Comparing the Risk of Infusion-Related Reactions and Tolerability in Patients Given Cetirizine or Diphenhydramine Prior to Ocrelizumab Infusion (PRECEPT).

Background: Ocrelizumab is an effective medication for multiple sclerosis. However, infusion-related reactions (IRRs) are a concern for patients and may lead to discontinuation of ocrelizumab. To minimize IRRs, pre-medications are administered. However, from our experience, these medications, especially diphenhydramine, can cause marked drowsiness. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether cetirizine is non-inferior to diphenhydramine in limiting the proportion and severity of reactions from ocrelizumab infusions. Methods: Twenty participants were serially randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 10 mg of cetirizine or 25 mg of diphenhydramine orally prior to their first three ocrelizumab infusions. Results: The rate of IRRs in this study was similar across both treatment groups with no increase in the risk of severity, and no grade 3 IRRs. Further, patients receiving cetirizine experienced a reduction in fatigue. While there was not a significant difference in global satisfaction, this score increased over time in the cetirizine arm while it remained unchanged in the diphenhydramine arm. Conclusions: Overall, our results suggest that cetirizine does not increase the risk of infusion-related reactions compared to diphenhydramine.

A randomized double-blind feasibility study comparing cetirizine and diphenhydramine in the prevention of paclitaxel-associated infusion-related reactions: the PREMED-F1 study.

PURPOSE: Cetirizine is a less sedative alternative to diphenhydramine for the prevention of infusion-related reactions (IRR) to paclitaxel. However, its use remains controversial. In this study, we assessed feasibility for a future definitive non-inferiority trial comparing cetirizine to diphenhydramine as premedication to prevent paclitaxel-related IRR. METHODS: This was a single-center randomized prospective feasibility study. Participants were paclitaxel-naive cancer patients scheduled to start paclitaxel chemotherapy. They were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous diphenhydramine 50 mg + oral placebo (control) or intravenous placebo + oral cetirizine 10 mg (intervention) for their first two paclitaxel treatments. The percentage of eligible patients completing a first paclitaxel treatment and the recruitment rate were assessed (feasibility outcomes). Drowsiness was measured at baseline and at selected time points using the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS) (safety outcome). IRR events were also documented (efficacy outcome). RESULTS: Among 37 eligible patients, 27 were recruited and randomized (control 13; intervention 14) and 25 completed the study. The recruitment rate was 4.8 participants/month, meeting the primary feasibility target. Drowsiness was the main adverse effect associated with the premedication. The increase in drowsiness compared to baseline (ΔSSS) was greater in the diphenhydramine group compared to the cetirizine group (median ΔSSS 2 (IQR 3.25) vs median ΔSSS 0 (IQR 1), p < 0.01) when measured one hour after the premedication administration. One participant had an IRR and no unexpected serious adverse event occurred. CONCLUSION: The trial methods were feasible in terms of recruitment, retention, and safety. Cetirizine was significantly less sedating than diphenhydramine. IRR were infrequent and a larger trial is warranted to confirm non-inferiority for IRR prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04237090 (22.01.2020).

Antiallergic activities of shallot (Allium ascalonicum L.) and its therapeutic effects in allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Onion has antiallergic activity but lack of evidence for shallot. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether shallot owns similar antiallergic activity to onion and its therapeutic effects in allergic rhinitis when added to standard treatment. METHODS: In-vitro ß-hexosaminidase inhibitory activities of shallot was compared with onion on RBL-2H3 cells. In clinical study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed. Sixteen AR patients were randomized equally into the controls who received cetirizine 10 mg once daily and placebo capsules for 4 weeks, and the treatment who received 3g of oral shallot per day (equivalent to 1 ½ bulbs) and cetirizine. Visual analog scores of overall symptoms (VAS), total nasal and ocular symptom scores (TNSS and TOSS), nasal airway resistance (NAR), and adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: Shallot extract at 200 µg/mL had an average ß-hexosaminidase inhibition rate of 97% while onion extract had 73%. HPLC chromatograms (λ = 290nm) of both plants showed nearly identical patterns of quercetin compounds, such as quercetin 3,4'-diglucoside, quercetin 4'-glucoside, and quercetin. After 4-week of treatment, 62.5% of patients in shallot group and 37.5% of patients in control group showed improvement of post-treatment VAS. TNSS were significantly reduced in both groups, however no difference between groups (P = 0.18). TOSS were significantly improved only in the shallot group (P = 0.01). Adverse events from shallot were not different from placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Shallot had antiallergic activity and similar quercetin compounds to onion. The shallot oral supplement and cetirizine was shown to improve the overall AR symptoms more than cetirizine alone.

