Risk of first-generation H(1)-antihistamines: a GA(2)LEN position paper

Carryover effect on next-day sleepiness and psychomotor performance of nighttime administered antihistaminic drugs: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines with strong sedative-hypnotic properties are frequently prescribed for insomnia secondary to allergy, but the potential risks of such administration have not been fully elucidated.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study was conducted to evaluate next-day sleepiness and psychomotor performance following the administration of antihistamines. Twenty-two healthy male participants participated in four drug administration sessions with more than a 1-week interval between the sessions. Either zolpidem 10 mg, or diphenhydramine 50 mg, or ketotifen 1 mg, or a placebo was administered before sleep, and polysomnography was conducted to evaluate sleep. In the morning and afternoon of the day after administration, the participants were evaluated for subjective sleepiness, objective sleepiness, and psychomotor performance.

RESULTS

The antihistamines with high blood-brain barrier-crossing efficiency were significantly associated with sleepiness and psychomotor performance decline the next day. Ketotifen showed the strongest carryover effect, followed by diphenhydramine. Compared with the placebo, no significant carryover effect was observed with zolpidem.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the risk-benefit balance should be considered in the ready use of antihistamines that easily cross the blood-brain barrier for alleviating secondary insomnia associated with allergies.

Treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria

Chronic spontaneous urticaria is defined as persistent symptoms of urticaria for 6 weeks or more. It is associated with autoimmunity in approximately 45 percent of patients. Therapy is often difficult however the initial approach should employ high-dose non-sedating antihistamines; 4-6 tablets/day may be necessary. It has been shown that the response to 4 tablets/day exceeds 3, and exceeds 2, which exceeds 1. However the dose that corresponds to the maximal dose of first generation antihistamines (hydroxyzine, diphenhydramine) used previously, is 6/day. Yet over half the patients are refractory to antihistamines and other agents should be tried next. Whereas current guidelines (published) often add leukotriene antagonists and/or H₂ receptor antogonists next, these are of little utility. Likewise drugs effective for urticarial vasculitis (colchicine, dapsone, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine) are effective in a small percentage of patients and no study suggests that the response rate of any of them exceeds the 30% placebo responses seen in most double-blind, placebo controlled studies. The drugs that are effective for antihistamine-resistant chronic spontaneous urticaria are corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and Omalizumab. Use of steroids is limited by toxicity. If used at all, a dose of no more than 10 mg/day should be employed with a weekly reduction of 1 mg. The response rates to cyclosporine and Omalizumab are each close to 75%. Cyclosporine can be used effectively if care is taken to monitor blood pressure, urine protein, blood urea nitrogen, and creatinine, every 6 weeks. Omalizumab has the best profile in terms of efficacy/toxicity and, once approved by federal agencies for use in chronic spontaneous urticaria, a dramatic change in the treatment paradigm, whether associated with autoimmunity or not, is predicted. A phase 3 trial is currently in place. Refractoriness to both Omalizumab and cyclosporine is expected to be less than 5 percent of patients. Other agents, can then be tried.

Management of chronic urticaria in Asia: 2010 AADV consensus guidelines

This guideline is a result of a consensus reached during the 19th Asian-Australasian Regional Conference of Dermatology by the Asian Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Study Group in collaboration with the League of Asian Dermatological Societies in 2010. Urticaria has a profound impact on the quality of life in Asia and the need for effective treatment is required. In line with the EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the management of urticaria the recommended first-line treatment is new generation, non-sedating H1-antihistamines. If standard dosing is ineffective, increasing the dosage up to four-fold is recommended. For patients who do not respond to a four-fold increase in dosage of non-sedating H1-antihistamines, it is recommended that therapies such as H2-antihistamine, leukotriene antagonist, and cyclosporine A should be added to the antihistamine treatment. In the choice of second-line treatment, both their costs and risk/benefit profiles are the most important considerations.

An overview of the novel H1-antihistamine bilastine in allergic rhinitis and urticaria

Currently available second-generation H1-antihistamines include a wide group of drugs with a better therapeutic index (or risk-benefit ratio) than the classic antihistamines, although their properties and safety profiles may differ. Bilastine is a newly registered H1-antihistamine for the oral treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria, with established antihistaminic and antiallergic properties. Clinical studies in allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria show that once-daily treatment with bilastine 20 mg is effective in managing symptoms and improving patient's quality of life, with at least comparable efficacy to other nonsedative H1-antihistamines. As far as studies in healthy volunteers, clinical assays and clinical experience can establish, bilastine's safety profile is satisfactory, since it lacks anticholinergic effects, does not impair psychomotor performance or actual driving, and appears to be entirely free from cardiovascular effects.

