Characterization of oral immune cells in birch pollen-allergic patients: impact of the oral allergy syndrome and sublingual allergen immunotherapy on antigen-presenting cells.

BACKGROUND: A detailed characterization of human oral immune cells is needed to better understand local mechanisms associated with allergen capture following oral exposure. METHODS: Oral immune cells were characterized by immunohistology and immunofluorescence in biopsies obtained from three healthy individuals and 23 birch pollen-allergic patients with/without oral allergy syndrome (OAS), at baseline and after 5 months of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (AIT). RESULTS: Similar cell subsets (i.e., dendritic cells, mast cells, and T lymphocytes) were detected in oral tissues from healthy and birch pollen-allergic individuals. CD207+ Langerhans cells (LCs) and CD11c+ myeloid dendritic cells (DCs) were found in both the epithelium and the papillary layer of the Lamina propria (LP), whereas CD68+ macrophages, CD117+ mast cells, and CD4+ /CD8+ T cells were rather located in both the papillary and reticular layers of the LP. Patterns of oral immune cells were identical in patients with/without OAS, except lower numbers of CD207+ LCs found in oral tissues from patients with OAS, when compared to OAS- patients (P < 0.05). A 5-month sublingual AIT had a limited impact on oral immune cells, with only a significant increase in IgE+ cells in patients from the active group. Colocalization experiments confirmed that such IgE-expressing cells mostly encompass CD68+ macrophages located in the LP, and to a lesser extent CD207+ LCs in the epithelium. CONCLUSION: Two cell subsets contribute to antigen/allergen uptake in human oral tissues, including (i) CD207+ LCs possibly involved in the physiopathology of OAS and (ii) CD68+ macrophages likely critical in allergen capture via IgE-facilitated mechanisms during sublingual AIT.

Post-treatment efficacy of discontinuous treatment with 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet in adults with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Sustained efficacy over three pollen seasons of pre- and co-seasonal treatment with 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet has been demonstrated in adults with moderate-severe grass pollen-associated allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of discontinuous treatment with 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet during the post-treatment pollen season of this long-term study. METHODS: Adults aged 18-50, sensitized to grass pollen, with a history of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis for more than two pollen seasons, and a retrospective rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score ≥ 12 (0-18 scale), were randomized to receive Placebo or a 300IR tablet daily beginning either 4 months (4M) or 2 months (2M) prior to each pollen season and continuing for its duration for three consecutive years. They were followed over the subsequent immunotherapy-free pollen season. Post-treatment efficacy was evaluated using the Average Adjusted Symptom Score (AAdSS, adjusting the Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Score for rescue medication usage) during the post-treatment pollen period. Secondary endpoints included Average Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Score (ARTSS), Average Rescue Medication Score (ARMS), overall Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) score and safety evaluation. Efficacy variables were analysed using ancova. RESULTS: Overall, 435 patients contributed to the Year 4 efficacy analyses. The Least-Squares (LS) mean differences (95% confidence interval) in AAdSS between active treatment and Placebo over the fourth pollen period were -1.14 (-2.03; -0.26) (P = 0.0114) and -1.43 (-2.32; -0.53) (P = 0.0019) in the (4M) and (2M) groups, corresponding to -22.9% and -28.5% relative LS mean differences (vs. Placebo) respectively. The active groups also showed statistically significant differences compared to Placebo in ARTSS, ARMS and overall RQLQ score. No safety risk was identified during the post-treatment period. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Pre- and co-seasonal treatment with 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet administered discontinuously for three consecutive years is efficacious post-treatment, safe and well tolerated. Benefits of treatment were meaningful to patients.

Implementation of pre-seasonal sublingual immunotherapy with a five-grass pollen tablet during optimal dosage assessment.

