Association between desloratadine and prednisolone in the treatment of children with acute symptoms of allergic rhinitis: a double-blind, randomized and controlled clinical trial / Associação entre desloratadina e prednisolona no tratamento de crianças com sintomas agudos de rinite alérgica: ensaio clínico duplo-cego, randomizado e controlado

Abstract Introduction: A combination of antihistamines and oral corticosteroids is often used to treat acute symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Objective: To evaluate safety and efficacy of desloratadine plus prednisolone in the treatment of acute symptoms of children (2-12 years) with allergic rhinitis, and to compare it to dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone. Methods: Children with moderate/severe persistent allergic rhinitis and symptomatic (nasal symptoms score [0-12] ≥ 6) were allocated in a double-blind, randomized fashion to receive dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone (n = 105; three daily doses) or desloratadine plus prednisolone (n = 105; single dose followed by two of placebo) for 7 days. At the beginning and end of the evaluation, the following were obtained: nasal symptoms score, extra nasal symptoms score, peak nasal inspiratory flow, blood biochemistry, and electrocardiogram. Ninety-six children of the dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone group and 98 of the desloratadine plus prednisolone group completed the protocol. Results: The two groups were similar regarding initial and final nasal symptoms scores, extra nasal symptoms scores and peak nasal inspiratory flow. A drop of 76.4% and 79.1% for nasal symptoms score, 86.0% and 79.2% for extra nasal symptoms score, as well as an increase of 25.2% and 24.3% for peak nasal inspiratory flow occurred for those treated with desloratadine plus prednisolone and dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone, respectively. There were no significant changes in blood chemistry. Sinus tachycardia was the most frequent electrocardiogram change, but with no clinical significance. Drowsiness was reported significantly more often among those of dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone group (17.14% × 8.57%, respectively). Conclusion: The desloratadine plus prednisolone combination was able to effectively control acute symptoms of rhinitis in children, improving symptoms and nasal function. Compared to the dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone combination, it showed similar clinical action, but with a lower incidence of adverse events and higher dosing convenience.

Resumo Introdução: A associação entre anti-histamínicos e corticosteroides orais é frequentemente empregada no tratamento de sintomas agudos de rinite alérgica. Objetivo: Avaliar a segurança e eficácia da associação desloratadina + prednisolona no tratamento de sintomas agudos de crianças (2-12 anos) com rinite alérgica e compará-las com as da associação dexclorfeniramina + betametasona. Método: Crianças com rinite alérgica persistente moderada/grave e sintomáticas (escore de sintomas nasais [0-12] ≥ 6) foram alocadas de modo duplo-cego e randômico para receber dexclorfeniramina + betametasona (n = 105; três doses diárias) ou desloratadina + prednisolona (n = 105; dose única seguida por duas de placebo) por 7 dias. No início e no fim da avaliação foram obtidos: escore de sintomas nasais, escore de sintomas extranasais, pico de fluxo inspiratório nasal, bioquímica sanguínea e eletrocardiograma. Do total, 96 crianças do grupo dexclorfeniramina + betametasona e 98 do grupo desloratadina + prednisolona concluíram o protocolo. Resultados: Os dois grupos foram iguais com relação ao escore de sintomas nasais, escore de sintomas nasais extranasais e pico de fluxo inspiratório nasal iniciais e finais. Observou-se queda de 76,4% e 79,1% nos escores para escore de sintomas nasais, de 86,0% e 79,2% para escore de sintomas extranasais, assim como incremento de 25,2% e de 24,3% para o pico de fluxo inspiratório nasal para os grupos desloratadina + prednisolona e dexclorfeniramina + betametasona, respectivamente. Não houve alterações significativas da bioquímica sanguínea. Taquicardia sinusal foi a alteração do eletrocardiograma mais encontrada, mas sem significância clínica. Sonolência foi significantemente mais referida entre os tratados com dexclorfeniramina + betametasona do que entre os desloratadina + prednisolona (8,57% × 17,14%, respectivamente). Conclusão: A associação desloratadina + prednisolona foi capaz de controlar efetivamente os sintomas agudos de rinite em crianças, melhorou sintomas e a função nasal. Na comparação com a associação dexclorfeniramina + betametasona, demonstrou ação clínica semelhante, mas com menor incidência de eventos adversos e maior comodidade posológica.

