Effectiveness and safety of fexofenadine, a new nonsedating H1-receptor antagonist, in the treatment of fall allergies.

Fexofenadine HCl is a new, nonsedating H1-receptor antagonist approved for treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, 588 patients with fall SAR rated the severity of their symptoms using a scoring system at a screening visit and during a 3-day placebo lead-in period. Patients who did not respond to placebo and met symptom severity criteria were randomized to receive placebo or fexofenadine HCl at 40, 60, or 120 mg bid at 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. for 14 days. Patients continued to rate the severity of their symptoms immediately before receiving each dose (at trough). A total of 545 patients were included in an intent-to-treat analysis. The change from baseline in the primary efficacy variable (average daily 7:00 p.m. reflective symptom scores) was significantly greater in patients receiving all dosages of fexofenadine HCl than placebo (p < 0.01). All active dosages produced significant decreases (p < 0.05) in secondary end points: 7:00 a.m. reflective symptom scoring; 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. scoring 1-hour before dose; and bedtime scoring 1-3 hours after the 7:00 p.m. dose. All dosages of fexofenadine HCl were well tolerated, and no effect on QTc was observed. In conclusion, fexofenadine HCl is safe and effective in the treatment of fall SAR, with 60 mg bid being the optimal therapeutic dosage.

The anticholinergic agent, ipratropium bromide, is useful in the treatment of rhinorrhea associated with perennial allergic rhinitis.

The effects of the new ipratropium bromide nasal spray on rhinorrhea associated with perennial allergic rhinitis were studied in 219 patients over eight weeks in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial. The purpose of the study was to determine whether the new spray reduces nasal hypersecretion in allergic patients without causing excessive dryness or other potential cholinergic side effects. The investigators compared two doses of the spray (42 or 84 mcg/nostril t.i.d.) to placebo. Two hundred and nineteen patients were admitted to the study; 176 completed it. Study design included one week of screening to confirm a diagnosis of perennial allergic rhinitis with clinically significant rhinorrhea, one week of single-blind treatment with a placebo consisting of the saline vehicle of the spray, an eight-week double-blind treatment-comparison period, and one week of follow-up without treatment. Both doses of ipratropium bromide nasal spray significantly reduced the hypersecretion associated with PAR, compared with placebo. The two doses of active drug were equally effective. Treatment differences were noticeable during the first week and remained relatively stable during the eight-week treatment period. There was no evidence of nasal rebound after discontinuation of treatment. The incidence of side effects was comparable to placebo. The spray was well-tolerated, and was not associated with any significant adverse events.

Comparative efficacy and safety of once-daily versus twice-daily loratadine-pseudoephedrine combinations versus placebo in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of Claritin-D 24 Hour (once daily) with that of Claritin-D 12 Hour (twice daily) and placebo in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 469 patients with moderate-to-severe SAR symptoms were treated for 2 weeks with one of the following: Claritin-D 24 Hour (a combination tablet formulation of loratadine 10 mg in the coating and pseudoephedrine sulfate 240 mg in an extended-release core), Claritin-D 12 Hour (a combination tablet formulation of loratadine 5 mg in the tablet coating and 120 mg pseudoephedrine sulfate, 60 mg in the coating and 60 mg in the core), or placebo. Claritin-D 24 Hour and Claritin-D 12 Hour were consistently superior to placebo (P < 0.01) in reducing total, nasal, and nonnasal symptom scores. Patients in the Claritin-D 24 Hour and Claritin-D 12 Hour groups also had significantly greater (P

