollen level was 3480 +/- 350 grains/m3 (standard deviation). The primary efficacy variables were the total symptom complex (TSC) and the major symptom complex (MSC) scores. Symptoms were evaluated every half hour in the EEU throughout the study.

RESULTS

Cetirizine produced a 36.7% mean reduction in TSC scores overall versus 15.4% with loratadine and 12.0% with placebo (p < or = 0.01). Cetirizine also produced a 37.4% mean reduction in MSC scores overall versus 14.7% with loratadine and 6.7% with placebo (p < or = 0.01). Onset of action as assessed by reductions in TSC and MSC scores versus placebo was evident within 1 hour with cetirizine (p < or = 0.02) and 3 hours with loratadine (p < or = 0.03). The incidence of treatment-related side effects was similar among groups, with headache reported most commonly in each group.

CONCLUSION

Cetirizine is well tolerated and effective in reducing symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis in patients undergoing controlled pollen challenge.

Comparative efficacy of terfenadine, loratadine, and astemizole in perennial allergic rhinitis

Nonsedating H1 antihistamines such as terfenadine, loratadine, and astemizole are widely prescribed for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The comparative efficacy of these agents has not been thoroughly studied. We studied 14 subjects in an open-label four-way crossover trial. Patients were recruited from an outpatient allergy clinic. Inclusion criteria were documented rhinitis symptoms for at least 2 years before the study and skin-test positivity in response to perennial allergens. Each subject underwent sequential 2-week trials of each of four H1 antihistamines: terfenadine, loratadine, astemizole, and chlorpheniramine. No placebo was included. Outcome measures were subjective rhinitis symptom scores, overall efficacy scores, and concomitant pseudoephedrine use. In addition, nasal-examination scores were obtained by way of physician assessment at the end of each 2-week trial, and side effects were tabulated. Nasal-examination scores for each of the four H1 antihistamines were significantly better than the baseline scores (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences in rhinitis symptom scores, overall efficacy scores, or concomitant pseudoephedrine use were noted. We detected no clinically significant differences in efficacy among terfenadine, loratadine, astemizole, and chlorpheniramine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol pivalate

BACKGROUND

Tixocortol pivalate is an established marker to topical corticosteroid allergy. The prevalence of tixocortol pivalate hypersensitivity is well established in Europe, where exposure to this corticosteroid as a therapeutic agent varies. In the United States, tixocortol pivalate is not commercially available and the prevalence of hypersensitivity to it is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the prevalence of tixocortol pivalate hypersensitivity in our patch-tested population. We further characterized these patients by clinical background, other contact allergens, and the reactivity to other corticosteroids.

METHODS

Tixocortol pivalate has been incorporated in our standard 1-52 patch test series since November 1992. We reviewed the histories and patch test results in all patients tested with the standard 1-52 series from November 1992 to December 1996.

RESULTS

Of 1536 patch-tested patients, 45 had hypersensitivity to tixocortol pivalate. Dermatitis involving the face was the most common (14 patients). Of the 45 patients, 40 had another allergen identified on patch testing. Eighteen patients underwent further patch testing to an extended corticosteroid panel, and 14 had sensitivity to another steroid agent.

CONCLUSION

The 2.9% prevalence of tixocortol pivalate hypersensitivity in our patch test population is within the range reported in Europe. Patients with tixocortol pivalate hypersensitivity tend to have other contact allergens on patch testing. Predisposing factors to tixocortol pivalate hypersensitivity include facial dermatitis and sensitivity to other contact allergens.

Evaluation of the potential cardiotoxicity of the antihistamines terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine, and cetirizine in atopic children

BACKGROUND

Adverse cardiac effects have been related to the use of H1-receptor antagonists terfenadine and astemizole.

OBJECTIVE

We have investigated the cardiac effects of the H1-receptor antagonists terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine and cetirizine, used in recommended doses, concomitantly or not with the antibiotic erythromycin.

