Rupatadine in allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria.

Histamine is the primary mediator involved the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria, and this explains the prominent role that histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists have in the treatment of these disorders. However, histamine is clearly not the only mediator involved in the inflammatory cascade. There is an emerging view that drugs which can inhibit a broader range of inflammatory processes may prove to be more effective in providing symptomatic relief in both allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. This is an important consideration of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative which provides a scientific basis for defining what are the desirable properties of an 'ideal' antihistamine. In this review of rupatadine, a newer dual inhibitor of histamine H(1)- and PAF-receptors, we evaluate the evidence for a mechanism of action which includes anti-inflammatory effects in addition to a powerful inhibition of H(1)- and PAF-receptors. We assess this in relation to the clinical efficacy (particularly the speed of onset of action) and safety of rupatadine, and importantly its longer term utility in everyday life. In clinical trials, rupatadine has been shown to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). It has a fast onset of action, producing rapid symptomatic relief, and it also has an extended duration of clinical activity which allows once-daily administration. In comparative clinical trials rupatadine was shown to be at least as effective as drugs such as loratadine, cetirizine, desloratadine and ebastine in reducing allergic symptoms in adult/adolescent patients with seasonal, perennial or persistent allergic rhinitis. Importantly, rupatadine demonstrated no adverse cardiovascular effects in preclinical or extensive clinical testing, nor negative significant effects on cognition or psychomotor performance (including a practical driving study). It improved the overall well-being of patients with allergic rhinitis or CIU based on findings from quality of life questionnaires and patient global rating scores in clinical trials. Thus, rupatadine is a recently introduced dual inhibitor of histamine H(1)- and PAF-receptors, which has been shown to be an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. It possesses a broader profile of anti-inflammatory properties inhibiting both inflammatory cells and a range of mediators involved in the early- and late-phase inflammatory response, but the clinical relevance of these effects remain to be clarified.

Post-marketing survey on the safety of sublingual immunotherapy in children below the age of 5 years.

BACKGROUND: The age below 5 years is considered a prudential limit for immunotherapy in view of the possible severity of side-effects. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) seems to be safe, but no study in very young children is available. We performed a safety post-marketing surveillance study in children below 5 years. METHODS: Children aged 3-5 years with respiratory allergy receiving SLIT were followed-up for at least 2 years. A diary card for side-effects was filled by parents at each dose given. Local and systemic side-effects were graded as: mild (no intervention, no dose adjustment), moderate (medical treatment and/or dose reduction), severe (life-threatening/hospitalization/emergency care). The comparative safety of different allergens and regimens was also assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-six children (mean age 4.2 years, 67 male) were included. Seventy-six (60%) had rhinitis with asthma, 34 (27%) rhinitis only and 16 (13%) only asthma. Immunotherapy was prescribed for mites (62%), grasses (22.2%), Parietaria (11.9%), Alternaria (2.4%) and olive (1.5%). Eighteen children underwent an accelerated build-up. The total number of doses was about 39,000. Nine side-effects were reported in seven children (5.6% patients and 0.2/1000 doses). Two episodes of oral itching and one of abdominal pain were mild. Six gastrointestinal side-effects were controlled by reducing the dose. All side-effects occurred during up-dosing phase. No difference in terms of safety among the allergens used was observed. CONCLUSION: SLIT is safe also in children under the age of 5 years.

Effects of budesonide and fluticasone propionate in a placebo-controlled study on symptoms and quality of life in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal glucocorticosteroids are effective in seasonal allergic rhinitis. This study compared the efficacy of budesonide (Rhinocort Turbuhaler) and fluticasone propionate (Flixonase) in this respect. METHODS: Patients (n = 280) were randomized to receive budesonide, 140 microg (delivered dose) once daily, fluticasone, 200 microg once daily, or matching placebos for 5 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in combined nasal symptom (nasal blockage, runny nose, sneezing) scores. Quality of life was measured in 121 patients by means of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and the Short-form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: Both steroids significantly reduced combined nasal symptoms, compared with placebo. There was no significant difference between the two treatments. Substantial or total symptom control was achieved in 89.9% of the budesonide-treated patients, compared with 88.7% with fluticasone and 42.7% with placebo. Four of the five domains of the RQLQ were significantly improved with budesonide, whereas with fluticasone only two domains were improved. Budesonide significantly improved scores in five out of eight domains of the SF-36, whereas no domains were improved with fluticasone. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in efficacy between budesonide and fluticasone in this study. However, greater improvements in quality of life were seen with budesonide than with fluticasone.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the diagnostic accuracy of an electrodermal test in allergic subjects.

BACKGROUND: Many unconventional diagnostic procedures based on bioelectrical skin responses are presently widely used for allergic diseases, but rigorous experimental evaluations of their accuracy are still lacking. AIM: We assessed whether an electrodermal device can correctly diagnose respiratory allergy. METHODS: The diagnostic accuracy of the electrodermal device was assessed in double-blind fashion in 72 allergic patients and 28 healthy volunteers. A random sequence of substances in sealed vials, including histamine, allergens, immunoglobulins at various dilutions and physiological saline, were tested in duplicate in each subject. RESULTS: A wide variability of the measurements was found in most patients irrespective of their allergy status and of the substance tested. Allergic patients showed more negative skin electrical response at the second trial, compared to normal controls, independent of the tested substance. No significant difference in skin electrical response between allergens and negative controls could be detected. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the studied bioelectrical method, under blind testing, cannot correctly detect respiratory allergy.