Efficacy and tolerability of loratadine versus fexofenadine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a double-blind comparison with crossover treatment of nonresponders

Antihistamine effects and safety of fexofenadine: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

As a new generation antihistamine, fexofenadine has been widely used in allergic diseases. However, there is still a lack of collective evidence regarding the antihistamine effects and safety profiles of fexofenadine relative to other antihistamine drugs and placebo. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the antihistamine effects and safety of fexofenadine.

Methods

An electronic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed using Embase, Cochrane and PubMed from establishment to January 1st, 2018. RCTs comparing the antihistamine effects or safety (adverse events, sedative effects, and cognitive/psychomotor function) of fexofenadine with either other antihistamines or placebo for healthy subjects and patients with allergy were selected.

Results

Fifty-one studies of 14,551 participants met the inclusion criteria. When compared with the first-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine produced significantly lower adverse events frequency (OR = 0.446; 95% CI: 0.214 to 0.929, P = 0.031), significantly lower sedative effects frequency (OR = 0.265; 95% CI: 0.072 to 0.976, P = 0.046) and significantly less change of all cognitive/psychomotor function. When compared with the second-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine produced significantly marginal sedative effects (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.93; P = 0.02) and significantly less change of most of the cognitive/psychomotor function. When compared with placebo, fexofenadine produced more significant antihistamine effects.

Conclusions

Fexofenadine has a positive antihistamine effect, which is probably no worse than the second-generation antihistamines. Fexofenadine probably has a favorable safety profile, which is more likely better than that of the first-generation antihistamines. There is lack of data to support that fexofenadine has a better overall safety profile compared to the second-generation antihistamines, however, some presently available evidence on sedative effects and certain aspects of cognitive/psychomotor function favors fexofenadine. Therefore, fexofenadine may be worthy of recommendation for safety related workers.

Optimal Duration of Allergic Rhinitis Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines have been published by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) for the conduct of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) studies. These guidelines have differences regarding the duration of such trials: the FDA suggests 2 weeks for SAR and 4 weeks for PAR but the EMEA suggests 2 to 4 weeks for SAR and 6 to 12 weeks for PAR trials. In the interest of global harmonization, it would be desirable to have a uniform duration of such trials so that investigators, internationally, would be able to readily compare results for various types of treatments based on a single standard. Therefore, we performed an evidence-based review to answer the clinical question, What is the optimal duration for SAR and PAR clinical trials?

METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search of the published literature from 1995 to the present. We used appropriate search terms, such as allergic rhinitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis, perennial allergic rhinitis, SAR, and PAR, to identify pertinent articles. These articles were reviewed and graded according to the evidence quality.

RESULTS: After an initial screening of more than 300 articles, 138 articles were analyzed thoroughly. No study specifically addressed the question of the optimal duration of SAR or PAR clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the current FDA (draft) guidelines calling for a study length of 2 weeks for the assessment of drug efficacy for SAR and 4 weeks for the study of drug efficacy in PAR are appropriate and that longer study periods are not likely to add meaningfully to the assessment of drug efficacy.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

Assessment of efficacy and impact on work productivity and attendance after a mandatory switch to generic second-generation antihistamines: results of a patient survey in Norway

BACKGROUND

In 2006, the Norwegian Medicines Agency mandated a switch from desloratadine, ebastine, or fexofenadine to cetirizine or loratadine in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) or chronic urticaria (CU). In an online survey, patients whose medication was switched assessed the impact on efficacy, fatigue, and work productivity/attendance.

METHODS

Allergy patients in Norway completed a 25-item online survey. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with AR or CU who were switched to cetirizine or loratadine from desloratadine, ebastine, or fexofenadine were included. Participants rated post-switch efficacy, fatigue, and effect on work productivity/attendance compared with their pre-switch medication. Patients also reported post-switch change in number of doctor visits required, total treatment cost, and whether they had switched or wanted to switch back to their previous medications.

RESULTS

Of 1920 patients invited, 493 responded and 409 of these were eligible. Previous antihistamines were desloratadine (78.4% of respondents), ebastine (16.0%), and fexofenadine (5.6%). Post-switch, 64.7% received cetirizine and 35.3% loratadine. Compared with previous therapy, cetirizine and loratadine were rated less effective by 46.3% of respondents; 28.7% reported increased fatigue; and 31.6% reported decreased work productivity with the generic agents. At the time of the survey, 26% of respondents had switched back to their previous medication.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first survey to assess the impact on patient-reported outcomes of a mandated switch from prescription to generic antihistamines in Norway. The findings suggest that patient response to different antihistamines will vary and that treatment decisions should be individualized for optimal results.