METHODS

A group of 80 children aged 5 to 12 years was studied. All children had been diagnosed with perennial allergic rhinitis based on symptoms, clinical signs and a positive immediate skin test to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. The children had no personal history of cardiac disease or hepatic dysfunction, and they had a normal electrocardiogram (ECG) at the beginning of the study. Forty children had allergic rhinitis and sinusitis, and were assigned to subgroups of ten children who received terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine, or cetirizine, concomitantly with erythromycin, for 14 days. Erythromycin was started to treat presumed bacterial infection in children with complete radiologic opacification of the maxillary sinus(es). The remaining 40 children had no sinusitis, and were assigned to subgroups of 10 children who received terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine, or cetirizine for 14 days.

RESULTS

No significant changes in the QT interval and QTc (QT corrected by Bazzett's equation) were observed among children who received astemizole, loratadine or cetirizine, with or without erythromycin. Children who have received terfenadine and erythromycin showed significantly prolonged QT interval (mean pretreatment and posttreatment values 0.32s and 0.34s, respectively). Analysis of the QTc interval, however, showed no significant differences in the group treated with terfenadine and erythromycin (mean values 0.39s and 0.39s, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that H1-receptor antagonists terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine and cetirizine, administered with or without erythromycin, to atopic children in recommended doses, do not induce adverse cardiac effects. Although the association between terfenadine and erythromycin has caused a statistically significant increase in QT interval measurements, the magnitude of these changes was below levels considered cardiotoxic or clinically relevant.

Dose-dependent protection by azelastine eye drops against pollen-induced allergic conjunctivitis. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study

The efficacy and tolerability of azelastine (CAS 58581-89-8) eye drops at three different doses (0.025%, 0.05% and 0.1%) were investigated in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study in 24 subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis/rhinoconjunctivitis, who were challenged, out of season, by airbone allergen in the "Vienna Challenge Chamber" (VCC). Subjects received a single dose of azelastine eye drops 60 min before the start of a 4 h challenge in the VCC. Additional local challenge, mimicking a gust of wind, was administered 15 min before the end of the session. Each of the 4 study days was separated by a 2 week washout period. Azelastine eye drops showed a dose-dependent inhibition of the development of itching of the eyes. The effect was most pronounced 15 min after the additional local challenge. A maximal effect was achieved at a dose of 0.05%. Similar effects were observed on lacrimation. Azelastine eye drops also dose-dependently inhibited the degree of conjunctival redness, measured by digital imaging, and tended to reduce the low incidence of chemosis observed. Ranking of the results of all symptoms for each treatment group confirmed the optimal effect at a dose of 0.05%. Azelastine eye drops had no effect on nasal and bronchial symptoms or on measurements of airways function (FEV1). No adverse effects of the treatments were reported. The data support the use of 0.05% azelastine eye drops in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis/rhinoconjunctivitis.

Brompheniramine, loratadine, and placebo in allergic rhinitis: a placebo-controlled comparative clinical trial

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of an extended-release formulation of a classical antihistamine, brompheniramine, and a second-generation compound, loratadine, in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Subjects with symptoms of allergic rhinitis received brompheniramine 12 mg twice daily (n = 112), loratadine 10 mg once daily (n = 112), or placebo twice daily (n = 114) for 7 days. Study medications were blinded using a double-dummy technique. Subjects completed an overall evaluation of symptom relief on a daily basis and returned on treatment days 3 and 7, at which times the investigator assessed symptom severity. The investigator and subject each completed a global efficacy evaluation, and subjects were interviewed regarding adverse experiences. The primary efficacy variable was the physicians' global efficacy evaluation on day 3. Symptoms also were analyzed as summed severity scores for all symptoms and for the nasal symptom cluster of rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal blockage. At all post-baseline evaluations (days 3, 7, and averaged over the two days), brompheniramine was significantly better than loratadine and placebo for both sets of summed symptom scores and all three global assessments. Loratadine was significantly better than placebo for physician ratings of total symptom severity averaged over the two days and for the physician and subject ratings of the nasal cluster on day 3. Central nervous system-related symptoms were the most frequently reported adverse experiences; somnolence was reported most frequently by patients taking brompheniramine, and its occurrence was less frequent as treatment continued. A nonprescription, extended-release formulation of brompheniramine 12 mg twice daily provided significantly better relief of symptomatic allergic rhinitis than loratadine 10 mg once daily.