A case of levocetirizine-induced liver injury.

Levocetirizine is a second-generation nonsedative antihistaminic agent that has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for treating allergic disease. There was only one case report of levocetirizine-induced liver toxicity, but a liver biopsy was not performed. In this article, we present the first case of levocetirizine-induced liver injury with histologic findings. A 48-year-old man was hospitalized with jaundice and generalized pruritus that had developed after 2 months of therapy with levocetirizine for prurigo nodularis. Laboratory findings revealed acute hepatitis with cholestasis. A liver biopsy demonstrated portal inflammation and hepatitis with apoptotic hepatocytes. The patient fully recovered 3 weeks after withdrawing levocetirizine. Although levocetirizine is safe and effective, physicians should be aware of its potential hepatotoxicity.

Levocetirizine and rupatadine in chronic idiopathic urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) is a common dermatological condition. Its pathogenesis involves mainly histamine and also other mediators, including platelet-activating factor (PAF) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). In the absence of an exact etiology, H1 -antihistaminics are the mainstay of treatment. Levocetirizine is widely prescribed for CIU. Rupatadine, a newer antihistaminic, has PAF receptor antagonist activity and has shown anti-TNF-α activity in vitro. These additional anti-inflammatory effects may improve its efficacy. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of rupatadine and levocetirizine, respectively, in CIU patients. METHODS: A prospective, open, comparative, randomized study was conducted in 100 patients, of whom 50 were treated with levocetirizine and 50 were treated with rupatadine. Efficacy parameters used were urticarial activity score (UAS) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) values. Safety was evaluated by monitoring for adverse drug reactions and by using the critical flicker fusion threshold (CFFT) test and a visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline, and at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. RESULTS: The mean UAS decreased to 0.10 in the levocetirizine group and to 0.38 in the rupatadine group. Patients in the levocetirizine group showed a more significant (P < 0.001) improvement, although symptoms improved in both groups. Significant reductions in mean DLQI scores were observed in both groups, but the decrease was statistically significant in the levocetirizine group (P < 0.05). Somnolence was the most common side effect in both groups. Patients in the levocetirizine group showed more psychomotor impairment based on the CFFT test. Findings on the VAS showed sedative effects in both groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Levocetirizine was found to be more efficacious than rupatadine in CIU patients, but both drugs caused mild sedation.

Uremic pruritus in hemodialysis patients: treatment with desloratidine versus gabapentin / Prurido urêmico em pacientes em hemodiálise: tratamento com desloratidina versus gabapentina

INTRODUCTION: Uremic pruritus is common among dialysis patients. Effective treatments are not readily available. Early evidence with antihistamines and gabapentin indicate variable effects. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and side effects of gabapentin and desloratadine in patients with dialysis pruritus. METHODS: Prospective, open-label, cross-over clinical trial in 22 patients on chronic hemodialysis with sustained pruritus over a period of at least 60 days. After a one-week run-in period, we assigned patients to three weeks of either gabapentin 300 mg thrice weekly or desloratadine 5 mg thrice weekly. After a one-week washout period, each patient crossed-over to the alternate regimen for three more weeks. The primary endpoint of the study was the change in the visual analogue pruritus score (VAS). RESULTS: Nineteen subjects completed the two treatment blocks and were available for analysis. VAS scores decreased with both treatments (5.95 to 4.6 with gabapentin, p = 0.07; 5.89 to 3.4 with desloratadine, p = 0.004), but only desloratadine reached statistical significance. There were no differences when comparing the final pruritus score with gabapentin and desloratadine (4.6 versus 3.4, p = 0.16) Excessive sedation was common with gabapentin. Desloratadine was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Desloratadine provides significant relief of uremic pruritus compared with no therapy. gabapentin has marginal efficacy. Desloratadine is better tolerated than gabapentin.