Intranasal phototherapy is more effective than fexofenadine hydrochloride in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: results of a pilot study

We recently showed that intranasal phototherapy represents an efficient therapeutic modality for the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The aim of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy of intranasal phototherapy with that of the new generation antihistamine fexofenadine HCl in SAR. A randomized open study was conducted in patients with a history of moderate-to-severe ragweed-induced SAR. Thirty-one patients were randomly assigned to receive either intranasal irradiation three times a week for 2 weeks, or 180 mg fexofenadine HCl per day for 2 weeks. Each patient kept a diary of symptoms for nasal obstruction, nasal itching, rhinorrhea, sneezing and palate itching. Total nasal score (TNS), a sum of scores for nasal symptoms, was also calculated. In the rhinophototherapy group the individual scores significantly decreased compared with baseline for all of the parameters. In the fexofenadine HCl group none of the scores improved significantly at the end of the treatment except sneezing. TNS was significantly decreased in the rhinophototherapy group, but no significant change was observed in the fexofenadine HCl group after 2 weeks of treatment. In conclusion, we found that intranasal phototherapy is more efficient than fexofenadine HCl in reducing clinical symptoms for SAR.

Safety and efficacy of desloratadine in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis or chronic urticaria: results of four postmarketing surveillance studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic urticaria (CU) are common diseases with symptoms that impair quality of life. Second-generation antihistamines (e.g. cetirizine, desloratadine, fexofenadine, loratadine and mizolastine) are recommended first-line treatment for both conditions; however, studies of clinically relevant differences among these agents are lacking. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of desloratadine 5 mg once daily in four postmarketing surveillance studies in subjects with seasonal AR (SAR) or chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) in real-world clinical practice settings.

METHODS

This programme of prospective surveillance studies was conducted in Germany between February 2001 and March 2002 in allergy; dermatology; ear, nose and throat; or general practice settings. Subjects (total number 77 880) were aged > or =12 years and met the requirements for treatment of SAR or CIU with desloratadine as outlined in the package insert. All subjects received oral desloratadine 5 mg once daily for a mean duration of up to 40.4 days. Adverse events (AEs) were reported throughout the studies; serious AEs were recorded for up to 30 days after treatment. Investigators and subjects both rated tolerability at the end of treatment. Symptom severity and sleep and daily activity impairment were evaluated at baseline and after treatment using 4-point scales (0 = none; 1 = mild; 2 = moderate; 3 = severe). A post hoc subanalysis assessed desloratadine efficacy and onset of symptom relief in subjects who had received monotherapy with another second-generation antihistamine.

RESULTS

A total of 386 AEs were reported by 287 subjects (0.37%) in the four studies. The most commonly reported treatment-related AEs were fatigue (0.07%), headache (0.07%), dry mouth (0.04%) and nausea (0.03%). Tolerability was rated as excellent/good by 99.1% of investigators and 98.5% of subjects. Desloratadine therapy significantly reduced nasal and ocular symptom severity, itching and wheals, and sleep and activity disruption (p < 0.0001), as indicated by a reduction in mean total and individual symptom scores, and reported impairment of sleep and daily activities. The efficacy of desloratadine was rated as significantly greater by 59.4-88.0% of subjects who had previously received monotherapy with cetirizine, fexofenadine, loratadine or mizolastine (p < 0.01 for all). The percentage of subjects who rated onset of symptom relief with desloratadine as faster than previous treatment ranged from 51.6% to 82.4%.

CONCLUSION

Desloratadine was safe, well tolerated and efficacious in this series of surveillance studies. A post hoc analysis of subjects who had received previous monotherapy with a second-generation antihistamine found that most subjects rated efficacy as higher than their previous treatment, with a faster onset of symptom relief.

Fexofenadine: biochemical, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and its unique role in allergic disorders

BACKGROUND

Fexofenadine is one of several second-generation H(1)-antihistamines approved for the treatment of various allergic disorders; however, it shows numerous unique properties that make it an optimal choice for many patients.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of fexofenadine and the attributes differentiating it from other H(1)-antihistamines.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 - March 2009) using the keywords fexofenadine, antihistamine, allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. We also reviewed data provided by the manufacturer in addition to reports from various governmental agencies.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Fexofenadine is devoid of sedative and anticholinergic effects and may offer equivalent or greater efficacy in treating allergic disorders compared with other currently available second-generation H(1)-antihistamines. In addition, fexofenadine may offer cost savings over other selected H(1)-antihistamines owing to its recent availability in generic form in the US.