Safety considerations in the management of allergic diseases: focus on antihistamines

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of evidence supporting the safety profiles of frequently used oral H(1)-antihistamines (AHs) for the treatment of patients with histamine-release related allergic diseases, e.g. allergic rhinitis and urticaria, and to compare them to the safety profiles of other medications, mostly topical corticosteroids and leukotriene antagonists (LTRA).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Systematic search of the published literature (PubMed) and of the regulatory authorities databases (EMA and FDA) for oral AHs.

RESULTS

Similarly to histamine, antihistamines (AHs) have organ-specific efficacy and adverse effects. The peripheral H(1)-receptor (PrH1R) stimulation leads to allergic symptoms while the brain H(1)-receptor (BrH1R) blockade leads to somnolence, fatigue, increased appetite, decreased cognitive functions (impaired memory and learning), seizures, aggressive behaviour, etc. First-generation oral AHs (FGAHs) inhibit the effects of histamine not only peripherally but also in the brain, and additionally have potent antimuscarinic, anti-α-adrenergic and antiserotonin effects leading to symptoms such as visual disturbances (mydriasis, photophobia, and diplopia), dry mouth, tachycardia, constipation, urinary retention, agitation, and confusion. The somnolence caused by FGAHs interferes with the natural circadian sleep-wake cycle and therefore FGAHs are not suitable to be used as sleeping pills. Second-generation oral AHs (SGAHs) have proven better safety and tolerability profiles, much lower proportional impairment ratios, with at least similar if not better efficacy, than their predecessors. Only SGAHs, and especially those with a proven long-term (e.g., ≥12 months) clinical safety, should be prescribed for young children. Evidence exist that intranasally applied medications, like intranasal antihistamines, have the potential to reach the brain and cause somnolence.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-generation oral antihistamines are the preferred first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis and urticaria. Patients taking SGAHs report relatively little and mild adverse events even after long-term continuous treatments. An antihistamine should ideally possess high selectivity for the H(1)-receptor, high PrH1R occupancy and low to no BrH1R occupancy.

Atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis--do co-effects in therapy exist?

Atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis frequently appear together in the same patients. The pathogenesis of both disorders is complex and still incompletely understood. Nevertheless, pathophysiological overlaps suggest the existence of potential therapeutic co-effects. While data pointing towards a positive effect of allergen elimination for both diseases is still limited, there is now increasing evidence showing beneficial effects of specific immunotherapy in patients suffering from atopic dermatitis and additional type I allergies. H(1)-antihistamines were also found to exert moderate positive effects on the symptoms of atopic dermatitis in single studies. In summary, a limited therapeutic co-effect of the above mentioned treatment options can be expected in case of the parallel existence of atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis in the same patient. More studies on this issue during the next years are desirable. In addition, a better understanding of the pathophysiology should have a positive impact on the treatment of atopic manifestations such as atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis.

Establishing the place in therapy of bilastine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis according to ARIA: evidence review

BACKGROUND

The ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) guidelines development group examined the properties of oral H(1)-antihistamines and made proposals about an 'optimal' drug. Several criteria should be met by oral H(1)-antihistamines in terms of their pharmacological, and clinical efficacy and safety profiles.

OBJECTIVE

Bilastine, a new H(1)-antihistamine, has been approved in 28 European countries for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria in adults and children older than 12 years. To determine its potential place in therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, this manuscript examines whether bilastine meets the criteria defined in the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)/ARIA proposals for oral H(1)-antihistamines.

METHODS

The optimal properties of oral H(1)-antihistamines and current ARIA recommendations for their use in allergic rhinitis are presented, as well as relevant pharmacological and clinical data for bilastine obtained from the published literature that specifically address the defined criteria.