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.

Efficacy of Desloratadine and Levocetirizine in Patients with Cedar Pollen-Induced Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

BACKGROUND: No comparative study of antihistamines that differ in structural system has been conducted in allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover comparative study to verify the efficacy of antihistamines that differ in structural system. METHODS: A total of 50 patients with moderate or more severe Japanese cedar pollen-induced allergic rhinitis were randomized to receive either placebo, desloratadine 5 mg (a tricyclic), or levocetirizine 5 mg (a piperazine). One dose of the study drug was orally administered at 9 pm on the day before a pollen exposure test, which was performed for 3 h (9 a.m. to 12 p.m.) to assess symptoms in an environmental challenge chamber (ECC). Nasal and ocular symptoms were compared at an airborne pollen level of 8,000 grains/m3. The primary endpoint was mean total nasal symptom score (TNSS) from 120 to 180 min in the ECC. Subjects with a difference of ≥1 in TNSS between 2 drugs were extracted to the relevant drug-responsive group. RESULTS: The difference in TNSS from placebo was -2.42 (p < 0.0001) with levocetirizine and -1.66 (p < 0.01) with desloratadine, showing that both drugs were significantly more effective than placebo in controlling symptoms, but with no statistically significant difference between the 2 drugs. There were 12 subjects in the desloratadine-responsive group and 24 subjects in the levocetirizine-responsive group, with no contributor to response was detected. CONCLUSION: Levocetirizine tended to control nasal symptoms more effectively than desloratadine. However, the response to each antihistamine varied among individuals and the predictors to the response are unknown. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN ID: UMIN000029653.

Oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for eczema.