Update on prescription and over-the-counter histamine inverse agonists in rhinitis therapy

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is associated with histamine-mediated physiologic events. The currently used histamine antagonists are all inverse agonists that bind and inactivate histamine H1 receptors. Second-generation antihistamines are much more H1-receptor selective with less central nervous system penetration than first-generation agents. Antihistamines typically are more effective in seasonal than perennial AR and do not demonstrate significant relief of nasal congestion. The recent availability of some second-generation antihistamines as over-the-counter products clearly places them as the preferred first-line treatment for mild to moderate AR based on safety when compared with first-generation over-the-counter antihistamines. The remaining prescription-only second-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine, desloratadine, and levocetirizine, all have unique attributes. Antihistamines in oral, intranasal, or intraocular formulations will likely remain among the mainstays of allergy therapeutics.

Inhibition of the histamine-induced weal and flare response: a valid surrogate measure for antihistamine clinical efficacy?

Histamine plays a central role in allergic responses. Inhibition of the weal and flare response to histamine is a traditional pharmacodynamic tool to measure the activity of H(1)-receptor antagonists. The time course and duration of cutaneous weal and flare inhibition are often used as surrogate measures of clinical efficacy. Pharmacodynamic differences among antihistamines are often interpreted to indicate differences in clinical efficacy. A systematic review of literature from 1980 to 2006 regarding the histamine induced weal and flare was undertaken. Search terms included 'histamine', 'skin test', 'weal', 'flare', and 'antihistamine'; retrieved articles were searched for relevant studies not identified initially. Data from human studies on the inhibition of the weal and flare by second-generation antihistamines were extracted and assessed. A literature search from 1980 to 2006 was undertaken for comparative studies of second-generation antihistamines in the clinical settings of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria; data extracted from these studies underwent systematic review. Differences were noted among second-generation antihistamines in terms of their ability to inhibit the histamine-induced weal and flare. Corresponding differences in terms of clinical efficacy in AR and chronic urticaria were not identified following a systematic review. The reasons for the disconnect between pharmacodynamic effects and clinical efficacy may include differences between the route and concentration of histamine, the involvement of mediators other than histamine in the allergic response, and the short time course of pharmacodynamic studies. The histamine-induced weal and flare response is a pharmacodynamic test that should not be used to compare the clinical efficacy of different antihistamines, and is not an adequate alternative to clinical end-point assessments in AR or chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Once-daily immediate-release fexofenadine and sustained-release pseudoephedrine combination: a new treatment option for allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis symptoms, in particular nasal congestion, can have a significant impact on patient quality of life, resulting in reduced productivity and daytime sleepiness. Newer-generation antihistamines are commonly used to treat allergic rhinitis; however, in patients with severe congestion, a combination of a newer-generation antihistamine and a decongestant is particularly beneficial. A new once-daily fexofenadine/pseudoephedrine combination has been developed and recently approved in the US. The combination provides an effective, well-tolerated antihistamine and a reliable, sustained-release pseudoephedrine system. In addition, small tablet size and once-daily dosing may provide patients with increased convenience and improve adherence. In summary, the combination of immediate-release fexofenadine/sustained-release pseudoephedrine offers an important additional option for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria: focus on oral antihistamines

OBJECTIVE

To review the efficacy and safety of first- and newer-generation antihistamines for the management of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU), with a focus on management in the pharmacy.

DATA SOURCES

A literature review was performed using MEDLINE (1966-October 2005), with no time or language restrictions. Key words or phrases used were histamine, antihistamine(s), first- and second-generation, allergic rhinitis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, quality of life, impairment, sedation, cost-effectiveness, astemizole, cetirizine, desloratadine, diphenhydramine, fexofenadine, loratadine, hydroxyzine, ketotifen, and mizolastine. Additional references were found in the bibliographies of the articles cited.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Clinical trials and other experimental studies of the use of antihistamines for the management of allergic rhinitis and CIU were selected. Review papers and guidelines were also included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

First-generation antihistamines are effective at ameliorating the symptoms of allergic rhinitis and CIU; however, they are associated with adverse effects due to a lack of selectivity for the histamine H(1)-receptor and an ability to bind to cerebral H(1)-receptors. Newer-generation agents, in general, possess high H(1)-receptor selectivity and a low tendency to cross the blood-brain barrier, while maintaining efficacy. In general, safety at elevated doses has been demonstrated for the newer antihistamines, although higher rates of sedation and impairment have been reported with increasing doses for some agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists can play an important role in the management of allergic rhinitis and CIU by considering the relative advantages of newer-generation agents when reviewing treatment options.

