Reasons for prescribing second generation antihistamines to treat allergic rhinitis in real-life conditions and patient response.

BACKGROUND: Second generation H1 antihistamines (H1A) are currently recommended as first choice medications for allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis. However, little is known about what influences the choice of prescription of one second generation (H1A) as opposed to another in real-life conditions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify the main criteria determining the choice of a second generation H1A by allergy specialists in mainland France. METHODS: Consecutive patients suffering from allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis were included and followed prospectively for 30 days from the prescription of a second generation H1A in monotherapy. Patients were asked to fill in auto-questionnaires at baseline, daily during the first 10 days of the new treatment, and at the end of follow-up. Data on efficacy, tolerance, safety, rate and type of response to treatment, as well as patient satisfaction were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: 1,080 patients were included between March 2011 and October 2012, mostly suffering from moderate to severe rhinitis (82.0%). The most frequently cited reason for choosing a specific H1A was the expected efficacy (85.3%). The mean time to nasal and ocular recovery was 6 days and 78.2% of patients responded to treatment within this interval. The presence of conjunctivitis was significantly associated with a more rapid response. At the end of follow-up, the satisfaction rate was higher for patients who were switched from a previous treatment (87.5%), compared to those receiving their first treatment (78.8%). CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The main reason for choosing a specific second generation H1A was its expected efficacy. Concomitant conjunctivitis is associated with a more rapid response to treatment. Symptom recovery necessitates a mean of 6 days.

Milnacipran and venlafaxine at flexible doses (up to 200 mg/day) in the outpatient treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder: a 24-week randomized, double-blind exploratory study.

The objective of this exploratory, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, was to evaluate the efficacy and safety/tolerability of milnacipran and venlafaxine administered at flexible doses (100, 150 or 200 mg/day, bid administration) for 24 weeks (including 4 weeks up titration period) in the outpatient treatment of adults presenting with a moderate or severe episode of major depressive disorder (MDD) without high suicidal risk (MINI-DSM IV-TR). Of the 195 patients included, 134 (68.7%) completed the study. At baseline the two groups were similar, except there was a higher proportion of patients whose episode was severe-DSM IV in the milnacipran group (63.3% versus 54.0% in the venlafaxine group). The initial MADRS score (mean 31.0) decreased progressively during the study, and this decrease was in the two treatment groups (n = 177: 90 milnacipran; 87 venlafaxine) at week 24 (observed case/OC, mean change -23.1 milnacipran; -22.4 venlafaxine). The rate of MADRS response (reduction >/= 50%) at week 8 and week 24-last observation carried forward/LOCF was similar in the two groups (week 8: 64.4% milnacipran; 65.5% venlafaxine; week 24: 70% milnacipran; 77% venlafaxine), as was the rate of MADRS remission (score