Dose ranging study of mometasone furoate (Nasonex) in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Topical nasal corticosteroids are rapidly gaining acceptance as first-line therapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis, but there is a desire for effective corticosteroids with an improved safety profile over existing products. OBJECTIVE: A multicenter, double-blind dose ranging study was conducted to compare the activity and tolerance of four doses of mometasone furoate nasal spray (tradename Nasonex) and placebo in adult patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Four hundred eighty patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were enrolled and randomized to receive mometasone furoate nasal spray 50 micrograms (n = 96), 100 micrograms (n = 95), 200 micrograms (n = 98) or 800 micrograms (n = 95), or placebo vehicle (n = 95) once daily for 28 days. RESULTS: All of the doses of mometasone furoate nasal spray showed activity in reducing the severity of rhinitis. The 200-microgram dose reduced total nasal symptom scores and total symptom scores throughout the study (P < .05 versus placebo vehicle). The 50-microgram dose and the 100-microgram dose showed less consistent activity at early timepoints (days 3 and 7), while the 800 microgram dose did not provide significant additional benefits over the 200-microgram dose. All dose levels were well tolerated CONCLUSION: The results of this trial indicate that 200 micrograms once daily is the optimum dose of mometasone furoate nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Long-term treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis with ipratropium bromide nasal spray 0.06%.

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ipratropium bromide nasal spray 0.06% (aqueous solution), 84 micrograms per nostril three times a day, in reducing nasal hypersecretion in the long-term treatment of patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). This was an open-label 1-year trial. In the first 6 months all patients were treated with two puffs ipratropium bromide nasal spray 0.06%, 84 micrograms per nostril three times per day, unless they were unable to tolerate the dose. In the last 6 months the dose could be reduced to the lowest amount required to control rhinorrhea. Ninety-six patients entered the trial, and 47 completed it. Sixty-three patients completed more than 6 months of treatment. Patient and physician global evaluation suggested that ipratropium bromide nasal spray 0.06% is effective in controlling rhinorrhea associated with PAR and can contribute to control of congestion, postnasal drip, and sneezing. There was also a trend toward reduction of mucosal edema and improvement in quality of life. The most common drug-related adverse events were nasal dryness, epistaxis/nose bleed, and increased rhinitis. Most adverse events were mild and resulted in drug discontinuation in less than 10% of patients. Ipratropium bromide nasal spray was well tolerated and not associated with serious drug-related adverse events or clinically significant anticholinergic side effects. Use of ipratropium bromide nasal spray alone or with other standard medications should be considered in treating patients with PAR.

A novel breath actuated device (Autohaler) consistently actuates during the early phase of inspiration.

OBJECTIVE: To establish and quantify the point during inspiration that the Autohaler (AH) inhalation system releases a metered dose of aerosol (placebo). The second objective was to determine if the Autohaler system actuates consistently, regardless of the canister life. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, two-period crossover, one-day trial. SETTING: Community based allergy and asthma clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve patients with mild to moderate asthma. RESULTS: Mean verbal training time for the AH which included the patient demonstrating their ability to correctly use the AH was approximately 6 minutes. The mean time for actuation for the AH early in its canister life ("new canister") was 195 msec compared to 205 msec for the AH late in its canister life ("old canister") (p = 0.589). This represented the early part of inspiration as patients had a mean inspiratory duration of 2231 msec for the "new" AH and 2343 msec for the "old" AH. The mean percentage of inspiration time required to actuate the "new" AH was 8.92% compared to 8.82% for the "old" AH. Patients rated the system as easier to much easier to use compared with their current standard press and breathe inhaler. CONCLUSIONS: The AH consistently actuates early during inspiration, which is considered the optimal time for drug delivery, regardless of the canister life.