BACKGROUND: The symptoms of eczema can lead to sleeplessness and fatigue and may have a substantial impact on quality of life. Use of oral H1 antihistamines (H1 AH) as adjuvant therapy alongside topical agents is based on the idea that combining the anti-inflammatory effects of topical treatments with the blocking action of histamine on its receptors in the skin by H1 AH (to reduce the principal symptom of itch) might magnify or intensify the effect of treatment. Also, it would be unethical to compare oral H1 AH alone versus no treatment, as topical treatment is the standard management for this condition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment in adults and children with eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to May 2018: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the GREAT database (Global Resource of EczemA Trials; from inception). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the abstracts of four conference proceedings held between 2000 and 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought RCTs assessing oral H1 AH as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for people with eczema compared with topical treatment plus placebo or no additional treatment as add-on therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcome measures were 'Mean change in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema' and 'Proportion of participants reporting adverse effects and serious adverse events'. Secondary outcomes were 'Mean change in physician-assessed clinical signs', 'Mean change in quality of life', and 'Number of eczema flares'. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 studies (3285 randomised participants). Seventeen studies included 1344 adults, and eight studies included 1941 children. Most studies failed to report eczema severity at baseline, but they were conducted in secondary care settings, so it is likely that they recruited patients with more severe cases of eczema. Trial duration was between three days and 18 months. Researchers studied 13 different H1 AH treatments. We could not undertake pooling because of the high level of diversity across studies in terms of duration and dose of intervention, concomitant topical therapy, and outcome assessment. Risk of bias was generally unclear, but five studies had high risk of bias in one domain (attrition, selection, or reporting bias). Only one study measured quality of life, but these results were insufficient for statistical analysis.Although this review assessed 17 comparisons, we summarise here the results of three key comparisons in this review.Cetirizine versus placeboOne study compared cetirizine 0.5 mg/kg/d against placebo over 18 months in 795 children. Study authors did not report patient-assessed symptoms of eczema separately for pruritus. Cetirizine is probably associated with fewer adverse events (mainly mild) (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01) and the need for slightly less additional H1 AH use as an indication of eczema flare rate (P = 0.035; no further numerical data given). Physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index (SCORAD)) were reduced in both groups, but the difference between groups was reported as non-significant (no P value given). Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.One study assessed cetirizine 10 mg/d against placebo over four weeks in 84 adults. Results show no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema (pruritus measured as part of SCORAD; no numerical data given), numbers of adverse events (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45; mainly sedation, other skin-related problems, respiratory symptoms, or headache), or physician-assessed changes in clinical signs, amount of local rescue therapy required, or number of applications as an indicator of eczema flares (no numerical data reported). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality.Fexofenadine versus placeboCompared with placebo, fexofenadine 120 mg/d taken in adults over one week (one study) probably leads to a small reduction in patient-assessed symptoms of pruritus on a scale of 0 to 8 (mean difference (MD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.07; n = 400) and a greater reduction in the ratio of physician-assessed pruritus area to whole body surface area (P = 0.007; no further numerical data given); however, these reductions may not be clinically meaningful. Results suggest probably little or no difference in adverse events (mostly somnolence and headache) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.50; n = 411) nor in the amount of 0.1% hydrocortisone butyrate used (co-intervention in both groups) as an indicator of eczema flare, but no numerical data were given. Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.Loratadine versus placeboA study of 28 adults compared loratadine 10 mg/d taken over 4 weeks versus placebo. Researchers found no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed pruritus, measured by a 100-point visual analogue scale (MD -2.30, 95% CI -20.27 to 15.67); reduction in physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORAD) (MD -4.10, 95% CI -13.22 to 5.02); or adverse events. Study authors reported only one side effect (folliculitis with placebo) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.76). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality. Number of eczema flares was not measured for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the main comparisons, we did not find consistent evidence that H1 AH treatments are effective as 'add-on' therapy for eczema when compared to placebo; evidence for this comparison was of low and moderate quality. However, fexofenadine probably leads to a small improvement in patient-assessed pruritus, with probably no significant difference in the amount of treatment used to prevent eczema flares. Cetirizine was no better than placebo in terms of physician-assessed clinical signs nor patient-assessed symptoms, and we found no evidence that loratadine was more beneficial than placebo, although all interventions seem safe.The quality of evidence was limited because of poor study design and imprecise results. Future researchers should clearly define the condition (course and severity) and clearly report their methods, especially participant selection and randomisation; baseline characteristics; and outcomes (based on the Harmonising Outcome Measures in Eczema initiative).

Acute Focal Dystonia After a Single Dose of Oral Cetirizine in a 9-Year-Old Boy.

Common cold is an acute illness affecting pediatric population in particular. The use of antihistamines is a common practice, with cetirizine being a frequently used drug with a good safety profile. However, adverse events due to the use of antihistamines have been rarely reported, such as drug-induced dystonia with the use of cetirizine. In our present case, dystonia due to the intake of cetirizine was observed, which the patient responded well to the use of benzodiazapines, namely, clonazepam. We report this case to highlight the occurrence of this adverse event with the use of cetirizine.

Efficacy of Isotretinoin and Antihistamine versus Isotretinoin Alone in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Acne: A Randomised Control Trial.