RESULTS

Bilastine is a potent inhibitor of the histamine H(1) receptor. Data from preclinical studies have confirmed its selectivity for the histamine H(1) receptor over other receptors, and demonstrated antihistaminic properties in vitro and in vivo. Bilastine does not interfere with the cytochrome P450 system and is devoid of cardiac side effects. Studies in healthy volunteers and patients have shown that bilastine does not affect driving ability, cardiac conduction or alertness. In large pivotal randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs), bilastine had a favourable safety profile. Bilastine 20 mg once daily improved all nasal and ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis with greater efficacy than placebo and comparable to that of cetirizine and desloratadine. Moreover, bilastine was shown to improve quality of life, an important outcome of RCTs in allergic diseases. There were no significant changes in laboratory tests, electrocardiograms or vital signs. A potential limitation of this assessment of bilastine is that it is a literature-based review and the findings are dependent upon the quality of the published evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilastine meets current EAACI/ARIA criteria for medications used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a very common disorder that affects people of all ages, peaking in the teenage years. It is frequently ignored, underdiagnosed, misdiagnosed, and mistreated, which not only is detrimental to health but also has societal costs. Although allergic rhinitis is not a serious illness, it is clinically relevant because it underlies many complications, is a major risk factor for poor asthma control, and affects quality of life and productivity at work or school. Management of allergic rhinitis is best when directed by guidelines. A diagnostic trial of a pharmacotherapeutic agent could be started in people with clinically identified allergic rhinitis; however, to confirm the diagnosis, specific IgE reactivity needs to be recorded. Documented IgE reactivity has the added benefit of guiding implementation of environmental controls, which could substantially ameliorate symptoms of allergic rhinitis and might prevent development of asthma, especially in an occupational setting. Many classes of drug are available, effective, and safe. In meta-analyses, intranasal corticosteroids are superior to other treatments, have a good safety profile, and treat all symptoms of allergic rhinitis effectively. First-generation antihistamines are associated with sedation, psychomotor retardation, and reduced academic performance. Only immunotherapy with individually targeted allergens has the potential to alter the natural history of allergic rhinitis. Patients' education is a vital component of treatment. Even with the best pharmacotherapy, one in five affected individuals remains highly symptomatic, and further research is needed in this area.

Management of chronic spontaneous urticaria in real life--in accordance with the guidelines? A cross-sectional physician-based survey study

BACKGROUND

Recently, the updated EAACI/GA(2) LEN/EDF/WAO guidelines for urticaria have been published.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how chronic spontaneous urticaria (csU) patients in Germany are diagnosed and treated, and to compare the outcome to the guideline recommendations.

METHODS

During this cross-sectional survey study, most dermatologists, paediatricians and 5149 general practitioners in private practice in Germany were asked to participate. All physicians who agreed were requested to complete a standardized questionnaire about their diagnostic and therapeutic management of csU.

RESULTS

A total of 776 questionnaires were available for analysis. Most physicians (82%) were attempting to identify underlying causes in their csU patients, but with only limited success. More than 70% reported to check for total serum IgE and to do skin prick testing (not suggested in first line by guideline). In contrast, only 10% applied the autologous serum skin test. The most common first-line treatments were non-sedating antihistamines in standard or higher doses (as recommended). However, many physicians reported still using first generation sedating antihistamines (23%) (not recommended) or systemic steroids (18%). Experience with alternative options was low. Less than one-third of the participants reported to be familiar with the guidelines. Those who did, were found to be more likely to check for underlying causes, to be more experienced with antihistamine updosing and to be more reluctant to use sedating antihistamines or systemic steroids.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic and therapeutic management of csU by private practice physicians does not sufficiently comply with the guidelines. Awareness of the guidelines can lead to improved care.

H1-antihistamine up-dosing in chronic spontaneous urticaria: patients' perspective of effectiveness and side effects--a retrospective survey study

BACKGROUND

The guidelines recommend that first line treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria should be second generation non-sedating H(1)-antihistamines with a positive recommendation against the use of old sedating first generation antihistamines. If standard dosing is not effective, increasing the dosage up to four-fold is recommended. The objective of this study was to obtain the chronic spontaneous urticaria-patient perspective on the effectiveness and unwanted effects of H(1)-antihistamines in standard and higher doses.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

This was a questionnaire based survey, initially completed by 368 individuals. 319 (248 female, 71 male, median age 42 years) had a physician-confirmed diagnosis of chronic spontaneous urticaria and were included in the results. Participants believed standard doses (manufacturers recommended dose) of second generation antihistamines to be significantly (P<0.005) more effective than first generation drugs. Furthermore, they believed that second generation drugs caused significantly (P<0.001) fewer unwanted effects and caused significantly (P<0.001) less sedation than first generation antihistamines. Three-quarters of the patients stated that they had up-dosed with antihistamines with 40%, 42% and 54% reporting significant added benefit from taking 2, 3 or 4 tablets daily respectively. The number of reports of unwanted effects and sedation following up-dosing were not significantly different from those reported for standard doses.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey supports the urticaria guidelines recommendations that the first line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria should be second generation rather than first generation H(1)-antihistamines and that, if standard dosing is not effective, the dosage should be increased up to four-fold.