BACKGROUND: The optimal dose (300IR) of a five-grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablet in terms of efficacy was previously demonstrated from the first pollen season. OBJECTIVE: Here, we aim to confirm whether this dose remained optimal during the peak of the pollen season by assessing the efficacy and quality of life data. METHODS: A total of 628 subjects with grass pollen rhinoconjunctivitis were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, pan-European trial. Subjects received once-daily tablets (Stallergenes, Antony, France) of 100IR, 300IR, 500IR or placebo, starting 4 months before and throughout the 2005 grass pollen season. The pollen season was defined as the first day of 3 consecutive days with a grass pollen count above 30 grains/m(3) of air, recorded using Hirst-type volumetric pollen traps, to the last day before 3 consecutive days with a pollen count below 30 grains/m(3). RESULTS: The grass pollen season lasted an average of 30 days, with a peak of 12 days. The mean treatment duration before the grass pollen season was similar in the four treatment groups (121.4+/-31.1 to 128.6+/-15.4 days in the safety population). Both the 300IR and 500IR groups had highly significant improvements in Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Score (RTSS) vs. placebo at the peak pollen season (P=0.0005 and 0.0014, respectively), which agreed with improvements in RTSS in the primary evaluations. The average RTSS scores were slightly elevated during the peak pollen season in all treatment groups. The overall Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score confirmed the optimal dosage 300IR at peak (P<0.0001) and at the end (P< or =0.0031) of the pollen season. All doses were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: At the peak pollen season, the efficacy and quality of life data for both 300IR and 500IR groups was significantly improved vs. the placebo group. These results confirm the conclusions of the primary evaluations and validate the use of 300IR tablets for clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of 5-grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablets in patients with different clinical profiles of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal dose of grass pollen tablets for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis patients was previously established in a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 628 adults. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily 5-grass pollen sublingual tablets of 100 IR (index of reactivity), 300 IR or 500 IR, or placebo starting 4 months before the pollen season. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this complementary analysis was to determine whether 300 IR 5-grass pollen SLIT-tablets is effective in different subtypes of patients who are allergic to grass pollen. METHODS: Different subgroups could be identified regarding comorbidities (with or without asthma during the grass-pollen season), sensitization (mono/polysensitization) and symptom severity. An additional exploratory analysis was performed within four subgroups based on pre-treatment assessment: Group 1=high specific IgE; Group 2=high symptom scores; Group 3=high skin sensitivity; Group 4=any of Group 1, 2 or 3. RESULTS: Asthma and sensitization status were not significant covariates as the average Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Score (RTSS) was identical for patients with and without grass-pollen asthma, as well as for mono- and polysensitized patients. Across the four subgroups, average RTSSs (+/- SD) for the optimal dosage (300 IR) were 3.91 +/- 3.16, 3.83 +/- 3.14, 2.55 +/- 2.13 and 3.61 +/- 2.97, for subgroups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. ANCOVA showed that in Group 1 average RTSS did not differ significantly with different doses of SLIT. In Groups 2, 3 and 4, doses of 300 IR and 500 IR were significantly more effective than 100 IR and placebo (P< or =0.035). All doses of SLIT administered in this study can be considered safe in the patients investigated. CONCLUSIONS: The risk-benefit ratio validates the use of 300 IR tablets in clinical practice in all of these patient subgroups, regardless of severity profile, sensitization status and presence of asthma.

Agreement of efficacy assessments for five-grass pollen sublingual tablet immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The optimal dose of five-grass pollen sublingual tablet immunotherapy (SLIT) was established recently by the primary criteria Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Score (RTSS) from the first treatment season. Secondary and exploratory criteria, such as RTSS at peak pollen season, exploratory combined symptom and rescue medication use score, quality of life and immunological markers are calculated and described in this analysis. METHODS: Six hundred and twenty-eight patients with grass pollen rhinoconjunctivitis (> or =2 years duration) were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Europe. Patients received once-daily SLIT (Stallergenes, Antony, France) of 100IR, 300IR, 500IR or placebo, starting 4 months before grass pollen season and throughout the 2005 season. Patients were instructed to take rescue medication only if symptoms were severe and record symptom severity on using the RTSS. RESULTS: Both 300IR and 500IR doses significantly reduced mean RTSS at pollen peak (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.0014, respectively) and the exploratory combined score (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.0026, respectively) compared with placebo. Compared with patients in the placebo group, those who were taking the 300IR and 500IR doses reported significantly improved quality of life using the mean Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores during the peak of the pollen season (P < 0.0001) and at the end of the pollen season (P = 0.0031 and P < or = 0.0001, respectively). Specific immunoglobulin G4 increased significantly depending on the SLIT dose (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: All secondary efficacy criteria, including efficacy at pollen peak, combined score, quality of life and immunological changes, indicate that 300IR tablets represent the optimal dose and suggest it is appropriate for use in clinical practice.