INTRODUÇÃO: Prurido urêmico é comum entre pacientes em diálise. Tratamentos eficazes não estão disponíveis até o momento. Provas recentes com anti-histamínicos e gabapentina indicam vários efeitos. OBJETIVO: Comparar a eficiência e os efeitos colaterais da gabapentina e da desloratadina em pacientes com prurido na diálise. MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo, aberto e comparativo com 22 pacientes em hemodiálise crônica com prurido constante durante um período de pelo menos 60 dias. Após uma semana, submetemos os pacientes a três semanas de gabapentina 300 mg, três vezes por semana, ou desloratadina 5 mg três vezes por semana. Após um período de eliminação de uma semana, os pacientes trocaram de regime por mais três semanas. O objetivo primário do estudo foi a mudança na escala visual analógica (EVA) de prurido. RESULTADOS: Dezenove indivíduos completaram os dois tratamentos e foram submetidos à análise. Os escores da EVA caíram com ambos os tratamentos (5,95 para 4,6 com gabapentina, p = 0,07; 5,89 para 3,4 com desloratadina, p = 0,004), mas somente a desloratadina teve significância estatística. Nenhuma diferença foi observada ao comparar o escore final do prurido com gabapentina e desloratadina (4,6 versus 3,4, p = 0,16). Excesso de sedação foi comum com gabapentina. A desloratadina teve alto nível de tolerância. CONCLUSÃO: A desloratadina dá alívio significante do prurido urêmico quando comparada a nenhum tratamento. A gabapentina tem eficiência marginal. A desloratadina tem maior nível de tolerância em relação à gabapentina.

Interactions of bilastine, a new oral H1 antihistamine, with human transporter systems.

Membrane transporters play a significant role in facilitating transmembrane drug movement. For new pharmacological agents, it is important to evaluate potential interactions (e.g., substrate specificity and/or inhibition) with human transporters that may affect their pharmacokinetics, efficacy, or toxicity. Bilastine is a new nonsedating H1 antihistamine indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. The in vitro inhibitory effects of bilastine were assessed on 12 human transporters: four efflux [multidrug resistance protein 1 (MDR1) or P-glycoprotein, breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), multidrug resistance associated protein 2 (MRP2), and bile salt export pump) and eight uptake transporters (sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide, organic cation transporter (OCT)1, organic anion transporter (OAT)1, OAT3, OCT2, OATP2B1, OATP1B1, and OATP1B3). Only mild inhibition was found for MDR1-, OCT1-, and OATP2B1-mediated transport of probe substrates at the highest bilastine concentration assayed (300 µM; half-maximal inhibitory concentration: ≥300 µM). Bilastine transport by MDR1, BCRP, OAT1, OAT3, and OCT2 was also investigated in vitro. Only MDR1 active transport of bilastine was relevant, whereas it did not appear to be a substrate of OCT2, OAT1, or OAT3, nor was it transported substantially by BCRP. Drug-drug interactions resulting from bilastine inhibition of drug transporters that would be generally regarded as clinically relevant are unlikely. Additionally, bilastine did not appear to be a substrate of human BCRP, OAT1, OAT3, or OCT2 and thus is not a potential victim of inhibitors of these transporters. On the other hand, based on in vitro evaluation, clinically relevant interactions with MDR1 inhibitors are anticipated.

Preclinical toxicity profile of oral bilastine.

As part of the bilastine development program, and as mandated by regulatory authorities, several studies were performed with oral bilastine in different animal species to evaluate its toxicity profile. Toxicokinetic analyses conducted in tandem to evaluate systemic exposure, gender differences, and dose proportionality in the different animal species indicated that animals were systemically exposed to bilastine during treatment. Repeated-dose toxicity studies in beagle dogs (52 weeks) and in rats and mice (13 weeks) showed that bilastine at doses up to 2,000 mg/kg/day was not associated with any mortality, ocular effects, or nodules/masses. Likewise, no bilastine-associated neoplastic lesions were observed in rats and mice after 104 weeks of treatment with bilastine at doses up to 2,000 mg/kg/day. In general, bilastine-related clinical signs, body-weight changes, food consumption, clinical chemistry, haematology, and macro- and microscopic findings were of low order and reversible, with effects present only at the highest doses administered. Bilastine (up to 1,000 mg/kg/day) was well tolerated in pregnant/lactating rats and in their offspring and subsequent generations. With respect to effects on embryofoetal development in rabbits, bilastine at 400 mg/kg/day (the highest dose evaluated) was assessed to be the no observed adverse effects level. Overall, bilastine demonstrated a favorable toxicity profile in all animal models investigated and at higher doses than the corresponding recommended daily human dosage.