Background Acne vulgaris has considerable impact on physical and psychological health. Isotretinoin is considered most effective drug available for acne therapy but with limited acceptance because of its adverse effects. Antihistamine inhibits inflammatory mediators, Propionibacterium acne induced itching, reduction of squalene and sebum in sebocyte, reduces anxiety and further lessens hormonal derangement and inhibits mast cell induced fibrosis and scars. Clinical relevance is lacking in the use of antihistamine in the treatment of acne and its potential efficacy needs to be clarified. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining isotretinoin and antihistamine compare to isotretinoin alone in patients with moderate to severe acne at week 12. Method One hundred patients with moderate to severe acne were included in this randomised, controlled comparative study. Fifty patients were treated with isotretinoin and 50 patients were treated with additional antihistamine, levocetirizine and assessment was done at baseline, 4, 8 and 12 weeks of treatment. Result At week 12, compared to isotretinoin only group, combination of isotretinoin and levocetirizine group showed more statistically significant decrease in score of global acne grading system (51.0 vs. 38.5%) and acne lesion counts (non-inflammatory lesion: 63.2 vs. 44.5%; inflammatory lesions: 75.9 vs. 62.7%; total lesions: 66.07 vs. 48.7%; all p< 0.05). Flaring up of acne occurred less frequently and adverse effects were more tolerable in levocetirizine group. Conclusion Use of antihistamine with isotretinoin provides synergic effect while minimizing the side effect of isotretinoin and greater clearance of the lesion and scars.

Reliability of allergy skin testing.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous allergen skin testing remains an established benchmark for diagnosing atopic disease. The reliability of skin testing depends greatly on the performance of allergen extracts used, methods used, and the presence of antihistamine medications. OBJECTIVE: To determine the differential effect of cetirizine on 2 different concentrations of histamine control solution and 5 common allergens used for percutaneous skin testing. METHODS: Twelve individuals underwent skin testing with histamine (1 and 6 mg/mL), control diluent, and 5 common aeroallergens. Wheal and flare measurements were measured in a masked fashion by a single operator. Cetirizine was administered for 4 consecutive days to determine the effect on both histamine and allergen wheal and flare responses. RESULTS: A total of 384 skin tests were performed on 12 volunteers. Cetirizine began to suppress wheal and flare responses at 1 hour (P < .05), with maximum suppression at day 5 (P < .05). Wheal and flare responses returned to greater than 90% baseline within 4 days of not taking cetirizine. Suppression was more apparent with 1 vs 6 mg/mL of histamine (62% vs 33%). Four of the 12 individuals taking cetirizine had a positive skin test result using 6 mg/mL of histamine control when the 1-mg/mL histamine test result was negative. Importantly, twice as many individuals had false-negative allergen responses using 6 mg/mL of histamine vs the 1 mg/mL as a positive control, although this finding did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of a 6-mg/mL histamine control for some percutaneous skin test devices may result in more false-negative allergen responses because of the inability to detect the presence of antihistamines.

Comparison of the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of montelukast/levocetirizine administered as a fixed-dose combination and as separate tablets.

OBJECTIVE: A novel fixed-dose combination (FDC) capsule of 10/5 mg of montelukast/levocetirizine may lead to better compliance than two separate tablets taken together. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and tolerability of an FDC of montelukast and levocetirizine compared to separate tablets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-sequence, two-period, crossover study was conducted with healthy male subjects. In each period, either an FDC or separate tablets were administered orally, and serial blood samples were collected for PK analysis for up to 34 hours after dosing. PK parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and the area under the curve to the last measurable concentration (AUClast) for the two interventions were estimated. Tolerability assessments were performed for all the subjects who received the drug at least once. RESULTS: The PK profiles of the two interventions were comparable. For montelukast, the GMRs and 90% CIs for the Cmax and AUClast were 0.9800 (0.8903 - 1.0787) and 1.0706 (0.9968 - 1.1498), respectively. The corresponding values for levocetirizine were 0.9195 (0.8660 - 0.9763) and 1.0375 (1.0123 - 1.0634), respectively. Both interventions were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The PK and tolerability profiles of montelukast and levocetirizine after a single oral administration were comparable between the FDC and separate tablets. For patients with allergic rhinitis who require a combination treatment, the FDC of montelukast and levocetirizine will be a convenient therapeutic option.
.