Safety and tolerability of grass pollen tablets in sublingual immunotherapy--a phase-1 study.

BACKGROUND: A single-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. AIMS: To compare the safety and tolerability of four different sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) regimes in grass pollen allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Thirty subjects sensitized to grass pollen were enrolled and allocated to four groups. Sublingual immunotherapy was administered in tablets daily for 10 days. Groups 1 and 2 received incremental sublingual doses of 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 IR, Group 1 daily and Group 2 increments every second day. Repeated constant dose regimens of 300 IR and 500 IR were administered in Groups 3 and 4 respectively. Safety assessments included adverse events (AE), vital signs, electrocardiogram (ECG) and clinical laboratory tests. RESULTS: Sublingual immunotherapy 300 IR (Group 3) administered in a constant dose and incremental doses up to 500 IR (Groups 1 and 2) were generally well tolerated. The majority of AEs were mild to moderate, the most common being oral pruritus, throat irritation and swollen tongue. Severe local AEs (swelling of throat) were observed only for Group 4. No serious systemic AEs were reported. There were no relevant changes in clinical laboratory, vital signs and ECG data. CONCLUSION: Adverse events were mostly local (sublingual), were not severe and resolved rapidly. Using a 5-day induction regimen high-dose treatment up to 500 IR could be administered without important side-effects, in contrast to initiating with a constant dose of 500 IR. The data indicate that a short dose increase phase may reduce the incidence of AEs when high-dose SLIT is administered.

Evaluation of pharmacokinetic interaction between cetirizine and ritonavir, an HIV-1 protease inhibitor, in healthy male volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Serious adverse effects have been observed with some non-sedative H1-antihistamines (terfenadine and astemizole) when they were associated with drugs known to inhibit their metabolism. However, this is not a class effect, and this interaction should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of pharmacokinetic interaction between cetirizine and ritonavir, the most potent cytochrome P450 (CYP) inhibitor. METHODS: An open-label, single-center, one-sequence crossover pharmacokinetic study was conducted in three running periods: cetirizine (CTZ) alone, ritonavir (RTV) alone and then CTZ plus RTV. For each period, steady-state pharmacokinetics were obtained. RTV and CTZ plasma concentrations were determined using validated liquid chromatography methods. The statistical method was based on a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of population geometric means (combination/drug alone) for each drug and for each parameter [area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC(0-tau,ss)), value of maximum plasma concentration (C(max,ss))] and compared to bioequivalence ranges 80-125% and 70-143% for AUC(0-tau,ss) and C(max,ss), respectively. RESULTS: Among the 17 male subjects enrolled (26.4 +/- 8.6 years), 16 completed the study (1 withdrawal after the first period). The RTV pharmacokinetic parameter values were not affected by CTZ co-treatment. With RTV, a 42% increase in the CTZ AUC(0-tau,ss) (3406 versus 4840 microgh/l, 90% CI of 128-158%), a 53% increase in the CTZ elimination half-life (7.8 h versus 11.9 h, P = 0.001), a slight increase (15%) in the CTZ apparent volume of distribution (V(d,ss)/f) (34.7 l versus 39.8 l, P = 0.035), a 29% decrease in the CTZ apparent total body clearance (49.9 ml/min versus 35.3 ml/min, P < 0.001) and bioequivalent C(max,ss) (374 microg/l versus 408 microg/l) were observed. No serious drug related adverse effects were notified. CONCLUSIONS: CTZ does not significantly affect the pharmacokinetic parameters of RTV, and the association does not, thus, require a modification of the dosage of the protease inhibitor. The increased extent of exposure to CTZ in healthy subjects, in the presence of RTV administered at high doses, remained in the same range as previously observed in the elderly or in mildly renally impaired subjects.