Does terfenadine-induced ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation directly relate to its QT prolongation and Torsades de Pointes?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Terfenadine has been reported to cause cardiac death. Hence, we investigated its pro-arrhythmic potential in various in vitro models. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Pro-arrhythmic effects of terfenadine were investigated in rabbit isolated hearts and left ventricular wedge preparations. Also, using whole-cell patch-clamp recording, we examined its effect on the human ether-à-go-go-related gene (hERG) current in HEK293 cells transfected with hERG and on the I(Na) current in rabbit ventricular cells and human atrial myocytes. KEY RESULTS: Terfenadine concentration- and use-dependently inhibited I(Na) in rabbit myocytes and in human atrial myocytes and also inhibited the hERG. In both the rabbit left ventricular wedge and heart preparations, terfenadine at 1 µM only slightly prolonged the QT- and JT-intervals but at 10 µM, it caused a marked widening of the QRS complex, cardiac wavelength shortening, incidences of in-excitability and non-TdP-like ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) without prolongation of the QT/JT-interval. At 10 µM terfenadine elicited a lower incidence of early afterdepolarizations versus non- Torsades de Pointes (TdP)-like VT/VF (100% incidence), and did not induce TdPs. Although the concentration of terfenadine in the tissue-bath was low, it accumulated within the heart tissue. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our data suggest that: (i) the induction of non-TdP-like VT/VF, which is caused by slowing of conduction via blockade of I(Na) (like Class Ic flecainide), may constitute a more important risk for terfenadine-induced cardiac death; (ii) although terfenadine is a potent hERG blocker, the risk for non-TdP-like VT/VF exceeds the risk for TdPs; and (iii) cardiac wavelength (λ) could serve as a biomarker to predict terfenadine-induced VT/VF.

Futura study: evaluation of efficacy and safety of rupatadine fumarate in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis / Estudo futura: avaliação da eficácia e segurança do fumarato de rupatadina no tratamento da rinite alérgica persistente

Allergic rhinitis affects 10-30 percent of the population, negatively impacting one's quality of life and productivity. It has been associated with sinusitis, otitis media, sleep disorders, and asthma. Rupatadine is a second generation antihistamine with increased affinity to histamine receptor H1; it is also a potent PAF (platelet-activating factor) antagonist. It starts acting quite quickly, offers long lasting effect, and reduces the chronic effects of rhinitis. AIM: this study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of rupatadine in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis. MATERIALS AND METHOD: this is a multi-centric open prospective study. This study included 241 patients from 13 centers in Brazil and was held between October of 2004 and August of 2005. Signs and symptoms of rhinitis and tolerance to medication were analyzed after one and two weeks of treatment. RESULTS: reduction on general scores from 8.65 to 3.21 on week 2 (p<0.001). All signs and symptoms improved significantly in the first day of treatment (p<0.001), except for nasal congestion and secretion, which improved from the second day of treatment (p<0.001). Adverse events occurred in 19.9 percent of the cases, 27.7 percent on week 1. CONCLUSION: rupatadine effectively controls persistent allergic rhinitis; it is safe and presents low incidence of side effects.