Astemizole-induced torsades de pointes in a patient with vasospastic angina

Astemizole (Hismanal), an antihistamine agent, has been reported to be associated with ventricular arrhythmias. In this paper we present a case of QT prolongation and torsades de pointes (TdP) in a 77-year-old woman who had been taking astemizole (10 mg/day) for 6 months because of allergic skin disease. At the time of admission, the serum concentration of astemizole and its metabolites was markedly elevated at 15.85 ng/ml, approximately 3 times the normal level. The patient was also taking cimetidine, a known inhibitor of cytochrome P-450 enzymatic activity, and during her admission was diagnosed as having vasospastic angina. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of astemizole-induced QT prolongation and TdP in Japan.

Cost-effective pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis

This article provides guidelines for pharmacotherapy to maximize symptom relief from allergic rhinitis. Consideration of frequency, severity, and site of symptoms is important in directing pharmacotherapy efficacy and maximizing cost-effectiveness. The agents available include antihistamines, decongestants, steroids, mast cell stabilizers, anticholinergic agents, and mucolytics. Appropriate indications for each and combinations of various agents are discussed within the context of drug efficacy, side effects, affordability, and ease of compliance. The direct and indirect costs of allergic rhinitis are not well delineated but are explored to put the costs of therapy in perspective.

A 1-year placebo-controlled study of intranasal fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: a safety and biopsy study

In a 1-year, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study the long-term effect of Fluticasone Propionate Aqueous Nasal Spray (FPANS) in 42 patients with a perennial allergic rhinitis was studied with regard to safety and efficacy. Twenty-nine patients completed the entire treatment period. After 1 year of treatment no deleterious changes consequent on therapy were observed in nasal mucosal biopsies. The appearance of the epithelial layer, the degree of cellular infiltration, the extent to which the sinusoids were dilated and the degree of tissue oedema improved or remained unchanged in 93% of the patients of the FPANS group, versus 75% of the placebo group, and worsened in 7% of the FPANS group versus 25% of the placebo group. Assessment of the changes in haematological, biochemical, urinary, plasma cortisol levels, and in the findings during nasal examination revealed no significant differences between the two treatment groups. After 1 year of treatment symptom scores for sneezing, nasal itching, and total symptom score were significantly better in the FPANS treated group (P < 0.05, P < 0.05, P < 0.01). An initial reduction in total symptom score was found after 4 weeks FPANS treatment with a further reduction after 8 months of FPANS treatment. These findings suggest that the maximum efficacy of topical intranasal steroids is reached after long-term treatment, and thus advocates longer usage before treatment is stopped because of presumed inefficacy.

Fixed drug eruption due to amlexanox

A 23-year-old woman developed allergic rhinitis in 1993. Her doctor prescribed for her Solfa (amlexanox 25 mg) and Lysozymen 90 (lysozyme chloride 90 mg) tablets. She took the tablets occasionally, whenever she developed allergic rhinitis. She noticed a macular erythema of about 3.5 cm wide on her buttocks in 1994, about 1 year after the initial prescription. We conducted a series of tests with the tablets. On patch testing, the patient had a positive reaction to Solfa 50% pet. on the eruptive area, but no such reaction on the non-eruptive area. Furthermore, on patch testing, she had no reaction to Lysozymen 90, 50% pet. on either the eruptive or the non-eruptive area. We also used open application test with Solfa 50% pet. to confirm the cause of her erythema.