Pruritus: management algorithms and experimental therapies

Pruritus (itch) is a major symptom in many dermatologic as well as systemic diseases and has a dramatic impact on the quality of life in these patients. The symptom of itch has to be treated on the basis of its pathophysiology and its underlying disease. In daily practice, a "quick" diagnosis of the underlying disease is often difficult, although a rapid relief of the itch is desired. We often treat patients on the basis of the symptomatology. A rational therapeutic ladder for a symptomatic therapy is useful until the final diagnosis has been confirmed. There are probably many subtypes of pruritus, just as there are many diseases that cause itch. The pathophysiology in many subtypes of pruritus is still poorly understood, hindering a rapid and targeted treatment strategy. An extensive diagnostic workup is often required to determine the final cause(s) of the itch. Thus, in daily life, physicians often start with a more or less rational therapeutic strategy to combat the debilitating itch. We present possible therapeutic ladders that form the basis for effective therapeutic itch strategies in various diseases. On the basis of our current knowledge about the different pathophysiologies of itch, on clinical trials or case reports, and our own clinical experience, we aim to present therapeutic ladders for the rapid as well as long-term management of itch. Finally, we summarize current exciting developments of experimental strategies in itch research and in clinical development for itch therapy.

Morning and evening efficacy evaluation of rupatadine (10 and 20 mg), compared with cetirizine 10 mg in perennial allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background:

A circadian rhythm of symptoms has been reported in allergic rhinitis (AR). Severity of all major symptoms of AR, including runny nose, sneezing, and nasal congestion, is typically at its peak in the morning. The objective of this study was to explore the efficacy of the antihistamine and platelet activating factor (PAF) antagonist rupatadine in the morning and evening and to evaluate whether rupatadine provides effective symptom relief throughout the 24-hour dosing interval.

Methods:

A total of 308 patients ≥18 years of age with PAR was randomly assigned to once-daily rupatadine 10 mg, rupatadine 20 mg, or cetirizine 10 mg for 4 weeks in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. The main outcome was the morning/evening reflective total symptom score (5TSS) over the treatment period. Secondary endpoints included morning/evening reflective nasal total symptom score (4NTSS), individual symptoms, Pdmax1 as percentage of days with daily severest symptom score ≤1, and subject/investigator evaluation of therapeutic response.

Results:

All active groups were significantly more effective than placebo in improving morning and evening evaluations of 5TSS (P < 0.001) and 4NTSS (P < 0.001) at 2 or 4 weeks. At morning evaluation, there was a significant reduction from baseline for 5TSS with rupatadine 10 mg (−36.8%, P < 0.01) and 20 mg (−46.3%, P < 0.01) compared with placebo. Similarly, 4NTSS was reduced significantly more with rupatadine 10 mg (−34%, P < 0.05) and 20 mg (−41%, P < 0.01) compared with placebo. In the cetirizine 10 mg group, the reduction was −32.7% and −32.2% for 5TSS and 4NTSS, respectively, but this reduction was not significant compared with placebo. The percentage reduction was greater at evening than at morning evaluation. 5TSS reduction with rupatadine 10 mg (−40.7%, P < 0.05) and 20 mg (−49.9%, P < 0.01) and cetirizine 10 mg (−40.1%, P < 0.05) was significantly better than with placebo. 4NTSS values for active groups were also significantly improved versus placebo. When individual symptoms were assessed, statistically significant differences for rhinorrhea (P < 0.01), nasal itching (P < 0.01), and sneezing (P < 0.01) were shown in all active groups compared with placebo at morning and evening evaluations. Pdmax1 index was significantly improved for all active groups and the overall efficacy assessed by patients or investigators showed a significant improvement (P < 0.01) versus placebo at 2 and 4 weeks. The incidence of somnolence was significantly greater in all active groups versus placebo.

