Night-time sedating H1 -antihistamine increases daytime somnolence but not treatment efficacy in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many physicians believe that the most effective way to treat chronic urticaria is to take a nonsedating second-generation H1 -antihistamine in the morning and a sedating first-generation H1 -antihistamine, usually hydroxyzine, at night to enhance sleep. But is this belief well founded? OBJECTIVES: To test this belief by comparing the effectiveness and prevalence of unwanted sedative effects when treating patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) with levocetirizine 15 mg daily plus hydroxyzine 50 mg at night (levocetirizine plus hydroxyzine) vs. levocetirizine 20 mg daily (levocetirizine monotherapy). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, cross-over study, 24 patients with difficult-to-treat CSU took levocetirizine plus hydroxyzine or levocetirizine monotherapy for periods of 5 days each. At the end of each treatment period, assessments were made of quality of life (Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire, CU-Q2 oL), severity of urticaria symptoms (Urticaria Activity Score, UAS), sleep disturbance during the night and daytime somnolence. RESULTS: Both treatments significantly decreased UAS, night-time sleep disturbances and CU-Q2 oL scores (P < 0·001) without significant differences between the two. Compared with baseline, daytime somnolence was significantly reduced by levocetirizine monotherapy (P = 0·006) but not by levocetirizine plus hydroxyzine (P = 0·218). Direct comparison of the two treatment modalities in terms of daytime somnolence favoured levocetirizine monotherapy (P = 0·026). CONCLUSIONS: The widespread belief that sleep is aided by the addition of a sedating first-generation H1 -antihistamine, usually hydroxyzine, at night is not supported. These results are in line with the urticaria guidelines, which state that first-line treatment for urticaria should be new-generation, nonsedating H1 -antihistamines only.

Real life clinical study design supporting the effectiveness of extra-fine inhaled beclomethasone/formoterol at the level of small airways of asthmatics.

BACKGROUND: In an attempt to establish how treatment with inhaled extra-fine beclomethasone/formoterol (I-EF-BDP/F) formulation differs from other combinations of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long acting beta-agonist (LABA), we studied lung function and markers of airway inflammation upon switching to the extra-fine formulation and after 8 weeks of treatment with it. METHODS: We carried out a real-life clinical observation of undercontrolled asthmatic patients switched over from dry powder inhalers of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol to I-EF-BDP/F (Foster(®), Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., Italy). The effects of 8-weeks of treatment were documented by means of visual analog scale (VAS), quality of life by Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), spirometry and markers of airway or systemic inflammation: exhaled breath temperature (EBT), blood eosinophils (Eos), and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP). Before/after treatment differences between forced vital capacity percent of predicted (%FVC), a simple indicator of small airways involvement, were calculated and subjects were ranked accordingly to reflect the magnitude of the therapeutic response. Subjects above the 75th percentile (n = 15), "top responders", were then compared with those below the 25th percentile (n = 15) "poor responders". RESULTS: On average, the 59 patients completing the study (mean age ± SD 51 ± 12 years, 38 women) had significant improvement in VAS and QLQ scores at the end of the treatment period (49.1 ± 2.4 vs. 73.1 ± 2.05 and 146.1 ± 2.7 vs. 176.7.1 ± 3.4 respectively, P < 0.001), but not in the inflammatory indicators (EBT, CRP and Eos). However, when comparing the "top responders" with the "poor responders", significant improvement in these inflammatory indicators was observed: EBT significantly decreased from 34.04/mean/± 0.30/s.e.m./[°C] to 33.57 ± 0.33, P = 0.003, Eos in blood fell from 381.7 ± 91.2 [cells/µL] to 244.2 ± 43.2, P = 0.02. Before/after treatment differences in hsCRP decreased significantly in the top responders compared with the poor responders (Mann-Whitney test, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Asthmatic subjects who had the most improvement in FVC after transition to I-EF-BDP/F from other combined ICS/LABA preparations also demonstrated a significant decrease in some indicators of airway/systemic inflammation. These results support the notion that I-EF-BDP/F exerts an effect also at the level of the small airways through a reduction of the level of air trapping. Patients in whom inflammation of the small airways plays an important clinical role are the ones to derive most benefit from this small airways tailored treatment. However, improved compliance due to the "promise of a new drug" effect should also be considered as contributing to the treatment results.