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

A Synopsis of Guidance for Allergic Rhinitis Diagnosis and Management From ICAR 2023

An updated edition of the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) has recently been published. This consensus document, which included the participation of 87 primary authors and 40 additional consultant authors, who critically appraised evidence on 144 individual topics concerning allergic rhinitis, provides guidance for health care providers using the evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) methodology. This synopsis highlights topical areas including pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk and protective factors, evaluation and diagnosis, aeroallergen avoidance and environmental controls, single and combination pharmacotherapy options, allergen immunotherapy (subcutaneous, sublingual, rush, cluster), pediatric considerations, alternative and emerging therapies, and unmet needs. Based on the EBRR methodology, ICAR:AR includes strong recommendations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: (1) for the use of newer generation antihistamines compared with first-generation alternatives, intranasal corticosteroid, intranasal saline, combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine for patients not responding to monotherapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual tablet immunotherapy in properly selected patients; (2) against the use of oral decongestant monotherapy and routine use of oral corticosteroids.

Newer-generation antihistamines and the risk of adverse events in children: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

H1-antihistamines (AHs) are widely used for the treatment of allergic diseases, being one of the most commonly prescribed classes of medications in pediatrics. Newer-generation AHs are associated with fewer adverse effects compared with first-generation AHs. However, their relative harms in the pediatric population still need scrutiny.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which included comparisons of safety parameters between an orally administered newer-generation AH and another AH (first- or second-generation), montelukast, or placebo in children aged ≤12 years. We searched MEDLINE and CENTRAL, independently extracted data on study population, interventions, adverse events (AEs), and treatment discontinuations, and assessed the methodologic quality of the included RCTs using the Cochrane's risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Forty-five RCTs published between 1989 and 2017 met eligibility criteria. The majority of RCTs included school-aged children with allergic rhinitis and had a follow-up period of up to a month. Four RCTs reported serious AEs in patients receiving a newer-generation AH, but only two patients experienced a possibly drug-related serious AE. The occurrence of AEs, drug-related AEs, and treatment discontinuations due to AEs varied between RCTs. Most AEs reported were of mild intensity. Indirect evidence indicates that cetirizine is more sedating than the other newer-generation AHs.

CONCLUSION

Our findings confirm that newer-generation AHs have a favorable safety and tolerability profile. However, we could not draw firm conclusions regarding the comparative safety profile of the newer-generation AHs due to the paucity of head-to-head RCTs, variation in definitions and reporting of AEs, and short follow-up duration.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

A New HPLC Approach for the Determination of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Components: The Case of Pseudoephedrine Sulfate and Loratadine in Tablets

Effective isocratic separations of decongestants and antihistamines is a challenging analytical task due to wild differences in their lipohilicities (hydrophilic decongestants and hydrophobic antihistamines). In this paper a new approach for resolving such a problem is described taking pseudoephedrine sulfate and loratadine as an example. The chromatographic behavior of pseudoephedrine sulfate and loratadine on RP C18 and C8 columns were studied in presence and absence of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). The effect of combining two different types of stationary phases (cyano and C18 or C8) on the relative retention of the two compounds was investigated. In conclusion, it was found that the combination of a C18 column followed by a standard cyano column provides a stationary phase that separates both compounds effectively and within a reasonable time. This approach was compared to a literature method and demonstrated to have superior selectivity.

BSACI guidelines for the management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis

This guidance for the management of patients with allergic and non‐allergic rhinitis has been prepared by the Standards of Care Committee (SOCC) of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI). The guideline is based on evidence as well as on expert opinion and is for use by both adult physicians and paediatricians practicing in allergy. The recommendations are evidence graded. During the development of these guidelines, all BSACI members were included in the consultation process using a web‐based system. Their comments and suggestions were carefully considered by the SOCC. Where evidence was lacking, consensus was reached by the experts on the committee. Included in this guideline are clinical classification of rhinitis, aetiology, diagnosis, investigations and management including subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy. There are also special sections for children, co‐morbid associations and pregnancy. Finally, we have made recommendations for potential areas of future research.

Vitamin E effects on nasal symptoms and serum specific IgE levels in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that vitamin E intake may reduce IgE production.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of vitamin E supplementation on the severity of nasal symptoms and the serum levels of specific IgE in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Sixty-three patients (mean +/- SD age, 12 +/- 2.4 years) with a history of perennial allergic rhinitis participated in this study. None of the patients had evidence of acute infectious disease or used tobacco, corticosteroids, antihistamines, or vitamins. Patients were randomized to receive either vitamin E (400 IU/d) or placebo for 4 weeks, with loratadine-pseudoephedrine (0.2/0.5 mg/kg) during the first 2 weeks of treatment. The severity of nasal symptoms was evaluated using a validated questionnaire, which was administered weekly for 4 weeks. The serum concentrations of specific IgE to 5 common inhalant allergens and lipid peroxides were measured before treatment and at the end of the study.