Comparative activity of cetirizine and mizolastine on histamine-induced skin wheal and flare responses at 24 h.

AIMS: The aim of our study was to compare the activity of cetirizine 10 mg with that of mizolastine 10 mg vs placebo at 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled, three-way cross-over study with a wash-out period of 7 +/- 2 days between each period. The study included 36 healthy volunteers (18--50 years, mean age = 32 years; 9 males). The objective measurement was the cutaneous reactivity to increasing concentrations of histamine (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 mg ml(-1)) administered by prick tests. The reactivity was evaluated by the wheal and flare areas (mm2). The AUC (area under curves) values of the wheal and flare areas as a function of the log2 transformed histamine concentration were calculated for each subject and treatment, and compared. RESULTS: A highly significant treatment effect was evidenced both for wheal and flare responses (P = 0.0001). This indicates the good activity of both cetirizine 10 mg and mizolastine 10 mg in inhibiting skin wheal and flare reactions to histamine. In addition, the mean AUC values significantly differed between cetirizine and mizolastine (64.8 and 117.8 log2 (mg ml(-1)) x mm2 for wheal, and 939.4 and 2340.8 for flare, respectively; P = 0.0001), with a superior activity of cetirizine than mizolastine at 24 h after intake both on wheal and flare responses. The tolerance of cetirizine and mizolastine was good. The severity of the adverse events was never more than 'moderate', 'fatigue' being the most frequent reported symptom [cetirizine (6 subjects), placebo (3), mizolastine (5)], followed by 'somnolence' [cetirizine (0), placebo (1), mizolastine (3)]. There was no serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that cetirizine (10 mg) suppresses skin reactivity to histamine more effectively than mizolastine (10 mg) 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers.

Twenty-four hours of activity of cetirizine and fexofenadine in the skin.

BACKGROUND: Cetirizine and fexofenadine, the active metabolite of terfenadine, are powerful and well-tolerated H1 receptor antagonists effective in the treatment of skin and nose atopic diseases. OBJECTIVE: We have compared the pharmacodynamic activity of the two antihistamines at therapeutic dosages, cetirizine at 10 mg and fexofenadine at 120 mg and 180 mg, on histamine-induced skin reactivity during a 24-hour period after single intake. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy volunteers participated in a randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study. The areas of wheal and flare induced by histamine (100 mg/mL) administered by prick test were measured at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 hours postdose. Statistical analysis of the areas under the time-response curves was performed by a Friedman's ANOVA followed by a Wilcoxon test and Bonferroni's correction. RESULTS: The three active treatments clearly inhibited the wheal and flare areas throughout the 24-hour period compared with placebo. Maximal inhibition occurred at 4 hours postdose. Between 4 and 24 hours postdose, the time course of inhibition by cetirizine differed significantly (P < 0.001) from that by fexofenadine at either dose, which did not differ from each other. At 24 hours, fexofenadine inhibited <40% of the skin reaction, whereas cetirizine reduced 60% of the wheal. The duration of effect, considered as the time for wheal to be inhibited by at least 70%, also significantly favored cetirizine (19 hours) compared with fexofenadine (9.3 and 8.5 hours for 180 and 120 mg, respectively; P < 0.001). Consistency of activity was evaluated by the frequency of total inhibition of the wheal (> or =95%). Consistency was observed in 26 of 26 participants for cetirizine, 21 of 26 for fexofenadine, 180 mg, and 10 of 26 for fexofenadine, 120 mg (P < 0.001), suggesting better consistency for cetirizine. There was no serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Our study clearly shows better duration of action and consistency of the antihistaminic activity of cetirizine compared with fexofenadine (120 and 180 mg) in the histamine-induced skin reaction during a 24-hour period.

