Effect of Loratadine for Pegfilgrastim-Induced Bone Pain.

AIMS: Breast cancer patients on chemotherapy who receive pegfilgrastim to prevent neutropenia may experience severe bone pain as a side effect. Traditional treatment recommendations include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, opioids, and/or antihistamine use. However, little research was found comparing these interventions. The study aim was to address the gaps in literature and to explore the use of and perceived effectiveness of loratadine versus acetaminophen or NSAIDs in women with breast cancer treated with pegfilgrastim. This study also sought to understand how patients became aware of loratadine or other treatments for management of bone pain. DESIGN/METHODS: This cross-sectional study used survey methods to collect data from 66 adult female breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim. RESULTS: The incidence of bone pain was 45% (n = 30) in our sample, but more than half (n = 45; 69%) of the women took either acetaminophen, NSAIDs, or loratadine alone or in combination to prevent bone pain. All medication were rated as effective by patients, with acetaminophen slightly more effective than loratadine, and loratadine more effective than NSAIDs. CONCLUSIONS: Acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and loratadine are easily available and inexpensive. However, unlike acetaminophen and NSAIDs, loratadine is dosed once a day and well tolerated with minimal adverse effects. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Randomized controlled trials are needed to adequately assess the effectiveness of all three medication options. Because little is known about optimal use of any of these medications for pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain, it is also important to identify the optimal time to initiate treatment and ideal treatment duration.

ATR-FTIR spectroscopy and µ-EDXRF spectrometry monitoring of enamel erosion caused by medicaments used in the treatment of respiratory diseases.

Medicaments essential for alleviation of diseases may sometime adversely affect dental health by eroding the enamel, owing to their acidic nature. It is therefore highly desirable to be able to detect these effects quickly and reliably. In this study, we evaluated the erosive capacity of four most commonly prescribed respiratory disease syrup medicaments on enamel using micro-energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (µ-EDXRF) and attenuated total reflection Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR). Fifty-five enamel fragments obtained from 30 bovine teeth were treated with artificial saliva (S), acebrofilin hydrochloride (AC), ambroxol hydrochloride (AM), bromhexine hydrochloride (BR), and salbutamol sulfate (SS); by immersing in 3 mL of respective solutions for 1 min, three times a day at intervals of 1 hr, for 5 days. µ-EDXRF analysis of enamel surface did not reveal significant erosion caused by the medications. However, ATR-FTIR showed a detectable shift in the phosphate (PO4 ) antisymmetric stretching mode (ν3 ) at ∼985 cm-1 for AM, BR, and SS, indicating erosion. Multivariate statistical analysis showed that AC, AM, SS, and BR could be classified with 70%, 80%, 100%, and 100% efficiency from S (control), further highlighting the ability of ATR-FTIR to identify degree of erosion. This suggests ATR-FTIR may be used to rapidly and nondestructively investigate erosive effects of medicaments.

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.

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.

[The investigation of efficacy and safety of Aerius to seasonal allergic rhinitis].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Aerius to seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHOD: Using randomized, controlled method, treatment group 40 cases, oral administration Aerius 5 mg/d for 12 days; control group 35 cases, oral administration Aerius 5 mg/d for 12 days, investigating their efficacy and safety. RESULT: The total effective rate of treatment group was 92.50%, while control group was 85.71%, there was significant difference between them (P<0.05). Significant improvements of seasonal allergic rhinitis nasal obstruction were seen in treatment group after using Aerius (P<0.05). The incidence of side effect of treatment group was 2.50%. CONCLUSION: Aerius is safe and can effectively reduction in nasal and nonnasal symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

[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.

[Cardiac safety evaluation of loratadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in elderly patients].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cardiac safety of the second-generation H1-antihistamine loratadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in elderly patients. METHODS: Forty patients with perennial allergic rhinitis were enrolled in the study. There were 25 males and 15 females, aged 50 to 88 years (mean, 64.4-years-old). 17 cases (42.5%) had a history of cardiovascular diseases and/or presented abnormal ECG parameters, but had no prolonged QT-interval. The subjects received loratadine 10 mg once-daily for 30 days. A series of baseline ECG recordings was obtained before treatment. ECG effects of the treatments were then compared with the baseline ECGs. RESULTS: There were no changes in sinus rhythm in all patients 30 days after treatment by loratadine. No statistically significant difference was found between the heart rates, P durations, PR and QRS intervals at baseline and end-point ECGs (P > 0.05), with no significant prolongation of the QT as well as QTc corrected for heart rate using Bazett' formula (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results suggest no cardiotoxicity of loratadine, at the usual recommended dose, in long-term treatment of allergic rhinitis in the elderly.