Safety of cetirizine in pregnancy.

Managing symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR) and urticaria in pregnant women is important to reduce complications and negative outcomes. The objective of this study was to provide information on the pregnancy outcomes of women exposed to the antihistamine cetirizine (CTZ). The UCB Pharma Patient Safety Database was searched for pregnancies up to 28 February 2015. Maternal CTZ exposure reports were extracted, and pregnancy outcomes were examined, including exposure, comorbidities and infant events. 228 of 522 pregnancies with maternal CTZ exposure had available outcomes; 49 were prospective. The majority (83.7%) resulted in live births; four spontaneous miscarriages, three induced abortions and one stillbirth were reported. Most pregnancies were exposed during the first trimester. Two congenital malformations were reported. The results suggest that CTZ exposure is not associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes above the background rates. While reassuring, the strengths and limitations of a safety database study need to be considered. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? AR and urticaria can substantially affect pregnant women, and adequately managing their symptoms is important to reduce maternal and foetal complications. Antihistamines are efficacious, however, there is still a lack of data regarding use during pregnancy. Although current evidence indicates that antihistamines are well-tolerated during pregnancy, data regarding foetal safety are inconclusive. What do the results of this study add? Our study suggests that CTZ exposure during pregnancy is not linked to an increase in adverse outcomes. CTZ exposure mainly happened during the first trimester only, when most organogenesis takes place. Most of the maternally exposed, prospective pregnancies resulted in live births (83.7%). Congenital malformations occurred in 2/41 live births from the CTZ-exposed pregnancies. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our study presents a detailed data analysis from a large number of CTZ-exposed pregnancies, and its results are in line with those from previous reports. While the limitations of a safety database study need to be considered, the results shown here are reassuring. Further prospectively reported pregnancies are required, before definite conclusions on the risks of CTZ exposure during pregnancy can be drawn.

[Allergic rhinitis: the modern aspects of therapy]. / Allergicheskii rinit: sovremennye aspekty terapii.

The main objectives of the present article were to systematize the modern views of the causes and risk factors of allergic rhinitis, to clarify the manner of its development, to define the leading etiological mechanism underling the pathogenesis of this condition, to consider the methods used for the diagnostics and the treatment of this disease, and to sum up the clinical experience with the use of Levocetirizine (Allerwey) for the management of allergic rhinitis. Special attention is given to the achievement and the maintenance of control of the persistent or intermittent forms of allergic rhinitis and to approaches to its treatment based on the medications registered in the Russian Federation.

Safety profile of H1-antihistamines in pediatrics: an analysis based on data from VigiBase.

PURPOSE: H1-antihistamines are commonly used in infants and children for the relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a variety of conditions. Little is known about their safety profile in these patients. We performed a comparative analysis of the safety profiles of H1-antihistamines using data from the WHO database (VigiBase). METHODS: We selected adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports on H1-antihistamines in children (0-16 years) up to June 2014 from VigiBase. ADRs were codified according to MedDRA terminology. The reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence for drug-reaction pairs were calculated. RESULTS: The analysis was performed on 8918 reports related to antihistamines, corresponding to 19503 drug reaction pairs for 68 different drugs. Most of reports involved children aged 2 to 6 years (32%) and 6 to 12 years (34%). Most reported drugs were cetirizine (1608 reports, corresponding to 18%), loratadine (16%), and diphenhydramine (10%). ADRs were classified as serious in 23% of cases, and 400 cases had a fatal outcome. We found a significant associations for several drug-reaction pairs such as levocetirizine and epilepsy (ROR, 6.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51-28.53) and chlorphenamine and toxic epidermal necrolysis (ROR, 7.29; 95% CI, 2.39-22.2). CONCLUSIONS: H1-antihistamines are among the most used drugs in pediatrics, also in an off-label manner. Our data highlights associations with serious and unexpected ADRs. Educative intervention to clinicians and parents are needed to help doctors to make proper choices on the drug treatment and for the early detection of ADRs to maximize the benefits and reduce the risk of ADRs in these patients.