A rinite alérgica acomete 10 a 30 por cento da população, interferindo na qualidade de vida e na capacidade produtiva. Está associada à sinusite, otite, roncopatias e asma. A Rupatadina é um anti-histamínico de segunda geração, com elevada afinidade ao receptor histamínico H1 e potente inibição do fator ativador plaquetário (PAF). Tem rápido início de ação, longa duração e reduz os efeitos crônicos da rinite. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a eficácia e segurança da rupatadina no tratamento da rinite alérgica persistente. MATERIAL E MÉTODO: Estudo multicêntrico, aberto, prospectivo. Foram selecionados 241 pacientes em 13 centros no Brasil durante o período de outubro de 2004 a agosto de 2005. Foram analisados os sinais e sintomas da rinite e a tolerabilidade após 1 e 2 semanas. RESULTADOS: Redução do escore geral de 8,65 para 3,21 na semana 2 (p<0,001). Todos os sinais e sintomas melhoraram significativamente, e no primeiro dia de tratamento (p<0,001), com exceção da obstrução e secreção nasal, a partir do segundo dia (P<0,001). A frequência de eventos adversos foi 19,9 por cento, sendo 27,7 por cento na 1ª semana. CONCLUSÕES: A rupatadina é eficaz no controle da rinite alérgica persistente, é segura e apresenta baixos índices de efeitos colaterais.

[Observation on cardiovascular safety of loratadine in treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cardiovascular safety of loratadine, a second generation H1-antagonist, in treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis. METHOD: A total of 50 patients with persistent allergic rhinitis were enrolled, of which 19 cases (38.0%) had a history of cardiovascular diseases and/or presented abnormal electrocardiogram (ECG) findings without prolonged QT-interval. For all patents, 10 mg loratadine tablet was oral administrated once-daily for 30 days. ECG examinations were carried out both before and after treatment. Cardiovascular effects of loratadine were determined by the comparison of two ECGs. RESULT: All patients had no alterations in sinus rhythm after administration of loratadine for 30 days. There were no significant differences of heart rates, P durations, PR or QRS intervals between the baseline and end-point ECGs (P > 0.05), as well as no significant prolongation of the QT or QTc corrected for heart rate using Bazett' formula (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular safety of loratadine, a second generation H1-antagonist, is confirmed in long-term treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis at a recommended dose.

[Efficacy and safety of Mizolastine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of Mizolastine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. METHOD: Multicentric random Double-blind parallel-controlled study was adopted, and compared with placebo and Cetirizine. Patients (n = 177) were grouped, seventy-two in Mizolastine group, sixty-nine in Cetirizine and thirty-six in placebo group. RESULT: In the seventh curative day symptomatic and sign marks in Mizolastine group and Cetirizine group were lower, but the mark in Mizolastine group reduced more than in Cetirizine group and placebo group. Mizolastine group is better than Cetirizine group in improvement of nasal obstruction and itching with Visual analogue scale. In the twenty first curative day reduction of symptomatic and sign marks in Mizolastine group was lower than Cetirizine group, but no statistic difference. There were 27 adverse events, no serious adverse events in 177 patients during experimental period. Most adverse events were headache and dryness in mouth and eyes. There were 10 cases adverse events in Mizolastine group, one case was related with experiment and four cases might be related with experiment. There were 14 cases adverse events in Cetirizine group, one case was related with experiment and four cases might be related with experiment. There were three cases adverse events in placebo group. CONCLUSION: Generally speaking the efficacy of Mizolastine in treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis is better than Cetirizine, Bad events are less. It is safe.

[Peripheral anticholinergic syndrome]. / Sindrome anticolinérgico periférico.

This is a case report of a woman of 38 years old, studied and analyzed at the service of allergy and immunology with clinical manifestations of allergic rhinitis; studies of laboratory, cabinet and intradermal test were made to corroborate this diagnosis and the treatment with specific hyposensitization, oral antihistaminines and inhaled steroids was started. Two years later the patient referred urinary retention without important antecedents, so, a peripheral anticholinergic syndrome (PAS) was suspected, a urodynamic test study was carried out consisting in a uroflujometry, static and dynamic urethral profile, cystometry, flow pressure study and electromyography, which diagnosed low urinary obstruction (functional) and vesical sphincter pseudodysfunction, demonstrating the PAS associated with oral antihistamines.