Conclusion:

The sustained 24-hour action of rupatadine 10 mg provides an effective control of morning and evening symptoms in patients with PAR treated for up to 4 weeks.

Rupatadine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria

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.

Unmet clinical needs in chronic spontaneous urticaria. A GA²LEN task force report

Chronic spontaneous urticaria, formerly also known as chronic idiopathic urticaria and chronic urticaria (CU), is more common than previously thought. At any time, 0.5-1% of the population suffers from the disease (point prevalence). Although all age groups can be affected, the peak incidence is seen between 20 and 40 years of age. The duration of the disease is generally 1-5 years but is likely to be longer in more severe cases, cases with concurrent angioedema, in combination with physical urticaria or with a positive autologous serum skin test (autoreactivity). Chronic spontaneous urticaria has major detrimental effects on quality of life, with sleep deprivation and psychiatric comorbidity being frequent. It also has a large impact on society in terms of direct and indirect health care costs as well as reduced performance at work and in private life. In the majority of patients, an underlying cause cannot be identified making a causal and/or curative treatment difficult. Nonsedating H₁-antihistamines are the mainstay of symptomatic therapy, but treatment with licensed doses relieves symptoms effectively in < 50% of patients. Although guideline-recommended updosing up to fourfold increases symptom control in many patients, a substantial number of patients have only little benefit from H₁ -antihistamines. Consequently, there is a great need for new therapeutic strategies.

Brain histamine H1 receptor occupancy of loratadine measured by positron emission topography: comparison of H1 receptor occupancy and proportional impairment ratio

AIMS

We have evaluated the sedative properties of H1-antihistamines by using positron emission tomography (PET) and ¹¹C-doxepin. The purpose of the present study was to measure histamine H1 receptor occupancy (H1RO) of loratadine 10 mg in patients with allergic rhinitis and to compare this occupancy with that of d-chlorpheniramine 2 mg, a first-generation antihistamine. We also compared our PET findings with the proportional impairment ratio reported by McDonald et al.

METHODS

The H1RO of loratadine 10 mg and d-chlorpheniramine 2 mg were evaluated in human brains in a double-blind and crossover design using ¹¹C-doxepin PET. Eleven young male patients with allergic rhinitis were examined by PET following oral single administration of loratadine 10 mg and d-chlorpheniramine 2 mg.

RESULTS

Loratadine 10 mg occupied 11.7 ± 19.5% of histamine H1 receptors in the cortex, whereas d-chlorpheniramine 2 mg occupied 53.0 ± 33.2% in the same area, suggesting a non-sedating property of loratadine at a dose of 10 mg. The H1RO values of loratadine and d-chlorpheniramine as well as those of previous studies were found to be significantly proportional to the proportional impairment ratio (r = 0.899).

CONCLUSION

Measurement of H1RO is a sensitive and absolute method to characterize the non-sedating property of drugs with H1 antagonistic activity.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria in children: itching for insight

While there is increasing information about the pathogenesis and treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (csU) in adults, there is little published information about csU in children. Consequently, most of the recommendations contained in current guidelines for the prevention and treatment of csU in infants and children is based on extrapolation of data obtained in adults. To rectify this, this review points out critical gaps in our knowledge and suggests strategies which may help us to improve our understanding of this condition. How common is csU in children? What do we know about its clinical presentation and the presence of useful biomarkers? What are its common underlying causes? What is the course of csU in children? How does csU affect the everyday life of children? What treatment options are available for children? To answer these questions, two separate types of information are required. The first is information about the prevalence of the condition in the community at large and how csU affects the everyday life of both the child-patient and the parent or carer. Because most csU cases in infants and children do not come to specialists but are treated by general practitioners or by parents using over-the-counter medications, these questions may be answered only by general population surveys or schools programmes. The second is clinical information including family history and disease presentation, the presence of biomarkers and comorbidities, objective measures of severity, frequency and duration of exacerbations, the response to therapy and the time to remission. Targeted questionnaires need to be developed and validated for these investigations. This has already begun in Germany with the establishment of the CU-KID Netzwerk (Email address: cu-kid@charite.de), the aim of which is to identify clinical centres and colleagues who treat children with urticaria and to initiate the information gathering described above.