RESULTS

Before, during, and after treatment, the symptom severity scores were similar in the 2 groups; within each group, a significant decrease was observed after the first week of follow-up (P < .05), with no further changes. Serum levels of specific IgE and lipid peroxides did not show any significant changes related to vitamin E intake within and between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with perennial allergic rhinitis, vitamin E supplementation (400 IU/d) did not have any significant effects on nasal symptom severity or on serum concentrations of specific IgE to 5 common allergens.

Selecting the Optimal Oral Antihistamine for Patients with Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is now recognised as a global health problem that affects 10-30% of adults and up to 40% of children. Each year, millions of patients seek treatment from their healthcare provider. However, the prevalence of AR maybe significantly underestimated because of misdiagnosis, under diagnosis and failure of patients to seek medical attention. In addition to the classical symptoms such as sneezing, nasal pruritus, congestion and rhinorrhoea, it is now recognised that AR has a significant impact on quality of life (QOL). This condition can lead to sleep disturbance as a result of nasal congestion, which leads to significant impairment in daily activities such as work and school. Traditionally, AR has been subdivided into seasonal AR (SAR) or perennial AR (PAR). SAR symptoms usually appear during a specific season in which aeroallergens are present in the outdoor air such as tree and grass pollen in the spring and summer and weed pollens in the autumn (fall); and PAR symptoms are present year-round and are triggered by dust mite, animal dander, indoor molds and cockroaches. Oral histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists (H(1) antihistamines) are one of the most commonly prescribed medications for the treatment of AR. There are several oral H(1) antihistamines available and it is important to know the pharmacology, such as administration interval, onset of action, metabolism and conditions that require administration adjustments. When prescribing oral H(1) antihistamines, the healthcare provider must take into account the clinical efficacy and weigh this against the risk of adverse effects from the agent. In addition to the clinical efficacy, potential for improvement in QOL with a particular treatment should also be considered.

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.

Fexofenadine is efficacious and safe in children (aged 6-11 years) with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

This is the first prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study showing statistical improvement of an H(1)-antihistamine in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis in all symptoms throughout the entire treatment period.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind study was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of fexofenadine in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

This study was conducted at 148 centers in 15 countries. Nine hundred thirty-five children (aged 6-11 years) were randomized and treated with either fexofenadine HCl 30 mg (n = 464) or placebo (n = 471) tablets twice a day for 14 days. Individual symptoms (sneezing; rhinorrhea; itchy nose, mouth, throat, and/or ears; itchy, watery, and/or red eyes; and nasal congestion) were assessed at baseline and then daily at 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM (+/-1 hour) during the double-blind treatment period. Each total symptom score was the sum of all symptoms, excluding nasal congestion. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in the average of the daily 12-hour evening reflective total symptom scores throughout the double-blind treatment. Safety was evaluated from adverse-event reporting, vital signs, physical examinations, and clinical laboratory data at screening and study end point.

RESULTS

Fexofenadine was significantly superior to placebo in the primary efficacy analysis (P </=.0001). Individual symptom scores showed statistically significant superiority compared with placebo (P <.05), including nasal congestion in the evening reflective assessment (P <.05). There was no significant difference in adverse events between fexofenadine and placebo, either overall or by causality.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of the H(1)-antihistamine fexofenadine has been confirmed in this multicenter, multinational study of children aged 6 to 11 years with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Clinical pharmacology of the H1-receptor antagonists cetirizine and loratadine in children

H1-receptor antagonists are widely used in children but are not as well-studied in children as they are in adults. Our objective was to determine the onset and duration of action and the relative potency of the H1-receptor antagonists cetirizine and loratadine in children. We performed a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover, single-dose study of cetirizine and loratadine using suppression of the histamine-induced wheal and flare as the primary outcome. In 15 allergic children, mean age 9 years, compared with baseline, cetirizine (10 mg) suppressed the wheals and flares significantly from 0.25 to 24 h, achieving nearly 100% of flare suppression from 2 to 24 h, inclusive, and loratadine (10 mg) suppressed the wheals and flares significantly from 0.75 to 24 h, inclusive. Cetirizine suppressed the wheals and flares significantly more than loratadine from 0.25 to 1 h, inclusive, and at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 24 h, respectively. Placebo also suppressed the wheal and flare significantly at some assessment times. Cetirizine and loratadine both have excellent antihistaminic activity in children, with a rapid onset of action and a 24-h duration of action in this population.