Consensus Group on New-Generation Antihistamines (CONGA): present status and recommendations

Pruritus: still a challenge

Pruritus is a symptom that may be associated with a wide array of diseases - skin diseases, systemic diseases or even those without a defined cause. According to its severity and evolution, it may compromise the patients' quality of life in a significant way. New therapeutic approaches, in which histamine release is not the main event, are being described for pruritus control. Therefore, taking into account the origin of the mediators of pruritus, we conducted a review of the available resources emphasizing that, although very important, anti-histamines are not the answer for every kind of pruritus.

Pharmacology of antihistamines

This article reviews the molecular biology of the interaction of histamine with its H1-receptor and describes the concept that H1-antihistamines are not receptor antagonists but are inverse agonists i.e. they produce the opposite effect on the receptor to histamine. It then discourages the use of first-generation H1-antihistamines in clinical practice today for two main reasons. First, they are less effective than second generation H1-antihistamines. Second, they have unwanted side effects, particularly central nervous system and anti-cholinergic effects, and have the potential for causing severe toxic reactions which are not shared by second-generation H1-antihistamines. There are many efficacious and safe second-generation H1-antihistamines on the market for the treatment of allergic disease. Of the three drugs highlighted in this review, levocetirizine and fexofenadine are the most efficacious in humans in vivo. However, levocetirizine may cause somnolence in susceptible individuals while fexofenadine has a relatively short duration of action requiring twice daily administration for full all round daily protection. While desloratadine is less efficacious, it has the advantages of rarely causing somnolence and having a long duration of action. Lastly, all H1-antihistamines have anti-inflammatory effects but it requires regular daily dosing rather than dosing 'on-demand' for this effect to be clinically demonstrable.

Pharmacology of antihistamines

This article reviews the molecular biology of the interaction of histamine with its H₁-receptor and describes the concept that H₁-antihistamines are not receptor antagonists but are inverse agonists i.e. they produce the opposite effect on the receptor to histamine. It then discourages the use of first-generation H₁-antihistamines in clinical practice today for two main reasons. First, they are less effective than second generation H₁-antihistamines. Second, they have unwanted side effects, particularly central nervous system and anti-cholinergic effects, and have the potential for causing severe toxic reactions which are not shared by second-generation H₁-antihistamines. There are many efficacious and safe second-generation H₁-antihistamines on the market for the treatment of allergic disease. Of the three drugs highlighted in this review, levocetirizine and fexofenadine are the most efficacious in humans in vivo. However, levocetirizine may cause somnolence in susceptible individuals while fexofenadine has a relatively short duration of action requiring twice daily administration for full all round daily protection. While desloratadine is less efficacious, it has the advantages of rarely causing somnolence and having a long duration of action. Lastly, all H₁-antihistamines have anti-inflammatory effects but it requires regular daily dosing rather than dosing 'on-demand' for this effect to be clinically demonstrable.

Preclinical toxicity profile of oral bilastine

As part of the bilastine development program, and as mandated by regulatory authorities, several studies were performed with oral bilastine in different animal species to evaluate its toxicity profile. Toxicokinetic analyses conducted in tandem to evaluate systemic exposure, gender differences, and dose proportionality in the different animal species indicated that animals were systemically exposed to bilastine during treatment. Repeated-dose toxicity studies in beagle dogs (52 weeks) and in rats and mice (13 weeks) showed that bilastine at doses up to 2,000 mg/kg/day was not associated with any mortality, ocular effects, or nodules/masses. Likewise, no bilastine-associated neoplastic lesions were observed in rats and mice after 104 weeks of treatment with bilastine at doses up to 2,000 mg/kg/day. In general, bilastine-related clinical signs, body-weight changes, food consumption, clinical chemistry, haematology, and macro- and microscopic findings were of low order and reversible, with effects present only at the highest doses administered. Bilastine (up to 1,000 mg/kg/day) was well tolerated in pregnant/lactating rats and in their offspring and subsequent generations. With respect to effects on embryofoetal development in rabbits, bilastine at 400 mg/kg/day (the highest dose evaluated) was assessed to be the no observed adverse effects level. Overall, bilastine demonstrated a favorable toxicity profile in all animal models investigated and at higher doses than the corresponding recommended daily human dosage.

An overview of bilastine metabolism during preclinical investigations

Knowledge of the biotransformation of oral H₁ antihistamines is clinically important because it can define their pharmacokinetic profile through possible effects on absorption (i.e., first-pass metabolism) and elimination. Further, clinically significant interactions with inhibitors of cytochrome P450 (CYP) have previously been reported for drugs of this therapeutic group, such as terfenadine and astemizole, indicating the possibility of drug-drug interactions involving agents that share the same metabolic pathway. The aim of this article was to review the preclinical testing of a new antihistamine (i.e., bilastine) in terms of its biotransformation in various animal species, including humans, and to evaluate its potential for possible drug-drug interactions involving the CYP system. A wide array of preclinical experiments were reviewed, all of which demonstrated that bilastine undergoes minimal metabolism in all species tested to date, including humans. Further, bilastine did not interact significantly, either as an inhibitor or inducer, with the CYP enzyme system, suggesting a low propensity for involvement in drug-drug interactions. These characteristics demonstrate the potential for bilastine to be a good choice for allergic patients receiving treatment for other concomitant diseases, including those with renal or hepatic dysfunction.

A survey of the factors associated with concerns about oral antihistamine use in Japanese pruritic skin disease patients

BACKGROUND

To improve health outcomes during the treatment for pruritic skin diseases, it is important to understand which factors most influence patients' concerns about oral antihistamine drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To survey the nature of patients' concerns about oral antihistamine drugs and to examine the factors associated with them.