[Therapeutic alternatives for antihistamine-refractory urticaria]

Patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, the most frequent non-acute form of urticaria, generally exhibit a clinical picture of persistent disease, a high degree of disease activity, considerable impairment of quality of life, and poor response to treatment. More than half of the patients continue to develop symptoms despite standard therapy with non-sedating antihistamines. In these cases, the antihistamine dose should be increased (up to four times the daily dose). If this approach also does not result in symptom control, the high-dose antihistamine should be combined with a leukotriene antagonist and if necessary an H2 blocker. If the patient does not respond to this combination therapy, cyclosporin A, dapsone, or omalizumab should be administered.

Next-day residual sedative effect after nighttime administration of an over-the-counter antihistamine sleep aid, diphenhydramine, measured by positron emission tomography

Antihistamines often are self-administered at night as over-the-counter (OTC) sleep aids, but their next-day residual sedative effect has never been evaluated using a reliable quantitative method such as positron emission tomography (PET). We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in which we evaluated the residual effect the next day after nighttime administration of diphenhydramine, a commonly used OTC sleep aid, in terms of brain H₁ receptor occupancy (H₁RO) measured using ¹¹C-doxepin-PET. We also compared the results of diphenhydramine with those of bepotastine, a second-generation antihistamine. Eight healthy adult male subjects underwent PET measurement the morning (11:00) after random oral administration of diphenhydramine (50 mg), bepotastine (10 mg), or placebo the night before (23:00). Binding potential ratios and H₁ROs were calculated in different brain regions of interest such as the cingulate gyrus, frontotemporal cortex, and cerebellum. Subjective sleepiness and plasma drug concentration also were measured. Calculation of binding potential ratios revealed significantly lower values for diphenhydramine than for bepotastine or placebo in all regions of interest (P < 0.01). Cortical mean H₁RO after diphenhydramine treatment was 44.7% compared with 16.6% for bepotastine treatment (P < 0.01). Subjective sleepiness was not significantly different among the subjects treated with each test drug or the placebo. In conclusion, the next-day residual sedative effect after nighttime administration of the OTC sleep aid diphenhydramine was verified for the first time by direct PET measurement of H₁RO. Taking into account the possible hangover effect of OTC antihistamine sleep aids, care needs to be taken during their administration.

Development and implementation of guidelines in allergic rhinitis – an ARIA-GA2LEN paper

The links between asthma and rhinitis are well characterized. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines stress the importance of these links and provide guidance for their prevention and treatment. Despite effective treatments being available, too few patients receive appropriate medical care for both diseases. Most patients with rhinitis and asthma consult primary care physicians and therefore these physicians are encouraged to understand and use ARIA guidelines. Patients should also be informed about these guidelines to raise their awareness of optimal care and increase control of the two related diseases. To apply these guidelines, clinicians and patients need to understand how and why the recommendations were made. The goal of the ARIA guidelines is to provide recommendations about the best management options for most patients in most situations. These recommendations should be based on the best available evidence. Making recommendations requires the assessment of the quality of available evidence, deciding on the balance between benefits and downsides, consideration of patients’ values and preferences, and, if applicable, resource implications. Guidelines must be updated as new management options become available or important new evidence emerges. Transparent reporting of guidelines facilitates understanding and acceptance, but implementation strategies need to be improved.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines: 2010 revision

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis represents a global health problem affecting 10% to 20% of the population. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines have been widely used to treat the approximately 500 million affected patients globally.

OBJECTIVE

To develop explicit, unambiguous, and transparent clinical recommendations systematically for treatment of allergic rhinitis on the basis of current best evidence.

METHODS

The authors updated ARIA clinical recommendations in collaboration with Global Allergy and Asthma European Network following the approach suggested by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group.

RESULTS

This article presents recommendations about the prevention of allergic diseases, the use of oral and topical medications, allergen specific immunotherapy, and complementary treatments in patients with allergic rhinitis as well as patients with both allergic rhinitis and asthma. The guideline panel developed evidence profiles for each recommendation and considered health benefits and harms, burden, patient preferences, and resource use, when appropriate, to formulate recommendations for patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals.

CONCLUSION

These are the most recent and currently the most systematically and transparently developed recommendations about the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adults and children. Patients, clinicians, and policy makers are encouraged to use these recommendations in their daily practice and to support their decisions.