Effect of cetirizine on bronchial hyperresponsiveness in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and asthma.

Although H1 antihistamine compounds (H1) are highly effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR), their role in the treatment of asthma is still controversial. Because a strong association between AR and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) has been reported, this study was designed to assess the effect of a new H1 anti histamine, cetirizine (C), on nonspecific BHR in patients with AR. Twelve patients were included in a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled trial. All patients had positive skin tests for common allergens and showed BHR to inhaled methacholine after specific nasal allergenic challenge. After a washout period of 1 week to ensure the stability of the BHR, the patients received, by crossover randomization, C 10 mg daily or placebo (P) for 2 weeks. After each treatment period, BHR and nasal blocking index (NBI) were measured 1 and 6 h after nasal challenge. Bronchial responsiveness was expressed as methacholine PD20, the provocation dose of methacholine causing a 20% decrease in FEV1. Measurements were then performed after 2 weeks of C and after 2 weeks of P. Baseline values of PD20 (median) measured before challenge showed no difference after cetirizine or after placebo (1.36 mg). Results 1 h after allergen did not show significant differences between C (methacholine PD20=0.522 mg) and placebo (methacholine PD20=0.455 mg). By contrast, 6 h after challenge, methacholine PD20 was 0.918 mg for C and 0.483 mg for P (P=0.042). Similarly, NBI showed no change between C and P 1 h after challenge, whereas the difference was significant 6 h after challenge (P=0.011 ). These data demonstrate a protective nasal effect of C against BHR measured 6 h after nasal allergen challenge in patients with AR. They suggest that C may be useful in patients with asthma associated with AR.

Consistency and efficacy of cetirizine (10 mg) versus ebastine (20 mg) at 4 h on skin reactivity.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the consistency and efficacy of the two antihistamines, cetirizine (10 mg) and ebastine (20 mg) on histamine skin reactivity 4 h after treatment. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy volunteers participated in a randomised double-blind cross-over study. The areas of wheals and flares induced by increasing (0, 5, 10, 50, 100, 200, 300 mg/ml) histamine concentrations, administered by prick tests, were measured before and 4 h after intake of cetirizine or ebastine. RESULTS: Before treatment, concentration-response curves were similar and threshold concentrations identical (0.57 mg/ml and 0.57 mg/ml for cetirizine and ebastine, respectively). Both treatments exerted a significant effect. However, cetirizine was significantly more efficient than ebastine 20 mg (P < 0.01 both for wheals and flares). After cetirizine, the threshold concentration inducing a 3-mm(2 )wheal was significantly higher (266 mg/ml) than after ebastine (77 mg/ml) (P < 0.01), and total inhibition of the wheal was obtained in 18 of 24 patients for cetirizine and in 4 of 24 for ebastine (P < 0.001). The variation coefficient for the wheal reaction was 31% for cetirizine and 159% for ebastine, indicating a much lower variability after cetirizine. CONCLUSION: Our study shows clearly that the efficacy of a single therapeutic dosage of cetirizine is greater and consistently better than that of ebastine for suppression of cutaneous reactivity to histamine 4 h after treatment in healthy volunteers. The need for ebastine to metabolise into the active carebastine might explain this difference.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of cetirizine and ebastine in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Cetirizine and ebastine are two second-generation histamine H1 antagonists undergoing evaluation for treatment of perennial rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: The clinical efficacy and safety of once daily cetirizine 10 mg were compared with ebastine 10 mg in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis in a 4-week, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, multicenter study. METHOD: Two hundred fourteen patients (120 females, 94 males, aged 17 to 70 years, mean 31.2 years) were selected on the basis of perennial allergic rhinitis history, positive skin test for perennial allergens and a minimum rhinitis symptom score of 6/12. Patients recorded nasal symptom severity (nasal stuffiness, nasal discharge, sneezing, and itching) once daily on diary cards using a rating scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe). Clinicians made an overall evaluation after 4 weeks of treatment. An intent-to-treat-analysis was performed comparing cetirizine (106 patients) and ebastine groups (108 patients). RESULTS: The individual and total baseline symptom scores were comparable in both treatment groups. During the first week, the percentage mean decrease in the total nasal symptom score from baseline (sum of nasal stuffiness, discharge, sneezing, and itching) was significantly higher for cetirizine 46.2% than for ebastine 32.8% (P = .037). After 4 weeks of treatment, total symptom score improvement was 53.7% for cetirizine and 44.7% for ebastine (P = .12), and the clinician's overall evaluation showed that the percentage of symptom-free patients was significantly higher for cetirizine 17.8% than for ebastine 6.9% (P = .02). Cetirizine also significantly improved nasal stuffiness. An associated antiinflammatory effect is suggested. Commonly reported drug-related side effects were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that both antihistamines, cetirizine 10 mg and ebastine 10 mg once a day, improved symptom scores of patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Cetirizine, however, provided faster improvement and total relief in a greater number of patients after 4 weeks.