METHODS

Patients with pruritic skin diseases expressed their concerns regarding the use of oral antihistamine drugs. The independent effects of the patients' background characteristics on their concerns were examined by multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 291 outpatients were completed the study. Overall, 32% of patients were worried about using oral antihistamine drugs. The most common concern was about their adverse drug events (except drowsiness) and the effects of long-term use. Overall, being concerned about antihistamine use was found to be significantly and independently associated with a younger age, severe itching, being a homemaker, and having previous personal experience of embarrassment due to drowsiness caused by taking over-the-counter drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors are associated with altered self-reported concerns about antihistamines. Our results suggest the importance of understanding the nature of patients' fears about oral antihistamine use so that sound advice can be offered to them in a timely manner.

An overview of the novel H1-antihistamine bilastine in allergic rhinitis and urticaria

Currently available second-generation H1-antihistamines include a wide group of drugs with a better therapeutic index (or risk-benefit ratio) than the classic antihistamines, although their properties and safety profiles may differ. Bilastine is a newly registered H1-antihistamine for the oral treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria, with established antihistaminic and antiallergic properties. Clinical studies in allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria show that once-daily treatment with bilastine 20 mg is effective in managing symptoms and improving patient's quality of life, with at least comparable efficacy to other nonsedative H1-antihistamines. As far as studies in healthy volunteers, clinical assays and clinical experience can establish, bilastine's safety profile is satisfactory, since it lacks anticholinergic effects, does not impair psychomotor performance or actual driving, and appears to be entirely free from cardiovascular effects.

Atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis--do co-effects in therapy exist?

Atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis frequently appear together in the same patients. The pathogenesis of both disorders is complex and still incompletely understood. Nevertheless, pathophysiological overlaps suggest the existence of potential therapeutic co-effects. While data pointing towards a positive effect of allergen elimination for both diseases is still limited, there is now increasing evidence showing beneficial effects of specific immunotherapy in patients suffering from atopic dermatitis and additional type I allergies. H(1)-antihistamines were also found to exert moderate positive effects on the symptoms of atopic dermatitis in single studies. In summary, a limited therapeutic co-effect of the above mentioned treatment options can be expected in case of the parallel existence of atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis in the same patient. More studies on this issue during the next years are desirable. In addition, a better understanding of the pathophysiology should have a positive impact on the treatment of atopic manifestations such as atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis.

Effects of single therapeutic doses of promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine on psychomotor function and histamine-induced wheal- and flare-responses: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study in healthy volunteers

Since most first-generation antihistamines have undesirable sedative effects on the central nervous systems (CNS), newer (second-generation) antihistamines have been developed to improve patients’ quality of life. However, there are few reports that directly compare the antihistaminic efficacy and impairment of psychomotor functions. We designed a double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study to concurrently compare the clinical effectiveness of promethazine, a first-generation antihistamine, and fexofenadine and olopatadine, second-generation antihistamines, by measuring their potency as peripheral inhibitors of histamine-induced wheal and flare. Further, we investigated their sedative effects on the CNS using a battery of psychomotor tests. When single therapeutic doses of fexofenadine (60 mg), olopatadine (5 mg) and promethazine (25 mg) were given in a double-blind manner to 24 healthy volunteers, all antihistamines produced a significant reduction in the wheal and flare responses induced by histamine. In the comparison among antihistamines, olopatadine showed a rapid inhibitory effect compared with fexofenadine and promethazine, and had a potent effect compared with promethazine. In a battery of psychomotor assessments using critical flicker fusion, choice reaction time, compensatory tracking, rapid visual information processing and a line analogue rating scale as a subjective assessment of sedation, promethazine significantly impaired psychomotor function. Fexofenadine and olopatadine had no significant effect in any of the psychomotor tests. Promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine did not affect behavioral activity, as measured by wrist actigraphy. These results suggest that olopatadine at a therapeutic dose has greater antihistaminergic activity than promethazine, and olopatadine and fexofenadine did not cause cognitive or psychomotor impairment.

Safety and efficacy of bilastine: a new H(1)-antihistamine for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria

INTRODUCTION

New H(1)-antihistamines should be effective in relieving the symptoms of allergic disease, should have a rapid onset and long duration of action and should neither cause sedation nor interact with cytochrome P450. A review of bilastine was undertaken to determine whether this newer H(1)-antihistamine meets these requirements.

AREAS COVERED

A Medline search was conducted to identify preclinical and clinical studies of bilastine. This was supplemented with additional articles or abstracts cited in reference lists and/or obtained from online sources and internal reports supplied by Faes Farma. Review of these data indicated that bilastine has high selectivity for H(1)-receptors, is rapidly and effectively absorbed, undergoes negligible metabolism and is a substrate for P-glycoprotein, which limits its passage across the blood-brain barrier. At the recommended dose of 20 mg, bilastine is non-sedative, does not enhance the effects of alcohol or CNS sedatives, does not impair actual driving tests, shows no cardiotoxicity and has a similar efficacy to other second-generation H(1)-antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria.

EXPERT OPINION

In view of its favorable pharmacological and clinical characteristics, bilastine is likely to have particular benefit in urticaria for which guidelines recommend increasing the dosage of H(1)-antihistamines up to fourfold if standard dosing is ineffective.

Actual concepts in rhinosinusitis: a review of clinical presentations, inflammatory pathways, cytokine profiles, remodeling, and management

Rhinosinusitis (RS) is a heterogeneous group of diseases. It is a significant and increasing health problem that affects about 15% of the population in Western countries. It has a substantial impact on patients' health-related quality of life and daily functioning and represents a huge financial burden to society and the health care system as a result of the direct and indirect costs. In addition, RS is not well-understood, and little is known about the etiology and pathophysiology. In the past decade, many papers have been published that have changed our understanding of RS. RS is commonly classified into acute and chronic RS based on symptom duration. In acute RS, an inflammatory reaction initiated by a viral infection characterizes most uncomplicated, mild to moderate cases. Therefore, the first line of treatment for these cases are intranasal steroids and not antibiotics. In severe and complicated cases, antibiotics combined with topical steroids remain the treatment of choice. On the other hand, chronic RS is actually subdivided into two distinct entities (chronic rhinosinusitis with and without polyps), as growing evidence indicates that these entities have specific inflammatory pathways and cytokine profiles. The authors review recent data regarding the clinical presentations, cytokine profiles, tissue remodeling, and modalities of treatment for each form of RS.