The effect of inhibition of 5-lipoxygenase by zileuton in mild-to-moderate asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of inhibiting the formation of the 5-lipoxygenase products of arachidonic acid by the 5-lipoxygenase inhibitor zileuton in the treatment of mild-to-moderate asthma. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: University hospitals and private allergy and pulmonary practices. PATIENTS: A total of 139 persons with asthma who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of 40% to 75% of the predicted value and who were not being treated with inhaled or oral steroids. INTERVENTION: Zileuton, 2.4 g/d or 1.6 g/d, or placebo for 4 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Airway function, beta-agonist use, and symptoms; inhibition of 5-lipoxygenase assessed by measurement of urinary leukotriene E4 (LTE4). RESULTS: Zileuton produced a 0.35-L (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.45 L) increase in the FEV1 within 1 hour of administration (P < 0.001 compared with placebo), equivalent to a 14.6% increase from baseline. After 4 weeks of zileuton therapy, airway function and symptoms improved, with the greatest improvements occurring in the 2.4 g/d group: This group's FEV1 increased by 0.32 L (CI, 0.16 to 0.48 L), a 13.4% increase, compared with a 0.05-L (CI, -0.10 to 0.20 L) increase in patients taking placebo (P = 0.02). Symptoms and frequency of beta-agonist use also decreased with zileuton, 2.4 g/d. The mean urinary LTE4 level decreased by 39.2 pg/mg creatinine (CI, 18.1 to 60.4 pg/mg creatinine) and 26.5 pg/mg creatinine (CI, 6.6 to 46.5 pg/mg creatinine) in the 2.4 g/d and 1.6 g/d groups, respectively, compared with a slight increase in the placebo group (P = 0.007 and P = 0.05). No difference was noted in the number of adverse events among treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of 5-lipoxygenase can improve airway function and decrease symptoms and medication use in patients with asthma, suggesting that this inhibition can be useful therapy for asthma. Also, 5-lipoxygenase products may mediate part of the baseline airway obstruction in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma.

Administration errors with a conventional metered dose inhaler versus a novel breath actuated device.

Metered dose inhalers are difficult for patients to use. A device that eliminates coordination and timing of actuation may simplify the use of metered dose inhalers. This trial compared (1) number of errors made and (2) specific errors made between the conventional press and breathe metered dose inhaler (MDI) and the novel breath actuated Autohaler inhalation device in 24 subjects. We studied the use of each device in 12 patients trained and experienced in using an MDI and in 12 volunteers who had never been exposed to any inhalation device. We observed that even experienced patients continue to have difficulty with the coordination and timing of metered dose inhalers. The volunteer group had equal difficulty with both devices but it appeared that it was easier for them to learn how to use the breath actuated device than the MDI.

Sensitivity of FEV1 response following one and two inhalations of albuterol: a pilot study.

Eleven patients entered a pilot study designed to evaluate the proportion of eligible responders following a single inhalation of albuterol aerosol, the degree of response, and the sensitivity to distinguish between one and two inhalations based on FEV1 response. Each patient received a single inhalation at 0 and 60 minutes. FEV1 was measured 30 and 60 minutes after each inhalation. Most patients (82%) responded to a single inhalation and the majority (73%) were capable of further response after two inhalations. This study design was able to distinguish FEV1 responses to one and two inhalations of albuterol and provide upward and downward sensitivity sufficient to detect major differences in products.

H1-receptor antagonist treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

H1-receptor antagonists are usually first-line treatment given for seasonal allergic rhinitis. However, many patients suffer with symptoms of allergic rhinitis rather than tolerate the sedative and anticholinergic side effects of the first-generation H1-receptor antagonists. Researchers have sought to replace these older H1-receptor antagonists with a new generation of H1-receptor antagonists that approach the optimal therapy: clinically effective, safe, free of side effects, and convenient for the patient. Among the new second-generation H1-receptor antagonists are terfenadine and astemizole (already marketed) and loratadine and cetirizine, which are expected to be approved soon. All four demonstrate efficacy, convenience, and minimal side effects on the central nervous system. In this review of the current treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, the clinical studies that compare these four new second-generation H1-receptor antagonists are discussed.

New drugs in treatment of asthma.

Therapy for bronchial asthma should be preventive when possible. Around-the-clock treatment with theophylline is a new way of using an old drug. Beta2-adrenergic receptor stimulators, cromolyn sodium, and steroids in aerosol form are new drugs that are useful in treatment of asthma. The good news with respect to drug treatment of asthma is that in addition to the old reliable medications which have provided good relief-including epinephrine, ephedrine, isoproterenol, aminophylline, and steroids given orally and parenterally-new drugs are available which have been extremely helpful in controlling symptoms in many patients. The bad news is that none of the new agents is a panacea and that many of them have significant undesirable side effects. It is the physician's responsibility to be wary of the new drugs for asthma and to use them appropriately.