Consistency of the efficacy of cetirizine and ebastine on skin reactivity.

BACKGROUND: At therapeutic dosage, cetirizine and ebastine induce significant inhibition of skin reactivity to histamine. The consistency of their efficacy, that is, efficacy with the least interindividual variability among subjects, has not been carefully assessed, however. OBJECTIVE: To compare the consistency and efficacy of these antihistamines on skin reactivity. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy volunteers participated in a randomized double-blind crossover study. The areas of wheals and flares induced by increasing (0, 5, 10, 50, 100, 200, and 300 mg/mL) histamine concentrations, administered by prick tests, were measured before and four hours after intake of 10 mg of each antihistamine, allowing concentration-response curves to be established. The threshold histamine concentrations inducing wheal areas of 3 mm2 (positivity) were calculated by interpolation. The coefficient of variation (SD/mean %) was used to evaluate the consistency of the response. RESULTS: Pretreatment concentration-response curves were similar, and threshold concentrations identical (0.29 mg/mL and 0.34 mg/mL for cetirizine and ebastine, respectively). For both, curves were lower after treatment than before. After cetirizine, the threshold concentration was significantly higher (217 mg/mL) than after ebastine (0.82 mg/mL) (P < .001), and total inhibition of the wheal reaction was observed in 21 of 24 patients at the lowest histamine concentration and in 17 of 24 at the highest. Ebastine never totally inhibited reaction, even to 5 mg/mL of histamine. Over the entire concentration-response curve, the coefficient of variation for the wheal reaction was 6.3% for cetirizine and 72.6% for ebastine, and, for flares, 11.0% and 83.7%, respectively. Hence, variability was much lower after cetirizine. CONCLUSION: Our study shows clearly that the efficacy of a single therapeutic dosage of cetirizine is consistently good for suppression of cutaneous reactivity to histamine in healthy volunteers. The need for ebastine to metabolize into the active carebastine might explain its lesser consistency.

Nasal effect of cetirizine and loratadine at 24 hours in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Numerous studies have compared the duration of the cutaneous effect of cetirizine and loratadine. We assessed their nasal effects 24 hours after administration in patients with allergic rhinitis, using a randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled trial. Nasal challenge was performed by nebulization of increasing doubling dosages of histamine (0.04-1.28 mg/nostril) in 12 patients (seven males, five females, aged 31 +/- 7 years). Nasal airway resistance was measured by posterior rhinomanometry 24 hours after intake of cetirizine (10 mg), loratadine (10 mg), or placebo. Baseline nasal airway resistance was identical on all study days (2.86 +/- 0.10 cm H2 O/L per second). Twenty-four hours after intake, the dose-response curve of nasal obstruction to histamine was significantly lower after treatment with cetirizine compared with placebo (P < 0.05). However, although the curve was lower on loratadine than on placebo, the curves did not differ significantly. In conclusion, our study shows significant efficacy of cetirizine, but not of loratadine, in the nose at 24 hours after a single dose. This suggests that the nasal action of cetirizine is longer lasting than that of loratadine in patients with allergic rhinitis.