Synthesis and structure-activity relationship of tricyclic carboxylic acids as novel anti-histamines

A series of tricyclic carboxylic acids having 6-amino-pyrimidine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione with piperazino or homopiperazino moiety linked by propylene, were synthesized and evaluated for their affinity toward human histamine H(1) receptor and Caco-2 cell permeability. Selected compounds were further evaluated for their oral anti-histaminic activity in mice, bioavailability in rats, and their anti-inflammatory activity in mice OVA-induced biphasic cutaneous reaction model. Among the compounds tested, dibenzoxazepine carboxylic acid 13b showed both histamine H(1) receptor antagonistic activity and anti-inflammatory activity in vivo. In addition, 13b exhibited low affinity toward α(1) receptor and low occupancy of H(1) receptor in the brain. It is therefore, believed that 13b is a potential candidate for development as 3rd generation anti-histamine.

Brain histamine H1 receptor occupancy of loratadine measured by positron emission topography: comparison of H1 receptor occupancy and proportional impairment ratio

AIMS

We have evaluated the sedative properties of H1-antihistamines by using positron emission tomography (PET) and ¹¹C-doxepin. The purpose of the present study was to measure histamine H1 receptor occupancy (H1RO) of loratadine 10 mg in patients with allergic rhinitis and to compare this occupancy with that of d-chlorpheniramine 2 mg, a first-generation antihistamine. We also compared our PET findings with the proportional impairment ratio reported by McDonald et al.

METHODS

The H1RO of loratadine 10 mg and d-chlorpheniramine 2 mg were evaluated in human brains in a double-blind and crossover design using ¹¹C-doxepin PET. Eleven young male patients with allergic rhinitis were examined by PET following oral single administration of loratadine 10 mg and d-chlorpheniramine 2 mg.

RESULTS

Loratadine 10 mg occupied 11.7 ± 19.5% of histamine H1 receptors in the cortex, whereas d-chlorpheniramine 2 mg occupied 53.0 ± 33.2% in the same area, suggesting a non-sedating property of loratadine at a dose of 10 mg. The H1RO values of loratadine and d-chlorpheniramine as well as those of previous studies were found to be significantly proportional to the proportional impairment ratio (r = 0.899).

CONCLUSION

Measurement of H1RO is a sensitive and absolute method to characterize the non-sedating property of drugs with H1 antagonistic activity.

Next-day residual sedative effect after nighttime administration of an over-the-counter antihistamine sleep aid, diphenhydramine, measured by positron emission tomography

Antihistamines often are self-administered at night as over-the-counter (OTC) sleep aids, but their next-day residual sedative effect has never been evaluated using a reliable quantitative method such as positron emission tomography (PET). We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in which we evaluated the residual effect the next day after nighttime administration of diphenhydramine, a commonly used OTC sleep aid, in terms of brain H₁ receptor occupancy (H₁RO) measured using ¹¹C-doxepin-PET. We also compared the results of diphenhydramine with those of bepotastine, a second-generation antihistamine. Eight healthy adult male subjects underwent PET measurement the morning (11:00) after random oral administration of diphenhydramine (50 mg), bepotastine (10 mg), or placebo the night before (23:00). Binding potential ratios and H₁ROs were calculated in different brain regions of interest such as the cingulate gyrus, frontotemporal cortex, and cerebellum. Subjective sleepiness and plasma drug concentration also were measured. Calculation of binding potential ratios revealed significantly lower values for diphenhydramine than for bepotastine or placebo in all regions of interest (P < 0.01). Cortical mean H₁RO after diphenhydramine treatment was 44.7% compared with 16.6% for bepotastine treatment (P < 0.01). Subjective sleepiness was not significantly different among the subjects treated with each test drug or the placebo. In conclusion, the next-day residual sedative effect after nighttime administration of the OTC sleep aid diphenhydramine was verified for the first time by direct PET measurement of H₁RO. Taking into account the possible hangover effect of OTC antihistamine sleep aids, care needs to be taken during their administration.

Histamine, histamine receptors and antihistamines: new concepts

Drugs with antihistamine action are the most commonly prescribed medication in daily dermatologic practice, both to adults and children. This article addresses new concepts of the role of histamine receptors (H1 receptors) and discusses the anti-inflammatory effects of these drugs. Second generation antihistamines differs from first generation because of their high specificity and affinity for peripheral H1-receptors. Second generation antihistamines are also less likely to produce sedation because they have less effect on the central nervous system. Although the efficacy of the various H1-antihistamines in the treatment of allergic patients is similar, even when comparing first- and second-generation drugs, these drugs are still very different in terms of their chemical structure, pharmacology and toxic properties. Consequently, knowledge of their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics is essential for a better medical care, especially that offered to pregnant women, children, the elderly, and patients with comorbidities.

Levocetirizine: a modern H1-antihistamine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Levocetirizine is the latest of the H(1)-antihistamines indicated for adults and children (as young as 2 years old) suffering from allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. Currently, it is the only therapy registered for treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis, as defined by the Allergic Rhinitis & its Impact on Asthma guidelines. Pharmacologic studies have shown levocetirizine to have a more favorable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile than other commonly employed H(1)-antihistamines. This reflects its superiority in controlling the symptoms of seasonal, perennial and persistent allergic rhinitis in well-controlled trials. Clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance have indicated that levocetirizine is safe and well tolerated, and leads to clinically significant improvements in the quality of life of patients. It is also reported to reduce comorbidities as well as overall treatment costs when administered continuously over the longterm.

