Efficacy and Safety of Rupatadine Fumarate Combined with Acupoint Application in Allergic Rhinitis Complicated with Diabetes.

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis has exhibited an upward trend, and diabetes is a common endocrine metabolic disorder. Treatment of allergic rhinitis complicated with diabetes has been marginally explored. This study aimed to observe the effect of rupatadine fumarate combined with acupoint application in the treatment of allergic rhinitis complicated with diabetes and its effect on serum IgE levels. Totally 80 patients with allergic rhinitis complicated with diabetes admitted to our hospital from December 2019 to December 2020 were recruited and assigned to receive either rupatadine fumarate (control group) or rupatadine fumarate plus acupoint application (research group). The clinical observation indexes of the two groups of patients before and after treatment were analyzed, and the clinical efficacy of the two groups was evaluated. Rupatadine fumarate plus acupoint application was associated with a significantly higher efficacy (23 cases of markedly effective, 14 cases of effective, and 3 cases of ineffective) versus rupatadine fumarate alone (14 cases of markedly effective, 16 cases of effective, and 10 cases of ineffective) (χ 2 = 4.501, p = 0.034). The immunoglobulin E (IgE) and nasal mucosal eosinophils (EOS) levels of the two groups of patients after treatment decreased significantly, and the research group had lower results (p < 0.05). Patients in the research group showed significantly lower syndrome scores than those in the control group (p < 0.05). Rupatadine fumarate plus acupoint application resulted in significantly lower physical sign scores and interleukin-4 (IL-4) levels and higher levels of interferon-gamma (INF-γ) versus rupatadine fumarate alone (p < 0.05). The two groups showed a similar incidence of adverse events (p > 0.05). Rupatadine fumarate plus acupoint application may offer a viable alternative for the treatment of allergic rhinitis as it alleviates the clinical symptoms, improves the treatment efficiency, and enhances the anti-allergic effect of the drug, with a high safety profile.

Temperature thresholds in assessment of the clinical course of acquired cold contact urticaria: a prospective observational one-year study.

Cold contact urticaria is the second most common subtype of physical urticaria. Cold stimulation standardized tests are mandatory to confirm the diagnosis. The aim of this study is to define the utility of determining thresholds (critical time and temperature) in assessment of the clinical course of typical acquired cold contact urticaria. Nineteen adult patients (10 women and 9 men; mean age 45 years) were included in the study and the diagnosis was confirmed with the ice-cube test and TempTest 3.0. Patients were treated continuously for 1 year with 20 mg/day rupatadine (anti-H1). Thresholds measurements were made before and after treatment. Improvements in temperature and critical time thresholds were found in the study sample, demonstrating the efficacy of continuous treatment with rupatadine. In most cases association with a clinical improvement was found. We propose an algorithm for the management of acquired cold contact urticaria based on these results.

New therapies for allergic rhinitis.

Because of its burden on patient's lives and its impact on asthma, allergic rhinitis must be treated properly with more effective and safer treatments. According to guidelines by Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), the classification, pathogenesis, and treatment of allergic rhinitis are well defined. Currently, second-generation antihistamines and inhaled steroids are considered the cornerstone of first-line therapy. However, new formulations of available drugs (e.g., loratadine and rupatadine oral solution, ebastine fast-dissolving tablets, and the combination of intranasal fluticasone propionate and azelastine hydrochloride), recently discovered molecules (e.g., ciclesonide, bilastine, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors), immunologic targets (e.g., omalizumab), and unconventional treatments (e.g., homeopathic treatments) are currently under investigation and represent a new frontier in modern medicine and in allergic rhinitis management. The aim of this review is to provide an update on allergic rhinitis treatment, paying particular attention to clinical trials published within the past 20 months that assessed the efficacy and safety of new formulations of available drugs or new molecules.

Similarity in drugs: reflections on analogue design.

A survey of novel small-molecule therapeutics reveals that the majority of them result from analogue design and that their market value represents two-thirds of all small-molecule sales. In natural science, the term analogue, derived from the Latin and Greek analogia, has always been used to describe structural and functional similarity. Extended to drugs, this definition implies that the analogue of an existing drug molecule shares structural and pharmacological similarities with the original compound. Formally, this definition allows the establishment of three categories of drug analogues: analogues possessing chemical and pharmacological similarities (direct analogues); analogues possessing structural similarities only (structural analogues); and chemically different compounds displaying similar pharmacological properties (functional analogues).

Discovery, structure-activity relationship study, and oral analgesic efficacy of cyproheptadine derivatives possessing N-type calcium channel inhibitory activity.

Antiallergic drug cyproheptadine (Cyp) is known to have inhibitory activities for L-type calcium channels in addition to histamine and serotonin receptors. Since we found that Cyp had an inhibitory activity against N-type calcium channel, Cyp was optimized to obtain more selective N-type calcium channel blocker with analgesic action. As a consequence of the optimization, we found 13 with potent N-type calcium channel inhibitory activity which had lower inhibitory activities against L-type calcium channel, histamine (H1), and serotonin (5-HT2A) receptors than those of Cyp. 13 showed an oral analgesic activity in rat formalin-induced pain model.