New antihistamines: a critical view

OBJETIVO: Avaliar criticamente os mais novos anti-histamínicos anti-H1 e os diferentes termos utilizados para denominá-los, com base na revisão de evidências sobre o papel dos anti-H1 no tratamento das doenças alérgicas. FONTES DOS DADOS: Artigos originais, revisões e consensos indexados nos bancos de dados MEDLINE e PUBMED de 1998 a 2006. Palavra chave: anti-histamínicos. SíNTESE DOS DADOS: Os anti-histamínicos de segunda geração diferenciam-se dos de primeira geração por sua elevada especificidade e afinidade pelos receptores H1 periféricos e pela menor penetração no sistema nervoso central (SNC), com conseqüente redução dos efeitos sedativos. Embora os anti-histamínicos de segunda geração sejam, geralmente, melhor tolerados do que seus predecessores, alguns efeitos adversos, principalmente cardiotoxicidade, surgiram com alguns deles. Nos últimos 20 anos, novos compostos, com diferentes farmacocinéticas, foram sintetizados. A maioria deles manifesta propriedades antiinflamatórias que independem de sua atividade no receptor H1. Aprimoramentos mais recentes, geralmente na forma de metabólitos ativos, levaram ao uso do termo anti-histamínico de terceira geração. Esse termo surgiu espontaneamente, sem uma descrição clara de seu significado e implicações clínicas, criando grande confusão entre os profissionais da saúde. CONCLUSÕES: Com base nas evidências sobre anti-histamínicos anti-H1, nenhum deles pode ser considerado como "anti-histamínico de terceira geração". Para tanto, seria preciso comprovar que a nova classe de anti-histamínicos possui vantagens clínicas distintas sobre os compostos existentes e preenche pelo menos três pré-requisitos: ausência de cardiotoxicidade, de interações medicamentosas e de efeitos sobre o SNC.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a critical evaluation of the more recent H1 antihistamines and the various terms used to describe them, based on a review of evidence on their role in the treatment of allergic disorders. SOURCES: Original articles, reviews and consensus documents published from 1998 to 2006 and indexed in the MEDLINE and PubMed databases. Keyword: antihistamines. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS: Second-generation antihistamines differ from first-generation ones because of their elevated specificity and affinity for peripheral H1 receptors and because of their lower penetration of the central nervous system (CNS), having fewer sedative effects as a result. Whilst second-generation antihistamines are in general better tolerated than their predecessors, some adverse effects, principally cardiotoxicity, have been observed with some of them. Over the last 20 years, new compounds with different pharmacokinetic properties have been synthesized. The majority of these exhibit anti-inflammatory properties that are independent of their action on the H1 receptor. More recent improvements, generally in the form of active metabolites, led to the use of the term third-generation antihistamines. This term emerged spontaneously, with no clear definition of its meaning or clinical implications, creating great confusion among healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the evidence on H1 antihistamines, none of them deserve the title"third-generation antihistamine." As the Consensus Group on New Generation Antihistamines concluded, to merit this definition, a new class of antihistamines would have to demonstrate distinct clinical advantages over existing compounds and fulfill at least three prerequisites: they should be free from cardiotoxicity, drug interactions and effects on the CNS.

Loratadine exerts estrogen-like effects and disrupts penile development in the mouse.

PURPOSE: Hypospadias is a developmental anomaly of the penis and urethra that can be steroid mediated. It is characterized by a urethral opening occurring below the normal location at the tip of the penis. The link between loratadine, the active ingredient in a common over-the-counter antihistamine, and hypospadias, the most common congenital abnormality, has been the subject of controversy. We examined the effect of in utero exposure to an over-the-counter loratadine syrup on urethral development, and expression of androgen and estrogen receptors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We orally gavaged pregnant dams with the equivalent of a daily dose of loratadine syrup, with 3 times that dose or with a corn oil gavage control from GD 12 through GD 17. Using gross and histological assessment and 3D reconstruction, we looked for urethral abnormalities in fetal GTs at E 19. We also used real-time quantitative PCR to characterize the expression levels of steroid receptor mRNA in the GT at E 19, a critical stage for completion of urethral and penile development in this species. RESULTS: Loratadine syrup disrupted normal urethral development in the mouse, based on gross morphology and histological assessment, and also disrupted steroid receptor expression, producing an expression profile similar to that resulting from in utero exposure to ethinyl estradiol. CONCLUSIONS: In utero exposure to over-the-counter loratadine syrup can result in hypospadias in this model, and creates changes in the steroid receptor mRNA expression profile similar to those elicited by a synthetic estrogen.