Rhinitis in the geriatric population

The current geriatric population in the United States accounts for approximately 12% of the total population and is projected to reach nearly 20% (71.5 million people) by 20301. With this expansion of the number of older adults, physicians will face the common complaint of rhinitis with increasing frequency. Nasal symptoms pose a significant burden on the health of older people and require attention to improve quality of life. Several mechanisms likely underlie the pathogenesis of rhinitis in these patients, including inflammatory conditions and the influence of aging on nasal physiology, with the potential for interaction between the two. Various treatments have been proposed to manage this condition; however, more work is needed to enhance our understanding of the pathophysiology of the various forms of geriatric rhinitis and to develop more effective therapies for this important patient population.

No cardiac effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of rupatadine: results from a 'thorough QT/QTc study' performed according to ICH guidelines

AIMS

To evaluate the effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of rupatadine on cardiac repolarization in line with a 'thorough QT/QTc study' protocol performed according to International Conference on Harmonization guidelines.

METHODS

This was a randomized (gender-balanced), parallel-group study involving 160 healthy volunteers. Rupatadine, 10 and 100 mg day(-1), and placebo were administered single-blind for 5 days, whilst moxifloxacin 400 mg day(-1) was given on days 1 and 5 in open-label fashion. ECGs were recorded over a 23-h period by continuous Holter monitoring at baseline and on treatment days 1 and 5. Three 10-s ECG samples were downloaded at regular intervals and were analysed independently. The primary analysis of QTc was based on individually corrected QT (QTcI). Treatment effects on QTcI were assessed using the largest time-matched mean difference between the drug and placebo (baseline-subtracted) for the QTcI interval. A negative 'thorough QT/QTc study' is one where the main variable is around < or =5 ms, with a one-sided 95% confidence interval that excludes an effect >10 ms.

RESULTS

The validity of the trial was confirmed by the fact that the moxifloxacin-positive control group produced the expected change in QTcI duration (around 5 ms). The ECG data for rupatadine at both 10 and 100 mg showed no signal effects on the ECG, after neither single nor repeated administration. Furthermore, no pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship, gender effects or clinically relevant changes in ECG waveform outliers were observed. No deaths or serious or unexpected adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This 'thorough QT/QTc study' confirmed previous experience with rupatadine and demonstrated that it had no proarrhythmic potential and raised no concerns regarding its cardiac safety.

Risk of first-generation H(1)-antihistamines: a GA(2)LEN position paper

BACKGROUND

First-generation H(1)-antihistamines obtained without prescription are the most frequent form of self-medication for allergic diseases, coughs and colds and insomnia even though they have potentially dangerous unwanted effects which are not recognized by the general public.

AIMS

To increase consumer protection by bringing to the attention of regulatory authorities, physicians and the general public the potential dangers of the indiscriminate use first-generation H(1)-antihistamines purchased over-the counter in the absence of appropriate medical supervision.

METHODS

A GA(2)LEN (Global Allergy and Asthma European Network) task force assessed the unwanted side-effects and potential dangers of first-generation H1-antihistamines by reviewing the literature (Medline and Embase) and performing a media audit of US coverage from 1996 to 2008 of accidents and fatal adverse events in which these drugs were implicated.

RESULTS

First-generation H(1)-antihistamines, all of which are sedating, are generally regarded as safe by laypersons and healthcare professionals because of their long-standing use. However, they reduce rapid eye movement (REM)-sleep, impair learning and reduce work efficiency. They are implicated in civil aviation, motor vehicle and boating accidents, deaths as a result of accidental or intentional overdosing in infants and young children and suicide in teenagers and adults. Some exhibit cardiotoxicity in overdose.

CONCLUSIONS

This review raises the issue of better consumer protection by recommending that older first-generation H(1)-antihistamines should no longer be available over-the-counter as prescription- free drugs for self-medication of allergic and other diseases now that newer second- generation nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines with superior risk/benefit ratios are widely available at competitive prices.

Evaluation of treatment satisfaction in children with allergic disease treated with an antihistamine: an international, non-interventional, retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists (antihistamines) have been shown to be efficacious and safe in children and are recommended as first-line treatment for the symptoms of allergic rhinitis and urticaria. No published study to date has directly compared satisfaction with the different antihistamines in children in a real-life clinical setting. This study aimed to investigate parent and physician satisfaction with the efficacy and tolerability of oral antihistamine treatment in children and to compare satisfaction between levocetirizine and the other antihistamines used by children in this cohort.

METHODS

This was an international Observational Survey in Children with Allergic Rhinitis (OSCAR). Children aged 2-12 years, with a history of an allergic condition leading to a consultation, were enrolled from 424 primary-care/specialist allergy clinics across Bulgaria, India, Portugal, Romania, Russia, South Korea and Spain. At the consultation, parents and physicians of eligible children completed questionnaires evaluating their satisfaction with specific antihistamines currently employed for management of the child's allergic condition, as well as their intention for future use of that treatment. Parents' satisfaction scores for efficacy, tolerability and global satisfaction with the antihistamine used were primary study outcomes, while physicians' satisfaction scores for the same measures were secondary outcomes. Other secondary outcomes were parents' rating of the impact of the antihistamine treatment on their child's sleep and school performance, and parents' and physicians' willingness to use/recommend the same antihistamine in the future.