Effects of rupatadine vs placebo on allergen-induced symptoms in patients exposed to aeroallergens in the Vienna Challenge Chamber.

BACKGROUND: Rupatadine is a novel compound with potent dual antihistamine and platelet-activating factor antagonist activities and no sedative effects. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of rupatadine, 10 mg once daily, and placebo on allergen-induced symptoms (including nasal congestion), nasal airflow, nasal secretion, and subjective tolerability in response to grass pollen in a controlled allergen-exposure chamber. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, 45 patients with a history of seasonal allergic rhinitis received rupatadine or placebo every morning for 8 days in 2 different periods separated by a 14-day washout interval. On day 8 of each crossover period, patients underwent a 6-hour allergen exposure in the Vienna Challenge Chamber, where a constant and homogeneous concentration of aeroallergens was maintained. Subjective and objective assessments were performed online during the exposure. RESULTS: Subjective single and composite nasal and nonnasal symptoms were consistently less severe with rupatadine use than with placebo use starting from the first evaluation at 15 minutes to the end of the 6-hour Vienna Challenge Chamber challenge, with the most significant effects seen for nasal rhinorrhea, nasal itching, sneezing attacks, and total nasal symptoms (P < .001 for all). All the other symptoms (including nasal congestion, P < or = .005) were also significantly reduced with active treatment compared with placebo use. Mean secretion weights and overall feeling of complaint were significantly lower with rupatadine therapy than with placebo use (P < or = .001). Overall, rupatadine treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Rupatadine treatment is effective and well tolerated in patients with allergen-induced symptoms exposed to aeroallergens in a controlled exposure chamber.

Efficacy of an oral antihistamine, loratadine, as compared with a nasal steroid spray, beclomethasone dipropionate, in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and side-effects of oral antihistamine and nasal glucocorticoid therapy in seasonal allergic rhinitis. In a double-blind, double-dummy, group-comparative study, 60 birch and grass pollen allergic patients were treated with either loratadine (10 mg daily) or beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) (100 micrograms in each nostril twice daily) during a 3 weeks' study period. Grading of 4 nasal and 3 non-nasal symptoms was performed at 4 weekly visits, and patients recorded daily symptoms and possible adverse experiences in a diary. Patients treated with BDP showed significantly less nasal blockage than those receiving loratadine (P less than 0.05), but there was no difference (P greater than 0.05) in other nasal symptoms (sneezing, itching and discharge). Patients treated with loratadine showed a statistically significantly greater relief in eye symptoms as compared with BDP (P less than 0.05). The side-effects caused by the 2 treatments were few and insignificant. We conclude that loratadine and intranasal BDP were effective in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, but the spectrum of individual symptoms controlled was different for the 2 drugs.

Efficacy and safety of loratadine suspension in the treatment of children with allergic rhinitis.

The safety and efficacy of loratadine was compared with that of dexchlorpheniramine in children with allergic rhinitis. Twenty-one children received loratadine 0.11-0.24 mg/kg ideal body weight once daily and 19 dexchlorpheniramine 0.10-0.23 mg/kg every 8 h (0.30-0.69 mg/24 h) for 14 consecutive days. Both loratadine and dexchlorpheniramine were effective in reducing nasal and ocular symptoms in allergic children. Substantial improvement in allergy symptoms was observed at the first evaluation (day 3 of treatment) and was maintained for the study duration. No significant trend of abnormality in laboratory parameters was observed. Drowsiness was present only in the dexchlorpheniramine-treated group. Loratadine appears to be a simple, effective and safe therapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Antiallergic activity of H1-receptor antagonists assessed by nasal challenge.

Most oral drugs used for the treatment of allergic rhinitis are classified as H1-receptor antagonists, and although they represent major sales throughout the world, their mechanism of action is still poorly known. In an attempt to understand better the in vivo therapeutic effects of these drugs, a double-blind, crossover study was carried out. The study compared the effects of terfenadine and loratadine, nonsedative H1-receptor antagonists, on the immediate allergic response of the upper airways to challenge with orchard-grass pollens in 14 highly allergic subjects. Increasing numbers of pollen grains were insufflated into the nostrils, and the response of the subjects was assessed by examining symptoms and measuring the release of histamine and prostaglandin D2 in nasal secretions. Each drug was administered for a week before challenge. This study demonstrated the clinical efficacy of both drugs by comparison to that of a control day, since symptoms were observed for a significantly (p = 0.014) greater number of pollen grains. Only one patient had a significant release of histamine when they were treated with loratadine versus 10 during control day (p less than 0.0023) and six when they were treated with terfenadine (p less than 0.01). Prostaglandin D2 release occurred with a higher allergen dose when patients were treated with both drugs. This study indicates that some H1 antagonists also possess antiallergic activities.

A novel method to assess antihistamine and decongestant efficacy.

A method has been developed to equalize as many of the variables as possible in a clinical trial to assess the response to medication in allergic rhinitis. This method was used to study the effectiveness of azatadine maleate and pseudoephedrine sulfate alone and in combination. Azatadine effectively relieved symptoms of hay fever but did not reduce nasal congestion to a significant degree. Pseudoephedrine relieved nasal congestion but did not reduce symptoms. The combination of azatadine and pseudoephedrine relieved both symptoms and congestion.