Loratadine-pseudoephedrine in children with allergic rhinitis, a controlled double-blind trial

AIMS

To conduct a randomized placebo controlled double-blind crossover trial in order to evaluate a loratadine-pseudoephedrine combination (L + PS) in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Forty children (15 males; 25 females), aged 3-15 years, were included in this study. They were randomized to receive L + PS (0.2 mg kg[-1] body weight-2.4 mg kg[-1] body weight respectively) or placebo (PLA) for 14 days. After 7 days of washout, patients were shifted to the other treatment for a further 14 days. Nasal symptoms (sneezing/itching, congestion, nasal dripping) and signs (turbinal swelling, retronasal drainage), rated on a scale ranging from: 1. absent to 5. very intense, and their sum or mean total symptom score (MTSS) were used as efficacy measurement.

RESULTS

Significant relief was observed; post-treatment MTSS difference and its percent change were respectively; L + PS = -4.29; 95% CI: -3.64 and -4.94 (27.8%), and PLA = -1.63; 95% CI: -0.95 and -2.31 (10.7%) (P < 0.001 baseline vs endpoint and between treatments). Furthermore, L + PS and PLA significantly modified symptoms, but only L + PS significantly modified signs. No clinical changes were observed during the trial; only one patient showed slight transient insomnia when receiving L + PS.

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that L + PS is useful and well tolerated in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis. However, elements such as placebo effect must be taken into account for planning future trials.

[Allergic rhinitis. Pathophysiology, diagnosis, differential diagnosis and therapy]

Allergic diseases caused by inhalant allergens are considered to be a major health problem. Allergic rhinitis, now affecting about 15% of the population, represents an inflammatory reaction, that may lead to asthma and chronic sinusitis as subsequent problems. Diagnosis should be based on a step-by-step concept, that also takes the clinical relevance of sensibilisations and other forms of nasal hyperreactivity into account. The aims of therapy are to limit the inflammatory reaction and to restore patient's quality of life. To achieve this goal, avoidance measures, immunotherapy and antiallergic drugs are currently used. The indication for and the performance of an immunotherapy demands special knowledge, and also the different drug activities and possible side effects should be thoroughly considered.

Comparison of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide with oral loratadine in the treatment of seasonal ragweed-induced allergic rhinitis

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group controlled study compared the efficacy and safety of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide (220 micrograms/day) and oral loratadine (10 mg/day) in patients with at least two seasons of ragweed-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis. A 28-day screening period, including a 5-day baseline period, preceded a 4-week treatment period. Reduction in rhinitis symptom scores was evident in both groups as early as day 1, with no significant between-group differences during week 1. At weeks 2, 3, and 4, patients treated with triamcinolone acetonide were significantly (P < 0.05) more improved in total nasal score, nasal itch, nasal stuffiness, and sneezing than were patients treated with loratadine. At weeks 3 and 4, rhinorrhea and ocular symptoms were significantly (P < 0.05) more improved from baseline among triamcinolone acetonide patients compared with loratadine patients. There was no significant between-group difference in relief from postnasal drip at any time point. Physicians' global evaluations significantly (P = 0.002) favored triamcinolone acetonide at the final visit, with moderate to complete relief of symptoms attained by 68% of triamcinolone acetonide patients and 59% of loratadine patients. Over the 4-week treatment period, triamcinolone acetonide patients had significantly greater improvement in total nasal score, nasal itch, nasal stuffiness, sneezing, and ocular symptoms. Both treatments were well tolerated, with headache being the most frequently reported drug-related adverse effect in both the triamcinolone acetonide (15%) and loratadine (11%) groups. These results indicate that triamcinolone acetonide is more effective than oral loratadine in relieving the symptoms of ragweed-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis.

[Syncopes during simultaneous use of terfenadine and itraconazole]

A 36-year-old female was given terfenadine 120 mg/day for hay fever, and itraconazole 100 mg twice daily for mycosis. Nine days after starting these drugs, she had several episodes of syncope. The ECG showed a long QT interval and torsades de pointes. The drugs were withdrawn and the patient temporarily received an infusion of isoprenaline, after which the QT interval returned to normal and no further episodes of torsades de pointes occurred. No other causes than the two drugs were found to explain these episodes.