RESULTS

A total of 4581 patients were enrolled; 3048 (66.5%) had allergic rhinitis (55.9% persistent allergic rhinitis and 44.1% intermittent allergic rhinitis), and 663 (14.5%) had urticaria as primary conditions. Additionally, 2465 patients (53.8%) suffered from other allergic diseases, including allergic asthma (33.3%), atopic dermatitis (17.6%), food allergy (5.3%), other allergies (5.0%) and drug hypersensitivity (2.0%). Parents' and physicians' satisfaction scores were closely concordant and demonstrated significantly greater global satisfaction for the second-generation antihistamines than for the first-generation antihistamines. Levocetirizine (n = 2339) and fexofenadine (n = 42) generally scored highest for efficacy, tolerability and global satisfaction, as well as for impact on the child's ability to function at school, quality of school activities and quality of sleep. Furthermore, >97% of parents and physicians indicated their desire to continue or recommend the use of levocetirizine in the future. Somnolence, the most commonly reported adverse event in this survey, was observed predominantly in patients treated with first-generation antihistamines. Among second-generation antihistamines, reports of somnolence were most frequent in the cetirizine group.

CONCLUSION

Second-generation antihistamines have a better risk:benefit ratio than first-generation antihistamines, indicating that the latter should be avoided or their use limited in children whenever possible. Levocetirizine and fexofenadine were perceived by parents and physicians to produce significantly higher treatment satisfaction than the majority of the other antihistamines with respect to overall efficacy and tolerability, and impact on the child's sleep and school activities. The newer antihistamine levocetirizine seems to be a preferred and appropriate future treatment choice for children with allergic diseases.

Therapeutic management of allergic diseases

Allergic diseases are characterized by the activation of inflammatory cells and by a massive release of mediators. The aim of this chapter was to describe succinctly the modes of action, indications, and side effects of the major antiallergic and antiasthmatic drugs. When considering the ideal pharmacokinetic characteristics of a drug, a poorly metabolized drug may confer a lower variability in plasma concentrations and metabolism-based drug interactions, although poorly metabolized drugs may be prone to transporter-based disposition and interactions. The ideal pharmacological properties of a drug include high binding affinity, high selectivity, and appropriate association and dissociation rates. Finally, from a patient perspective, the frequency and route of administration are important considerations for ease of use.

Dose dependency of brain histamine H(1) receptor occupancy following oral administration of cetirizine hydrochloride measured using PET with [11C]doxepin

AIMS

The strength of sedation due to antihistamines can be evaluated using positron emission tomography (PET). The purpose of the present study is to measure histamine H(1) receptor (H(1)R) occupancy following oral administration of cetirizine (10 and 20 mg) in order to examine dose dependency.

METHODS

Fifteen healthy male volunteers (age range, 20-35 years) were divided into 3 subgroups and were studied following single oral administration of cetirizine at 10 mg (n = 5) and 20 mg (n = 5) or hydroxyzine at 30 mg (n = 5) using PET with 11C-doxepin. Each subject was scanned also following the administration of placebo. Binding potential and H(1)RO values were calculated in the prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices. Subjective sleepiness was also measured, and the correlation to H(1)RO was examined for each antihistamine.

RESULTS

The averaged H(1)ROs of cetirizine 10 mg, 20 mg, and hydroxyzine 30 mg in the prefrontal and cingulate cortices was 12.6%, 25.2%, and 67.6%, respectively. The H(1)RO of hydroxyzine 30 mg correlated well with subjective sleepiness (p < 0.001); however, those of cetirizine 10 and 20 mg showed no correlation with subjective sleepiness.

CONCLUSION

It was demonstrated that the brain penetration of orally administered cetirizine was dose-dependent. Cetirizine 10 mg, with its low H(1)RO and thus minimal sedation, could be more safely used than cetirizine 20 mg for the treatment of various allergic disorders.

Ebastine in the light of CONGA recommendations for the development of third-generation antihistamines

In 2003 a consensus group on new-generation antihistamines (CONGA) defined the characteristics required for a third-generation H(1) antihistamine as there had been much controversy about this issue since the early 1990s. One of the antihistamines that had been claimed to belong to such a group is the second-generation antihistamine, ebastine. The objective of this review is to analyze the pharmacology of ebastine, in light of the CONGA recommendations for the development of new-generation antihistamines: (1) anti-inflammatory properties, (2) potency, efficacy and effectiveness, (3) lack of cardiotoxicity, (4) lack of drug interactions, (5) lack of CNS effects, and (6) pharmacological approach. Ebastine seems to have anti-inflammatory properties that help to ameliorate nasal congestion, though this has not yet been conclusively demonstrated. Its pharmacological-therapeutic profile does not differ greatly from that of other second-generation antihistamines. Its cardiac safety has been widely assessed and no cardiac toxicity has been found at therapeutic doses despite initial concerns. The risk of potentially relevant drug interactions has been investigated and ruled out. Ebastine does not produce sedation at therapeutic doses and drug interaction studies with classical CNS depressants have not demonstrated a synergistic effect. Pharmacologically, ebastine is an H(1) inverse agonist. Perhaps the answer to the quest for new-generation antihistamines lies not only in H(1) but in a combined approach with other histamine receptors.

Cerebral histamine H1 receptor binding potential measured with PET under a test dose of olopatadine, an antihistamine, is reduced after repeated administration of olopatadine

Some antihistamine drugs that are used for rhinitis and pollinosis have a sedative effect as they enter the brain and block the H(1) receptor, potentially causing serious accidents. Receptor occupancy has been measured with PET under single-dose administration in humans to classify antihistamines as more sedating or as less sedating (or nonsedating). In this study, the effect of repeated administration of olopatadine, an antihistamine, on the cerebral H(1) receptor was measured with PET.

METHODS

A total of 17 young men with rhinitis underwent dynamic brain PET with (11)C-doxepin at baseline, under an initial single dose of 5 mg of olopatadine (acute scan), and under another 5-mg dose after repeated administration of olopatadine at 10 mg/d for 4 wk (chronic scan). The H(1) receptor binding potential was estimated using Logan graphical analysis with cerebellum as reference region input.