Second-Generation Antihistamines

Antihistamines are useful medications for the treatment of a variety of allergic disorders. Second-generation antihistamines avidly and selectively bind to peripheral histamine H1 receptors and, consequently, provide gratifying relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a majority of atopic patients. This tight receptor specificity additionally leads to few effects on other neuronal or hormonal systems, with the result that adverse effects associated with these medications, with the exception of noticeable sedation in about 10% of cetirizine-treated patients, resemble those of placebo overall. Similarly, serious adverse drug reactions and interactions are uncommon with these medicines. Therapeutic interchange to one of the available second-generation antihistamines is a reasonable approach to limiting an institutional formulary, and adoption of such a policy has proven capable of creating substantial cost savings. Differences in overall efficacy and safety between available second-generation antihistamines, when administered in equivalent dosages, are not large. However, among the antihistamines presently available, fexofenadine may offer the best overall balance of effectiveness and safety, and this agent is an appropriate selection for initial or switch therapy for most patients with mild or moderate allergic symptoms. Cetirizine is the most potent antihistamine available and has been subjected to more clinical study than any other. This agent is appropriate for patients proven unresponsive to other antihistamines and for those with the most severe symptoms who might benefit from antihistamine treatment of the highest potency that can be dose-titrated up to maximal intensity.

Comparative effects of desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine on nasal adenosine monophosphate challenge in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

Summary Background There are no data directly comparing the relative efficacy of modern H(1)-antihistamines in allergic rhinitis using nasal provocation challenge. Objective We elected to study the comparative effectiveness of usual clinically recommended doses of desloratadine (DES), fexofenadine (FEX), and levocetirizine (LEV), on nasal adenosine monophosphate (AMP) challenge in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). Methods 16 patients with PAR were randomized in double-blind cross-over fashion to receive single doses of DES 5 mg, FEX 180 mg, LEV 5 mg, or placebo (PL), with nasal AMP challenge performed 12 h after dosing. Measurements of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) were made over 60 min after nasal AMP challenge. Results Pre-challenge values (mean+/-SEM) for PNIF (L/min) were not significantly different comparing all groups; DES (129+/-9), FEX (128+/-11), LEV (128+/-13), and PL (128+/-12). The maximum % PNIF fall from baseline over 60 min after nasal AMP challenge was significantly attenuated (P<0.05) compared to PL (50+/-4), with DES (32+/-5), FEX (36+/-4), and LEV (36+/-4). The area under the 60-min time-response curve (%.min) was also significantly attenuated (P<0.05) compared to PL (2110+/-268), with DES (1126+/-285), FEX (1225+/-255), and LEV (1261+/-194). There were no significant differences between the three H(1)-antihistamines for any outcomes. Conclusion DES, FEX, and LEV were equally effective in attenuating the response to nasal AMP challenge. However, further long-term studies will be required to study their comparative effects on nasal symptoms, quality of life, as well as on nasal inflammatory cells.

Effects of fexofenadine and desloratadine on subjective and objective measures of nasal congestion in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

In vitro studies have shown much higher H1-receptor antagonist potency with desloratadine (DL) compared to fexofenadine (FEX), although it is unclear whether this has any clinical relevance on disease control parameters in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), especially for nasal congestion.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative efficacy between presently recommended doses of DL and FEX on daily measurements of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and nasal symptoms in SAR.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients with SAR were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study during the grass pollen season, comparing 2 weeks of once daily treatment with (a) 180 mg FEX or (b) 5 mg DL, taken in the morning. There was a 7-10 day placebo run-in and washout prior to each randomized treatment. Measurements were made in the morning (AM) and in the evening (PM) for PNIF (the primary outcome variable), nasal and eye symptoms. The average of AM/PM values were used for analysis.

RESULTS

There were significant (P < 0.05) improvements, compared to placebo, with FEX and DL, for PNIF, nasal blockage, nasal irritation, and total nasal symptoms, but not nasal discharge or eye symptoms. There were no significant differences between active treatments. Values for PNIF (L/min) for mean placebo baseline, mean difference from baseline (95% CI for difference) were 126, 10 (4-16) for FEX; and 122, 11 (4-17) for DL. The mean difference (95% CI) between FEX vs. DL was 1 L/min (-7-8). Values for total nasal symptoms (out of 12) were: 3.2, 0.7 (0.2-1.2) for FEX; and 3.4, 0.9 (0.3-1.5) for DL, and for nasal blockage (out of 3) were: 1.1, 0.2 (0.1-0.4) for FEX; and 1.2, 0.3 (0.1-0.5) for DL. The mean difference (95% CI) in total nasal symptoms and nasal blockage between FEX vs. DL was 0.1 (-0.6-0.8) and 0.1 (-0.2-0.3), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommended once daily doses of fexofenadine and desloratadine were equally effective in improving nasal peak flow and nasal symptoms in SAR.