Randomized, placebo-controlled study of cetirizine and loratadine in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic treatment is a mainstay of allergy therapy and many caregivers use over-the-counter antihistamines for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms in children. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of cetirizine 10 mg syrup versus loratadine 10 mg syrup versus placebo syrup in a randomized double-blind study of children, ages 6-11 years, with SAR. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study was conducted at 71 U.S. centers during the spring tree and grass pollen season. After a 1-week placebo run-in period, qualified subjects were randomized to once-daily cetirizine 10 mg (n = 231), loratadine 10 mg (n = 221), and placebo (n = 231) for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in the subject's mean reflective total symptom severity complex (TSSC) score over 14 days. RESULTS: Children treated with cetirizine experienced significantly greater TSSC score reductions versus children treated with placebo over 14 days (least square mean change, -2.1 versus -1.6; p = 0.006). The differences in TSSC score improvement over 14 days between the cetirizine versus loratadine groups (-2.1 versus -1.8; p = 0.124) and between the loratadine versus placebo groups (-1.8 versus -1.6; p = 0.230) were not statistically significant. Predominant adverse events in the cetirizine, loratadine, and placebo groups were headache (3.5, 3.6, and 3.1%, respectively) and pharyngitis (3.5, 2.7, and 3.5%, respectively). Somnolence was reported in three subjects (1.3%) treated with cetirizine and in none of the other subjects. CONCLUSION: Cetirizine 10 mg was statistically significantly more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of SAR symptoms in children ages 6-11 years. Symptom improvement was not significantly different between the loratadine 10 mg and placebo groups.

A simulated car-driving study on the effects of acute administration of levocetirizine, fexofenadine, and diphenhydramine in healthy Japanese volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: Antihistamines are often used for treating allergic rhinitis. However, many older antihistamines cause sedative side effects. The sedative effects of antihistamines on car-driving have been investigated. This has not been investigated for levocetirizine, a new-generation antihistamine, in Asian populations, and so we evaluated its sedative effects in healthy Japanese subjects. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study, healthy volunteers received single doses of levocetirizine 5 mg, fexofenadine 60 mg, diphenhydramine 50 mg, and placebo at intervals of at least 6 days. Simple brake reaction time and choice brake reaction time task (CBRT), a lateral tracking (LT) task, and a multiple task, a mixture of CBRT and LT task, were used to compare driving performance between the four drugs. Subjective sedation was also assessed. RESULTS: The simple brake reaction time and CBRT, and the CBRT component of the multiple task, did not show any significant differences between the drugs. In contrast, the LT, both as a single parameter and as a component of the multiple task, showed significant differences between diphenhydramine and the newer-generation antihistamines in a manner that corresponds with subjective sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Levocetirizine and fexofenadine did not impair psychomotor performance in subjects performing simulated car-driving tasks, while diphenhydramine did impair psychomotor performance in the subjects. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A comparison of fluticasone propionate nasal spray and cetirizine in ragweed fall seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal corticosteroids are generally considered the most effective medication class for controlling allergic rhinitis. Previous comparative studies with oral antihistamines have been only partially informative due to a variety of variables encountered during their execution. OBJECTIVE: To compare fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS) with the second-generation antihistamine cetirizine (oral tablet) and with placebo in a head-to-head study in a 2-week treatment study during fall ragweed season. METHODS: A total of 978 subjects were screened for this study. Six hundred and eighty-two subjects were randomized into the study (170 subjects, FPNS 200 mcg once daily; 170, cetirizine 10 mg once daily; 171, FPNS placebo; 171, cetirizine placebo) and comprised the intent-to-treat population. A 1-week placebo run-in was followed by a 2-week active treatment period during which time a total nasal symptom score (TNSS), total ocular symptom score, and the Nocturnal Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire were collected. RESULTS: The primary efficacy end point was the mean change from baseline over the entire treatment period in A.M. reflective TNSS. The TNSS was the sum of the four individual nasal congestion, nasal itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing scores, in which each symptom was scored on a scale of 0 to 3. Both FPNS and cetirizine improved the primary end point when compared with placebo during the active treatment period. Although there was a trend that favored FPNS with regard to the primary and secondary end points, there was not a statistical difference between the two treatments. CONCLUSION: FPNS and cetirizine were equally effective in treating fall seasonal allergic rhinitis during a 2-week head-to-head treatment investigation. Clinical trial NCT01916226, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Iatrogenic nocturnal eneuresis ­ an overlooked side effect of anti histamines?