RESULTS

The acute scan showed a slight decrease in H(1) receptor binding potential across the cerebral cortex (by 15% in the frontal cortex), but the chronic scan showed a marked decrease (by 45% from the acute scan in the frontal cortex). Behavioral data before and after the PET scans did not reveal any sedative effect.

CONCLUSION

The results may be interpreted as either intracerebral accumulation of olopatadine or H(1) receptor downregulation due to repeated administration. The study shows feasibility and potential value for PET in evaluating the pharmacologic effect of a drug not only after a single dose but also after repeated administration.

Safety of rupatadine administered over a period of 1 year in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis: a multicentre, open-label study in Spain

BACKGROUND

Rupatadine (Rupafin), a novel antihistamine approved recently in Europe for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria in patients aged>or=12 years, has been shown to be highly efficacious, and as safe and well tolerated as other commonly employed antihistamines in the treatment of allergic disease. There are, however, few data on the long-term safety of these antihistamines derived in accordance with the clinical safety recommendations of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) and the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Guideline.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and tolerability of treatment with rupatadine 10 mg/day for 12 months in subjects with persistent AR (PER).

METHODS

A multicentre, open-label, phase IV study in patients recruited from 33 centres in Spain, from September 2002 to November 2005. The study enrolled 324 male and female patients (aged 12-70 years) with a medical history of PER for at least 12 months and a documented positive skin-prick test to an appropriate allergen. On 4 of the 7 days prior to start of treatment, the patients were required to have a minimum total nasal symptom score (TNSS [for sneezing, rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction/congestion and nasal itching]) of >or=5. Of the 324 eligible patients starting treatment, 120 needed to be treated for more than 6 months and were followed up until the end of 12 months. All patients received rupatadine 10 mg/day and were allowed to continue their normal concomitant medication for all conditions, other than rhinitis, for up to 6 or 12 months. Safety was assessed by means of adverse events (AEs) reported by patients or detected by investigators, scheduled centralized ECG with special attention to Bazzet corrected QT interval (QTcB) and standard laboratory investigations.

RESULTS

Assessment of treatment compliance rates indicated 90% and 83% of patients to be compliant during the 1-6 months and 1-12 months treatment periods, respectively, with compliance rates>80% being associated with the majority of the study population reporting at least one AE. Overall, 74.1% and 65.8% of the patients reported at least one AE during the 1-6 months and 1-12 months treatment periods, respectively, compared with 20.4% and 10.8% of patients reporting at least one treatment-related AE during these periods. Disorders of the nervous system and respiratory thoracic and mediastinal system, in particular headache, somnolence and catarrh, were the three most common AEs reported by >5% of the patients during both treatment periods. Detailed ECG assessments demonstrated no clinically relevant abnormal ECG findings, nor any QTcB increases >60 msec or QTcB values>470 msec for any patient at any time during treatment. Serious AEs were reported in seven patients, of whom six were considered as unlikely to be related to rupatadine treatment, whereas one involving increased blood enzyme levels was considered as possibly related to rupatadine treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the good long-term safety and tolerability of rupatadine at the therapeutic dose of 10 mg/day in patients with PER.

New oral H1 antihistamines in children: facts and unmeet needs

BACKGROUND

Second-generation antihistamines differ from first-generation ones because of their elevated specificity and affinity for peripheral H1-receptors and because of their lower penetration to the central nervous system, having fewer sedative effects as a result. Over the last few years, new compounds with different pharmacokinetic properties have been synthesized. More recent improvements of the molecules, generally in the form of active metabolites, led to the synthesis of new-generation antihistamines.

METHODS

Recommendations on the minimum criteria that would have to be met for compounds to be classified as new-generation antihistamines have been recently established by a consensus statement. In the past, the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of H1 antihistamines have not been optimally investigated in the pediatric population, especially in infants and young children.

RESULTS

The pharmacology of second-generation H1 antihistamines has been investigated relatively deeper than old antihistamines in children. In the pediatric population, clinical studies with new-generation antihistamines are still limited in number and, with rare exceptions, of brief duration. Comparative trials on the efficacy and safety between different compounds are also lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Properly designed, long-term trials with new-generation H1 antihistamines need to be performed in single age groups, in order to better define the effects of these drugs in all pediatric population.

H1 antihistamines: current status and future directions

In this review, we compare and contrast the clinical pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of first-generation H1 antihistamines and second-generation H1 antihistamines. First-generation H1 antihistamines cross the blood-brain barrier, and in usual doses, they potentially cause sedation and impair cognitive function and psychomotor performance. These medications, some of which have been in use for more than 6 decades, have never been optimally investigated. Second-generation H1 antihistamines such as cetirizine, desloratadine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine, and loratadine cross the blood-brain barrier to a significantly smaller extent than their predecessors. The clinical pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of these medications have been extensively studied. They are therefore the H1 antihistamines of choice in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, and urticaria. In the future, clinically advantageous H1 antihistamines developed with the aid of molecular techniques might be available.

Non-interventional study comparing treatment satisfaction in patients treated with antihistamines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis and urticaria are common allergic disorders that may affect approximately 15% of people at some time in their lives. Antihistamines are the most widely used therapeutic interventions for these disorders but the newer generation agents have differing pharmacokinetic characteristics that may result in different patient satisfaction and preferences. The objective of this study was to investigate patients' and physicians' satisfaction with their current antihistamine treatment for allergic disease.

METHODS

In an observational study, physicians in nine European countries completed questionnaires evaluating 7,274 patients treated with an oral antihistamine. The satisfaction of patients and physicians with the efficacy and tolerability of treatment was rated on a visual analogue scale. In addition, the proportion of patients satisfied with treatment (overall satisfaction) and willing to continue treatment with the same antihistamine were assessed. Safety and tolerability data were also gathered.