[Combined therapies in family practice and hospitals. A controlled clinical study of a population of 162 patients with criteria of age-related memory disorders]. / Thérapies combinées en médecine praticienne et hospitalière. Etude clinique contrôlée d'une population de 162 sujets répondant aux critères des troubles de la mémoire liés à l'âge (AAMI).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the combination of drug and cognitive therapy on age-associated memory impairment (AAMI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A double-blind randomized trial was performed involving 162 patients with age-associated memory impairment selected and followed by their general practitioners. Two intervention methods-a drug and a cognitive therapy-were assessed in combination. Three randomized parallel groups of 54 patients each, aged 55 years and over, were followed and treated for 3 months. After a placebo washout period of 10 days, one group received 2.4 g of piracetam, another group, 4.8 g and the third, a placebo. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients, 45 in each group, completed the study. Combined therapy was most effective in patients whose baseline performance on memory tests was lowest. The best results were observed with piracetam combined with memory training. This result confirmed by the global impression of the principal investigator was in agreement with findings of previous double-blind placebo-controlled trials assessing the combined effect of drug treatment and memory training. CONCLUSION: This result confirmed by the global impression of the principal investigator was in agreement with findings of previous double-blind placebo-controlled trials assessing the combined effect of drug treatment and memory training.

Onset of action in the nasal antihistaminic effect of cetirizine and loratadine in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Several studies have compared the cutaneous efficacy of cetirizine and loratadine and their onset of action. We assessed the nasal effect of these two antihistamines in a randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled trial in order to compare objectively their efficacy and onset of action in the noses of patients with allergic rhinitis. Nasal challenge was performed by nebulization of increasing doubling doses of histamine (0, 0.04-1.28 mg/nostril) in 12 patients (eight men, four women, aged 22-39 years). Nasal airway resistance (NAR) was measured by posterior rhinomanometry either 1.5 h or 4 h after intake of cetirizine (10 mg), loratadine (10 mg), or placebo. Baseline NAR was identical between all study days (2.60-2.88 cmH2O.l-1.s). One and a half hours after intake, the increase in NAR induced by histamine was significantly reduced by both cetirizine and loratadine in contrast to placebo. However, with cetirizine the nasal obstruction was significantly lower than with loratadine (P < 0.05). Four hours after intake, a similar inhibition of the nasal obstruction caused by histamine was observed with both cetirizine and loratadine (P < 0.05). In conclusion, this study found cetirizine and loratadine to have similar nasal efficacy at therapeutic dosage 4 h after intake, whereas cetirizine was more effective than loratadine 1.5 h after intake. In agreement with the results observed in the skin, our study suggests a more rapid onset of action of cetirizine in the nose in allergic rhinitis.

Economic evaluation of Nootropil in the treatment of acute stroke in France.

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the economic impact of treatment of acute ischaemic stroke with piracetam vs placebo according to the societal perspective in France. Socio-demographic, clinical and resource utilisation data for piracetam and placebo patients during the acute phase following stroke was obtained from the Piracetam Acute Stroke Study (PASS) clinical trial database. The economic analysis was based on the population defined as being treated within 6 h 59 min following stroke and presenting an initial Orgogozo score of less than 55. Resource utilisation data concerning the rehabilitation phase, outpatient follow-up and institutionalisation was obtained from decision tree analysis. There was a higher percentage of autonomous patients in the piracetam group (27.8%) compared to placebo (22.9%). The mean duration of hospitalisation (autonomous 21.8 days; non-autonomous 30.3 days) and the cost of an autonomous patient was lower than a non-autonomous patient. The total cost per stroke patient receiving piracetam was estimated at 103 KF during the 6-month period, compared to 106 KF per placebo patient. The major cost driver was hospitalisation during the acute phase, representing approximately 50% of the total cost per patient. In patients with moderate to severe stroke treated within 6.59 h, piracetam was cost-effective compared to placebo over the 6-month study period.

