A Comparison of Loratadine, a New Nonsedating Antihistamine, with Clemastine and Placebo in Patients with Fall Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

1987 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
James P. Kemp ◽  
Sami L. Bahna ◽  
Paul Chervinsky ◽  
Gary S. Rachelefsky ◽  
James M. Seltzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Parallel Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Daily Diaries ◽  
Ocular Symptoms ◽  
Symptom Scores ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
To Receive

Loratadine is a new nonsedating long-acting H1-antagonist which has been shown to be effective at various doses in controlling symptoms of spring seasonal allergic rhinitis. In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel study, 313 adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe, skin-test positive, fall seasonal rhinitis were randomized to receive either loratadine, 10 mg, in the morning and placebo in the evening, clemastine 1 mg. b.i.d., or placebo b.i.d. for 2 weeks. Patients maintained daily diaries of nasal and ocular symptoms and of adverse effects. They were evaluated before and 7 and 14 days after starting treatment. The mean symptom scores on days 7 and 14 showed greater improvement with both loratadine and clemastine treatments than with placebo. The incidence of somnolence in the loratadine group by comparison with the placebo group was not statistically different, whereas clemastine caused significantly more drowsiness than did placebo. We conclude that loratadine, 10 mg, once a day is as effective as clemastine b.i.d. in decreasing the symptoms of fall seasonal rhinitis and the incidence of somnolence with loratadine is not statistically different from that with placebo.

A Parallel-Group Comparison of Astemizole and Loratadine for the Treatment of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis

1997 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 175-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Al-Muhaimeed
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Perennial Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Runny Nose ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
The Mean ◽  
To Receive

The efficacy and safety of the two antihistamines, astemizole and loratadine, were compared in a double-blind study of 84 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Patients were randomized to receive orally either astemizole 10 mg once daily ( n = 40) or loratadine 10 mg once daily ( n = 44) for 1 week. No other antirhinitis medication was allowed during the study. By day 7 the mean daily symptom scores, recorded on diary cards, were lower in patients receiving astemizole than in those receiving loratadine for runny nose, itchy nose and sneezing, although not for blocked nose, and treatment differences only reached statistical significance for runny nose. After 7 days, 53.75% of patients on astemizole and 38.6% on loratadine were free of symptoms, and 87% of patients on astemizole described the treatment as good or excellent compared with 62% on loratadine. The present results suggest that astemizole may be more effective than loratadine in controlling symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis.

scholarly journals From clinical guidelines to practice. Clinical experience in treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis

2021 ◽  
pp. 62-67
Author(s):  
A. Y. Ovchinnikov ◽  
N. A. Miroshnichenko ◽  
E. M. Khon ◽  
N. P. Jimsheleishvili ◽  
V. A. Simsovа ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Inflammatory Diseases ◽  
Nasal Congestion ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Entire Treatment Period ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Histamine H1 Receptors ◽  
To Receive

Introduction. Antihistamines are the most commonly prescribed class of medications for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). However, they are also widely used in the treatment of inflammatory diseases of the ENT organs. One such drug is levocytirizine, (R) an enantiomer of cetirizine, which is a selective antagonist of peripheral histamine H1-receptors. This article analyzes the properties of levocytirizine in terms of safety and efficacy in allergic rhinitis.Aim of the study is to assess the efficacy of levocetirizine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) versus placebo, and safety for patients with allergic rhinitis.Materials and methods. In this, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 52 patients with year-round allergic rhinitis and 28 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomized to receive levocetirizine 5 mg/day once or placebo. Mean overall measures of five symptoms (nasal congestion, nasal itching, itchy eyes, rhinorrhea, and sneezing) were compared between treatment groups at 1, 2, and 4 weeks. All individual symptom scores were also examined.Results. Levocetirizine showed a significant improvement in the condition of patients with CAR and SAR over the entire treatment period compared to placebo. Assessment of individual symptoms showed statistically significant differences in favor of levocetirizine. Conclusion. Levocetirizine is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated drug for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

scholarly journals Role of Antioxidants on the Clinical Outcome of Patients with Perennial Allergic Rhinitis

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. ar.2016.7.0163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhushan Chauhan ◽  
Manish Gupta ◽  
Komal Chauhan
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Combined Therapy ◽  
Nasal Symptom ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Perennial Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Symptom Scores ◽  
The Mean