RESULTS

The results of this study indicate that modern antihistamines are generally considered effective and well tolerated by patients. In general, levocetirizine scored significantly higher in terms of perception of efficacy, tolerability and overall satisfaction. In terms of tolerability, three-quarters of patients were 'very satisfied' and a further fifth were moderately satisfied with levocetirizine and almost all (95%) were happy to continue treatment. Overall, the most commonly reported adverse event in this study was somnolence, a well known effect of antihistamines. The rate of somnolence in the levocetirizine group (3.8%) was similar to that for fexofenadine (both doses) and desloratadine, two products which are considered to be nonsedating antihistamines, and significantly less than half the rate for cetirizine.

CONCLUSION

Levocetirizine is considered an effective and well tolerated option for treating allergic disease by patients and physicians alike, particularly when the best available effectiveness and tolerability are required.

Histamine and leukotriene receptor antagonism in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: an update

Allergic rhinitis represents a global health burden. The disease can seriously affect quality of life and is associated with multiple co-morbidities. Histamine and leukotrienes are important pro-inflammatory mediators in nasal allergic inflammation. Their actions on target cells are mediated through specific receptors and, consequently, molecules that block the binding of histamine and leukotrienes to their receptors have been important areas of pharmacological research. The published literature of the pathophysiology of histamine and leukotrienes, and the effects of histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists (H(1) antihistamines) and leukotriene antagonists in monotherapy or in combination therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis was reviewed. The presented results are based on the best available evidence. The efficacy of H(1) antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists (montelukast in particular) in allergic rhinitis has been established in numerous randomised placebo-controlled trials. Results from meta-analyses indicate that H(1) antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists are equally effective in improving symptoms of allergic rhinitis and quality of life, but that both drugs are less effective than intranasal corticosteroids. Data on the combination of H(1) antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists in allergic rhinitis are limited. The available evidence shows that a combined mediator inhibition has additional benefits over the use of each agent alone, but is still inferior to intranasal corticosteroids. More well designed studies are needed to fully understand the benefits of a concomitant use of these agents.

Brain histamine H1 receptor occupancy of orally administered antihistamines, bepotastine and diphenhydramine, measured by PET with 11C-doxepin

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

'Bepotastine besilate' is a novel second-generation antihistamine developed in Japan and its antiallergic effects have already been demonstrated by various studies. However, only a few clinical studies regarding its sedative property are available. In addition, histamine H(1) receptor occupancy (H(1)RO) of this new antihistamine has never been measured by positron emission tomography (PET).

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

This paper provides the first measurement result of cerebral H(1)RO of bepotastine besilate (approximately 15%) as determined by PET. This result is in accordance with the clinical classification of bepotastine as a second-generation antihistamine. In addition, the relationship between subjective sleepiness and cerebral H(1)RO of this second-generation antihistamine is demonstrated for the first time using a placebo-controlled crossover study design. AIMS Antihistamines are frequently used for treating various allergic diseases, but often induce sedation. The degree of sedation can be evaluated by measuring histamine H(1) receptor occupancy (H(1)RO) in the brain using positron emission tomography (PET). The aim was to measure H(1)RO of bepotastine, a new second-generation antihistamine, and to compare it with that of diphenhydramine.

METHODS

Eight healthy male volunteers (mean age +/- SD 24.4 +/- 3.3 years) were studied after single oral administration of bepotastine (10 mg), diphenhydramine (30 mg) or placebo, by PET imaging with (11)C-doxepin in a crossover study design. Binding potential ratio and H(1)ROs were calculated using placebo data and were compared between bepotastine and diphenhydramine in the anterior and posterior cingulate gyri (ACG and PCG, respectively), superior and inferior frontal cortices (SFC and IFC, respectively), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), insular cortex (IC), lateral and medial temporal cortices (LTC and MTC, respectively), parietal cortex (PC), occipital cortex (OC) and sensorimotor cortex (SMC). Plasma concentration of each antihistamine was measured, and its correlation to H(1)RO was examined.

RESULTS

H(1)RO after bepotastine treatment was significantly lower than that after diphenhydramine treatment in all cortical regions (P < 0.001). Mean H(1)ROs of bepotastine and diphenhydramine were 14.7% and 56.4%, respectively. H(1)ROs of both bepotastine and diphenhydramine correlated to their respective drug plasma concentration (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Oral bepotastine (10 mg), with its relatively low H(1)RO and thus minimal sedation, has the potential for use as a mildly or slightly sedative antihistamine in the treatment of various allergic disorders.

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.

Effects of a sedative antihistamine, D-chlorpheniramine, on regional cerebral perfusion and performance during simulated car driving

OBJECTIVES

The sedative side effects of antihistamines have been recognized to be potentially dangerous in car driving, but the mechanism underlying these effects has not yet been elucidated to date. The aim of the present study is to examine regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) responses during a simulated car-driving task following oral administration of D-chlorpheniramine using positron emission tomography (PET) and [15O]H2O, based on a single-blind cross-over study-design.

METHODS

Right-handed, healthy male volunteers (n = 14) drove a car in a simulated environment following oral administration of D-chlorpheniramine repetab 6 mg or placebo. Their rCBF was measured using PET with [15O]H2O in the following three conditions: (1) resting, (2) active driving, and (3) passive driving. All 'in-car' views during the simulated driving were videotaped and used for rating driving performance.

RESULTS

Performance evaluation revealed that the number of lane deviations significantly increased in the D-chlorpheniramine condition compared with the placebo condition (p < 0.01). Subjective sleepiness was not significantly different between the two drug conditions. The regions of diminished brain responses following D-chlorpheniramine treatment were detected in the parietal, temporal and visual cortices, and in the cerebellum. The regions of augmented rCBF responses were found in the orbitofrontal cortex and cerebellar vermis.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that D-chlorpheniramine tends to suppress visuo-spatial cognition and visuo-motor coordinating functions rather than attention and motor functions during car driving.