[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.

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.

Evaluation of an association between loratadine and hypospadias--United States, 1997-2001.

Hypospadias is a birth defect that affects approximately seven in 1,000 male infants in the United States. In affected infants, the urethral opening is located along the underside of the penis, scrotum, or perineum; the condition usually is corrected by surgery. Hypospadias is classified in order of increasing severity as first, second, or third degree. In 2002, a study in Sweden noted that among male infants born to women who while pregnant had taken loratadine (Claritin), a nonsedating antihistamine commonly used for seasonal allergies, hypospadias prevalence was twice that of the general population. However, insufficient data were available to determine the severity of the hypospadias cases, and the study did not control for confounding variables (e.g., family history of hypospadias or maternal age). In 2003, a prospective study using data from four countries indicated that five of 142 pregnancies in women exposed to loratadine resulted in infants with major malformations, a prevalence consistent with that of the general population; none had hypospadias. To further assess any potential association between loratadine and hypospadias, CDC analyzed data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS). This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which determined that no increased risk for second- or third-degree hypospadias existed among women who used loratadine in early pregnancy. These results might be useful for women and health-care providers to address concerns about loratadine use and hypospadias.

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.

[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.

Fetal safety of loratadine use in the first trimester of pregnancy: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Women in their childbearing years often require drug therapy for allergic conditions. Loratadine, a newer nonsedating antihistamine, is often used because of its preferred side effect profile. To date no published data exist on the safety of loratadine use in pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether the use of loratadine in the first trimester of pregnancy was associated with an increased risk for major malformations. Secondary outcomes included rates of miscarriage, birth weights, and gestational age at delivery. METHODS: All women were prospectively enrolled from 4 participating centers. Detailed maternal medical history and drug exposures were collected at intake, whereas pregnancy complications and outcomes were collected at follow-up. A group of unexposed control subjects were recruited and followed up in a similar manner. RESULTS: This report includes follow-up on 161 loratadine exposed pregnancies and an equal number of unexposed control subjects. Maternal characteristics (age, pregnancy history, alcohol consumption, and smoking habits) were not different between the 2 groups. There were 5 malformations observed in the exposed group and 6 in the control group, which was not significantly different (P =.9) Similarly, the live birth rate, gestational age at delivery, and birth weights were not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that loratadine use in pregnancy is not associated with a large risk for major malformations. Further studies are warranted to confirm these findings and to increase study power.

Cardiovascular profile of loratadine.

The extremely low reporting rate of cardiovascular adverse events for loratadine, the possible preferential use of loratadine in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disorders, and the impressive lack of cardiovascular effects at extremely high concentrations in clinical and preclinical studies demonstrate the very safe cardiovascular profile of loratadine.

Comparative efficacy of terfenadine, loratadine, and astemizole in perennial allergic rhinitis.

Nonsedating H1 antihistamines such as terfenadine, loratadine, and astemizole are widely prescribed for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The comparative efficacy of these agents has not been thoroughly studied. We studied 14 subjects in an open-label four-way crossover trial. Patients were recruited from an outpatient allergy clinic. Inclusion criteria were documented rhinitis symptoms for at least 2 years before the study and skin-test positivity in response to perennial allergens. Each subject underwent sequential 2-week trials of each of four H1 antihistamines: terfenadine, loratadine, astemizole, and chlorpheniramine. No placebo was included. Outcome measures were subjective rhinitis symptom scores, overall efficacy scores, and concomitant pseudoephedrine use. In addition, nasal-examination scores were obtained by way of physician assessment at the end of each 2-week trial, and side effects were tabulated. Nasal-examination scores for each of the four H1 antihistamines were significantly better than the baseline scores (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences in rhinitis symptom scores, overall efficacy scores, or concomitant pseudoephedrine use were noted. We detected no clinically significant differences in efficacy among terfenadine, loratadine, astemizole, and chlorpheniramine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Anti-histamínicos "näo clássicos" e cardiotoxidade / Non-classical antihistamines and cardiotoxicity

O desenvolvimento dos anti-histamínicos "nao-clásicos" tem sido considerado um significante avanço no tratamento dos pacientes alérgicos. Além de proporcionarem reduçao dos sintomas, sao medicamentos de uso oral que nao causam sedaçao ou prejuízo à atividade psicomotora do paciente. Entretanto, alguns relatos de casos com efeitos cardíacos adversos atribuídos à terfenadina e ao astemizol, administrados em altas doses e/ou associados ao cetoconazol ou a antibióticos macrolídeos, têm causado muita discussao. Neste trabalho revemos tais eventos, bem como suas possíveis explicaçoes.