Background Antioxidants have a preventive or therapeutic role in oxygen free radical-mediated cell and tissue damage. The study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effects of antioxidants and intranasal steroid fluticasone furoate (FF) on the clinical outcome of patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Methods Subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis (n = 61) were randomly divided into two groups, group A (n = 30) received FF and group B(n = 31) received FF with antioxidants for 6 weeks. Nasal and ocular symptoms were evaluated weekly by using a four-point categoric scale. The efficacy of the study drug was assessed based on the mean change from baseline of the total daytime nasal symptom scores, total nighttime nasal symptom scores, and the composite symptom scores. Results The combined therapy (FF with antioxidants) resulted in marked improvements (p ≤ 0.05) in the mean total daytime nasal symptom scores, total nighttime nasal symptom scores, and composite symptom scores of subjects compared with ones treated with intranasal steroid (FF) alone, which highlighted the therapeutic effect of antioxidants in allergic rhinitis. Conclusion Significant improvement in clinical outcome was observed in subjects who received antioxidants along with FF. However, because this was an open-label study, the results must be interpreted with caution, and further double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trials supplemented with different antioxidants together with intranasal steroids are suggested.

S100 – Mometasone Furoate Reduces Ocular Symptoms of Seasonal AR

2008 ◽  
Vol 139 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. P111-P111
Author(s):  
Bruce Prenner ◽  
Tulin Shekar ◽  
Ariel Teper
Keyword(s):  
Symptom Score ◽  
Nasal Symptom ◽  
Ocular Symptom ◽  
Mometasone Furoate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Daily Diaries ◽  
Ocular Symptoms ◽  
Symptom Scores ◽  
Multi Center Study

Objectives To demonstrate clinical efficacy in reducing the ocular symptoms of SAR using mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS). Methods A phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center study compared the efficacy of MFNS 200 mcg QD, dosed in the morning (AM), for treatment of ocular symptoms associated with SAR. Subjects were at least 12 years old with at least a 2-year history of SAR. In daily diaries, subjects evaluated AM ocular symptom severity on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe) on treatment Days 1 to 15. Co-primary endpoints included change from baseline in average instantaneous (AM) total nasal symptom score (sum of individual nasal symptom scores for congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching) and instantaneous (AM) total ocular symptom score (iTOSS) (sum of individual eye symptom scores for itching/burning, tearing/watering, redness), Days 2 to 15. Results Subjects (429) with similar baseline characteristics and moderate-to-severe ocular symptoms received MFNS 200 mcg QD or placebo. MFNS 200 mcg QD demonstrated superiority over placebo in least squares mean changes from baseline in subject-rated, average AM iTOSS from Day 2 to 15 (−1.71 [−25.1%] and −1.37 [−20.1%], respectively; P equal to 0.026). MFNS was well tolerated. Conclusions MFNS 200 mcg QD demonstrated statistically significant improvements in AM iTOSS associated with SAR. These are the first prospective results demonstrating that MFNS significantly reduces ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.

The Antiaggressive Action of Combined Haloperidol-Propranolol Treatment in Schizophrenia

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 312-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gadi Maoz ◽  
Daniel Stein ◽  
Sorin Meged ◽  
Larisa Kurzman ◽  
Joseph Levine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scales ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Propranolol Group ◽  
Schizophrenic Patients ◽  
Propranolol Treatment ◽  
Simultaneous Decrease ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Haloperidol Treatment ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Drug Free

Psychopharmacological interventions for managing aggression in schizophrenia have thus far yielded inconsistent results. This study evaluates the antiaggressive efficacy of combined haloperidol-propranolol treatment. Thirty-four newly admitted schizophrenic patients were studied in a controlled double-blind trial. Following a 3-day drug-free period and 7 days of haloperidol treatment, patients were randomly assigned to receive either haloperidol-propranolol or haloperidol-placebo for eight consecutive weeks. Doses of medications were adjusted as necessary; biperiden was administered if required. Rating scales were applied to assess aggression, anger, psychosis, depression, anxiety and extrapyramidal symptoms. The mean daily dose of haloperidol was 21 mg (SD = 6.4) in the research group and 29 mg (SD = 6.9) in the controls. Mean and maximal daily doses of propranolol were 159 mg (SD = 61) and 192 mg (SD = 83), and of placebo, 145 mg (SD = 50) and 180 mg (SD = 70), respectively. Compared with the controls, the scores for the research patients decreased significantly from baseline, particularly after 4 weeks of treatment, for some dimensions of anger, psychosis, anxiety, and neuroleptic-induced parkinsonism. A tendency for reduced aggression was shown in the combined haloperidol-propranolol group for some dimensions but not others. These patients also required significantly less biperiden. The tendency toward elevated antiaggressive effect of combined haloperidol-propranolol treatment compared to haloperidol alone may be explained by a simultaneous decrease in aggression, psychotic symptomatology, and anxiety.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document