Antihistamines and production of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and interleukin-8 by human bronchial epithelial cells in vitro: evaluation of the effects of loratadine and cetirizine.

1. In this study, we compared the effects of two antihistamine drugs on the production of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and interleukin-8 by human bronchial epithelial cells in vitro. 2. Cytokine production was assessed by the use of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. 3. Epithelial cells spontaneously released both cytokines and tumor necrosis factor alone induced a significant increase in this production but loratadine and cetirizine had no effect at the various concentrations studied. 4. The antihistamines have no effect and this suggests that histamine plays no role in cytokine production under these conditions.

[Confusion syndromes in hospitalized aged patients: polymorphism of symptoms and course. Prospective study of 183 patients]. / Les syndromes confusionnels du sujet âgé hospitalisé: polymorphisme sémiologique et évolutif. Etude prospective de 183 patients.

Using explicit criteria contained in the DSM III R, we collected in a prospective cohort study clinical features, outcome and risk factors from two cohorts of delirium in hospitalized elderly patients: 138 hospitalized in geriatric department and 45 patients admitted to an acute and comprehensive care hospital. The clinical features were assessed using a quantitative scale (developed by Derouesné). Delirium was unrecognized or misdiagnosed by physicians in 34% of the cases. The onset was known only two thirds of cases. The incidence of hyperactive type, prolonged hospital stay, poor outcomes (persistent delirium leading up to dementia) were highest in subjects admitted in comprehensive hospital. The etiology of delirium is complex and multifactorial. An underlying cause was identified in 80% of patients. The length or the worsening of delirium was significantly higher in patients with psychiatric or dementia comorbidity (OR: 0.2; IC 95%: 0.1-0.5). The prognosis was better in patients without psychoactive medications (OR: 0.2; IC 95%: 0.1-0.4) or with metabolic abnormalities or acute diseases and disorders (OR: 3.3; IC 95%: 1.5-7.6). The predisposing factors to the development of dementia were prior use of psychoactive medications and signs of prior cognitive impairment. This article suggests delirium in elderly patients is associated with several outcomes. The prognosis should be improved at admission by specific scale and an evaluation of predisposing and precipitating factors.

Leukotriene B4 production by blood neutrophils in allergic rhinitis--effects of cetirizine.

BACKGROUND: Mucosal inflammatory processes in late phase of allergic diseases involve cytokine production, cell adhesion molecule overexpression and release of inflammatory mediators with chemotactic activity, such as leukotriene B4 (LTB4). We had previously observed increased production of LTB4 by neutrophils in patients with allergic rhinitis and discussed the role of granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) priming. Some antihistaminic compounds were shown to diminish the production of leukotrienes by neutrophils. OBJECTIVES: In a first step, we evaluated in ex vivo and in vitro studies, the effects of cetirizine on LTB4 production by blood neutrophils from allergic and healthy subjects. In a second step, we studied the in vitro effect of cetirizine on LTB4 production by neutrophils from healthy subjects during GM-CSF priming of these cells. METHODS: Neutrophils from both populations were purified from venous blood and LTB4 production was measured using high performance liquid cromatography (HPLC) method. RESULTS: In ex vivo studies, cetirizine treatment induced a decreased LTB4 production by neutrophils in allergic rhinitis. This effect of decreased LTB4 production was reproduced in vitro with 10(-8)-10(-6)M cetirizine. Nevertheless, this anti-H1 compound had no effect on neutrophil priming with GM-CSF. CONCLUSION: As LTB4 is an important chemotactic factor, Cetirizine could act on inflammatory cell recruitment by inhibiting LTB4 production by neutrophils.