Evaluation of cytokines in nasal secretions after nasal antigen challenge: lack of influence of antihistamines

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of inflammation in allergic rhinitis using nasal irrication have been unsatisfactory because of 1) poor reproducibility; 2) the tendency of irrigation to overdilute mediators; and 3) the failure of this technique to evaluate interstitial concentrations of relevant mediators. For this study we used filter paper as a matrix to collect nasal secretions in patients undergoing nasal antigen challenge.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate inflammatory mediators of allergen-induced rhinitis during a clinical trial of fexofenadine.

METHODS

Subjects evaluated at a referral medical center were placed on traditional dosing of fexofenadine at 60 mg, twice daily, or placebo in a double-blind, crossover fashion for 1 week before the nasal challenge. Nasal challenge was performed with nasal insufflation of either 1,000 AU timothy or 0.1 mL ragweed (1:100 wt/vol) extract outside the pollen season. Nasal secretions were collected at baseline and then at 2, 4, and 6 hours after nasal challenge. Secretions were evaluated for expression of the cellular adhesion molecule-1, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, interleukin (IL)-4, IL-10, macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1alpha, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) using commercially available enzyme-linked immunoadsorbent assay kits. Patients' symptom scores were evaluated during the nasal challenge.

RESULTS

Significantly (P < 0.05) increased peak levels of TNF-alpha, IL-4, IL-10, and MIP-1alpha were detected after antigen challenge as compared with baseline levels. There was a nonsignificant trend toward an increase in GM-CSF after antigen challenge (P = 0.07). There was no difference in the peak levels of TNF-alpha, IL-4, IL-10, MIP-1alpha, or GM-CSF measured when patients were on fexofenadine versus placebo. Finally, there were no significant differences in patients' symptom scores during antigen challenge when subjects were on fexofenadine versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Collection of nasal secretions using a filter paper matrix provides a reproducible model for accurately detecting and evaluating changes in cytokine levels after nasal challenge. Cytokine levels tend to peak 3 to 4 hours after antigen challenge. Standard doses of fexofenadine do not seem to have a mitigating effect on the production of these cytokines. Symptoms of allergic rhinitis using this type of antigen challenge did not differ from treatment with fexofenadine versus placebo.

A comparison of once daily fexofenadine versus the combination of montelukast plus loratadine on domiciliary nasal peak flow and symptoms in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The combination of montelukast (ML) and loratadine (LT) has previously been shown to be superior to either drug alone in managing seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), whilst fexofenadine (FEX) has been shown to be better than LT as monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

We wished to compare ML + LT vs. FEX alone for effects on daily measurements (am/pm) of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and symptoms.

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients with SAR (skin prick positive to grass pollen) were randomised into a single-blind, double-dummy placebo (PL)-controlled cross-over study during the grass pollen season, comparing 2 weeks of once daily treatment with (a) 120mg FEX or (b) 10mg ML + 10mg LT. There was a 7-10 day placebo run-in and washout prior to each randomised treatment. The average of am/pm PIF (the primary outcome variable) was analysed. Patients recorded their symptom scores (from 0 to 3) twice daily, for nasal blockage, discharge, itching and sneezing with; total eye symptoms, ocular cromoglycate use, and daily activity. The total nasal symptom score was calculated as a composite (out of 24).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between baselines after the run-in and washout placebos for any variables. There were significant (P < 0.05, Bonferroni) improvements in all symptoms and PIF compared to pooled placebo with both treatments for all end-points, but no differences between the two treatment regimes (as means and within-treatment 95% confidence intervals): PIF: PL 102 (98-107), FEX 111 (107-116), ML+LT 113 (109-118); total nasal symptoms: PL 7.4 (6.7-2.0), FEX 5.0 (4.3-5.7), ML + LT 4.0 (3.3-4.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Once daily FEX as monotherapy was equally effective as the combination of once daily ML + LT in improving nasal peak flow and controlling symptoms in SAR. Further studies are indicated to assess whether ML confers additional benefits to FEX in SAR.