Recurrent acute hepatitis associated with use of cetirizine.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a case of recurrent acute hepatitis related to the use of cetirizine, a selective histamine(1)-receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of common allergic diseases. CASE SUMMARY: A 26-year-old man was hospitalized with a week-long history of weakness, nausea, anorexia, and hyperchromic urine, which had developed after 6 days of therapy with oral cetirizine 10 mg/day for allergic rhinitis. Admission laboratory testing revealed evidence of acute hepatitis and seropositivity for liver-kidney microsome antibodies. Liver biopsy findings of diffuse portal tract and lobular inflammation with a prominent eosinophilic infiltrate were consistent with drug-related hepatitis. The patient was discharged after one week of treatment with tocopherol and glutathione. Three months after discharge, transaminase levels were normal. At 6 months, seropositivity for liver-kidney microsome antibodies was still present, but considerably less intense. The patient had suffered 2 previous episodes of "acute hepatitis of unknown origin," and both had occurred after cetirizine use. DISCUSSION: Use of the Naranjo probability scale indicated cetirizine as the probable cause of acute hepatitis, and the positivity for liver-kidney microsome antibodies is suggestive of an autoimmune mechanism for liver damage. As of September 13, 2004, ours is the fourth reported case of acute hepatitis associated with cetirizine and the second in which liver-kidney microsome antibodies have been documented. CONCLUSIONS: Although cetirizine is considered to have low potential for severe hepatic toxicity, the possibility that it can provoke autoimmune-mediated hepatotoxicity should be considered.

[Acute interstitial nephritis induced by loratadine]. / Loratadina y nefritis intersticial aguda.

Loratadine is a second generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist, that has high potency antiallergic properties and is associated with low adverse effects compared with other antihistamines. Acute interstitial nephritis is a cause of acute renal failure that is most often induced by drugs or, less frequently, infection or sarcoidosis. Although the number of drugs associated with acute intersticial nephritis is too large, the antihistaminic loratadine have never been reported before. We report a case of an interstitial nephritis with acute renal failure that suggesting hypersensitivity reaction in a 77 old man who had received loratadine (10 mg/day) during ten days before his assessment to our hospital by disseminated pruritic syndrome. The initial suspect was rapidly progressive glomerulonephitis and renal biopsy was practice and treatment with corticosteroids were initiated (prednisone bolus of 500 mg three days and 1 mg/kg/day/later). The loratadine therapy was cessation. He exhibiting a slow and progressive improvement on renal function and one month later, urea and creatinine levels was normal and hematuria and proteinuria had disappeared. The corticosteroids therapy were progressive decreased until withdrawal. We think that this is an interesting case, basing in its clinical presentation and that it had never been reported before.

Fixed drug eruption due to loratadine.

We present the clinical case of a 8-years-old boy suffering a fixed drug reaction attributed to the oral intake of loratadine. He is an atopic child with perennial rhinitis and asthma and marked hypersensitivity to the house-dust mite Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus who is receiving inhaled corticosteroids and b2-agonists ad libitum plus specific immunotherapy with the mite. When the boy received loratadine to alleviate his nasal symptoms he suffered a well-defined erythematous and oedematous plaque in his right elbow that disappeared without treatment in one week. Several methods such as the patch-tests, the UBCT or ultra-brief-challenge test (our version of the peroral provocation one) and the skin biopsy were applied. The UBCT and the skin histopathology were the most important techniques to assure the suspected diagnosis. Other antihistamines such as ebastine and cetirizine as well as some excipients used as controls were all negative. Conventional prick or intradermal skin tests with the drug were not performed because we considered that they were useless in this case.