Nocturnal enuresis is a common disorder in childhood, but its pathophysiological mechanisms have not been fully elucidated. Iatrogenic nocturnal enuresis has been described following treatment with several psychotropic medications. Herein, we describe a 6-year-old child who experienced nocturnal enuresis during treatment with the antihistamine cetirizine. Drug rechallenge was positive. Several neurotransmitters are implicated in the pathogenesis of nocturnal enuresis, including noradrenaline, serotonin and dopamine. Antihistamine treatment may provoke functional imbalance of these pathways resulting in incontinence.

Therapeutic Plasmapheresis Enabling Radioactive Iodine Treatment in a Patient with Thyrotoxicosis.

Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) is one possible treatment for patients resistant to conventional antithyroid drugs or requiring urgent attention for thyrotoxicosis. We report a 35-yr-old man with thyrotoxicosis, ultimately attributed to Graves' disease in whom antithyroid drug used initially was soon discontinued, due to abnormal liver function, and replaced by Lugol's solution. Three weeks later, an escape phenomenon (to Lugol's solution) was apparent, so we performed TPE to control the thyrotoxicosis. Two courses of TPE by a centrifugal type machine resulted in diminished levels of thyroid hormone levels, which then rebounded after another two courses of membrane filtration type TPE. However, the patient could be treated with radioactive iodine therapy without any complications at present.

Night-time sedating H1 -antihistamine increases daytime somnolence but not treatment efficacy in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many physicians believe that the most effective way to treat chronic urticaria is to take a nonsedating second-generation H1 -antihistamine in the morning and a sedating first-generation H1 -antihistamine, usually hydroxyzine, at night to enhance sleep. But is this belief well founded? OBJECTIVES: To test this belief by comparing the effectiveness and prevalence of unwanted sedative effects when treating patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) with levocetirizine 15 mg daily plus hydroxyzine 50 mg at night (levocetirizine plus hydroxyzine) vs. levocetirizine 20 mg daily (levocetirizine monotherapy). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, cross-over study, 24 patients with difficult-to-treat CSU took levocetirizine plus hydroxyzine or levocetirizine monotherapy for periods of 5 days each. At the end of each treatment period, assessments were made of quality of life (Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire, CU-Q2 oL), severity of urticaria symptoms (Urticaria Activity Score, UAS), sleep disturbance during the night and daytime somnolence. RESULTS: Both treatments significantly decreased UAS, night-time sleep disturbances and CU-Q2 oL scores (P < 0·001) without significant differences between the two. Compared with baseline, daytime somnolence was significantly reduced by levocetirizine monotherapy (P = 0·006) but not by levocetirizine plus hydroxyzine (P = 0·218). Direct comparison of the two treatment modalities in terms of daytime somnolence favoured levocetirizine monotherapy (P = 0·026). CONCLUSIONS: The widespread belief that sleep is aided by the addition of a sedating first-generation H1 -antihistamine, usually hydroxyzine, at night is not supported. These results are in line with the urticaria guidelines, which state that first-line treatment for urticaria should be new-generation, nonsedating H1 -antihistamines only.