Inhibition of IgE-mediated phosphorylation of FcεRIγ protein by antiallergic drugs in rat basophilic leukemia (RBL-2H3) cells: A novel action of antiallergic drugs

We examined the effect of antiallergic drugs, azelastine and epinastine, on the expression of FcepsilonRIalpha, beta, and gamma chains and phosphorylation of the gamma chains in rat basophilic leukemia (RBL-2H3) cells. The cells were cultured for 24 h with IgE treatment in the presence of azelastine or epinastine at the concentration of 10(-5) M. The FcepsilonRIalpha mRNA expression was determined by northern blot analysis. The protein level of FcepsilonRI expressed on the plasma membrane was examined following IgE treatment by immunoprecipitation with anti-IgE light chain, followed by western blot analysis with anti-gamma chain of FcR. Azelastine and epinastine had no effect on the FcepsilonRIalpha, beta and gamma mRNA levels. Although the amount of gamma chain assembled into IgE-bound FcepsilonRI was not changed by treatment with azelastine nor epinastine, phosphorylation levels of gamma chains of IgE-bound FcepsilonRI were inhibited by azelastine. The inhibitory effect of azelastine on the IgE-mediated expression of FcepsilonRIgamma protein is not due to their inhibition of mRNA and protein expression, but due to abrogating phosphorylation of the gamma chains, which is important for initiation of FcepsilonRI signaling cascade elicited by IgE interaction.

Lack of effects between rupatadine 10 mg and placebo on actual driving performance of healthy volunteers

INTRODUCTION

Rupatadine fumarate is a potent, selective, histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist and PAF inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy for the relief of allergic rhinitis. Rupatadine does not easily cross the blood-brain barrier and is believed to be non-sedating at therapeutic doses. Consequently, rupatadine should show no impairment on car driving.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the acute effects of rupatadine, relative to placebo and hydroxyzine (as an active control), on healthy subjects' driving performance.

METHODS

Twenty subjects received a single dose of rupatadine 10 mg, hydroxyzine 50 mg, or placebo in each period of this randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover study. Two hours postdosing, subjects operated a specially instrumented vehicle in tests designed to measure their driving ability. Before and after the driving tests ratings of sedation were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between rupatadine and placebo in the primary outcome variable: standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP); however, hydroxyzine treatment significantly increased SDLP (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Objective (Stanford sleepiness scale) and subjective sedation ratings (Visual Analogue Scales) showed similar results: subjects reported negative effects after hydroxyzine but not after rupatadine.

CONCLUSION

Rupatadine 10 mg is not sedating and does not impair driving performance.

The effect of H1 antagonists carebastine and olopatadine on histamine induced expression of CC chemokines in cultured human nasal epithelial cells

BACKGROUND

CC chemokines have been shown to play an important role in inducing selective recruitment of inflammatory cells into local allergic inflammatory sites. CC chemokines are also known as histamine releasing factors. We previously showed that histamine enhances transcription of CC chemokines from nasal mucosa which leads to further induction of histamine release. This cyclic cascade may cause prolonged allergic inflammation. The aim of this study is to clarify the relationship between histamine and CC chemokine production by using human nasal epithelial cells (HNECs) and to examine the potential of H1 receptor (H1R) antagonists in new therapeutic approaches for the treatment of nasal allergy.

METHODS

HNECs were isolated from the nasal turbinates of patients diagnosed with nasal allergy. HNEC monolayers were cultured for 48 hours with or without histamine (10(-3) to 10(-5) mol/L). Furthermore, an H1R antagonist, either carebastine or olopatadine, was added to the supernatant (10(-3) to 10(-7) mol/L) 30 minutes before incubation with histamine. The expression of Regulated on Activation, Normal T-cell Expressed and Secreted (RANTES) and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1) in the culture media were measured by ELISA.

RESULTS

The release of RANTES and MCP-1 was significantly upregulated by histamine compared with the control group. Both carebastine and olopatadine inhibited the release of CC chemokine production to the control level in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the interaction between histamine and CC chemokines may prolong allergic inflammation in human nasal mucosa. We also demonstrate the potential use of H1R antagonists in new therapeutic approaches to the treatment of nasal allergy through inhibiting this histamine-CC chemokine interaction.

Levocetirizine in persistent allergic rhinitis and asthma: effects on symptoms, quality of life and inflammatory parameters

Background Levocetirizine (LCZ) has been shown to be effective in allergic rhinitis. We evaluated its clinical efficacy, antinflammatory actions and its effects on quality of life (QoL) with a specific instrument in the asthma-rhinitis comorbidity. Methods Fifty adult patients with persistent rhinitis with/without asthma were enrolled. After a 1-week run-in for baseline evaluation, they were randomized to LCZ or placebo for 8 weeks. Cromolyn and salbutamol were permitted on demand. Rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma symptoms were evaluated by diary cards. QoL was assessed by the specific Rhinasthma questionnaire and the generic SF-36 at different time-points. Nasal scrapings and lavages were also performed for inflammatory cell count and mediator assessment. Results Ten patients dropped out for unrelated reasons and the remaining completed the study with no side-effect. Symptoms began to decrease in the active group at the second week of treatment when the difference with the placebo group became significant (0.05) and so remained until the end of the trial. Starting from 2 weeks of therapy, there was a significant decrease vs. baseline in all the four components of the Rhinasthma questionnaire only in the active group. The intergroup comparison became significant (P<0.05) at 4 weeks. The SF-36 detected only sporadic differences between groups. Eosinophils and neutrophils in nasal scraping were significantly decreased in the LCZ group vs. baseline at all times. Nasal mediators were under the detection limits and no analysis could be performed. In the active group, only two patients used rescue medications compared with 13 patients in the placebo group. Conclusions LCZ is clinically effective and capable of improving the rhinitis-asthma-related QoL.