SCH 434: a new antihistamine/decongestant for seasonal allergic rhinitis

A Synopsis of Guidance for Allergic Rhinitis Diagnosis and Management From ICAR 2023

An updated edition of the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) has recently been published. This consensus document, which included the participation of 87 primary authors and 40 additional consultant authors, who critically appraised evidence on 144 individual topics concerning allergic rhinitis, provides guidance for health care providers using the evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) methodology. This synopsis highlights topical areas including pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk and protective factors, evaluation and diagnosis, aeroallergen avoidance and environmental controls, single and combination pharmacotherapy options, allergen immunotherapy (subcutaneous, sublingual, rush, cluster), pediatric considerations, alternative and emerging therapies, and unmet needs. Based on the EBRR methodology, ICAR:AR includes strong recommendations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: (1) for the use of newer generation antihistamines compared with first-generation alternatives, intranasal corticosteroid, intranasal saline, combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine for patients not responding to monotherapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual tablet immunotherapy in properly selected patients; (2) against the use of oral decongestant monotherapy and routine use of oral corticosteroids.

Oral Phenylephrine HCl for Nasal Congestion in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Open-label, Placebo-controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Phenylephrine hydrochloride (PE HCl) is widely used for the treatment of nasal congestion, but efficacy at the 10-mg dose is not known for certain. The Food and Drug Administration has requested that sufficiently powered, multicenter, dose-ranging studies be conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of PE HCl.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate subjective nasal congestion symptom relief and safety of 4 different doses of PE HCl immediate-release 10-mg tablets and placebo in adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

METHODS

This multicenter, phase 2, parallel, open-label trial randomized 539 adults with SAR (but otherwise healthy) to 7 days of treatment with either PE HCl 10-mg tablets at fixed doses of 10, 20, 30, or 40 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was the mean change from baseline over the entire treatment period in daily reflective nasal congestion score. Other efficacy end points and safety were also evaluated.

RESULTS

None of the PE HCl treatment groups had a statistically significant change from baseline in instantaneous or reflective nasal congestion scores compared with the placebo group. PE HCl was well tolerated at doses of up to 30 mg. At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event was experienced by 18.4% of the participants, the most common being headache (3.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

PE HCl, at doses of up to 40 mg every 4 hours, is not significantly better than placebo at relieving nasal congestion in adults with SAR. The phenylephrine section of the Food and Drug Administration monograph on over-the-counter cold, cough, allergy, bronchodilator, and antiasthmatic products should be revised accordingly.

Antihistamines and itch

Histamine is one of the best-characterized pruritogens in humans. It is known to play a role in pruritus associated with urticaria as well as ocular and nasal allergic reactions. Histamine mediates its effect via four receptors. Antihistamines that block the activation of the histamine H₁receptor, H₁R, have been shown to be effective therapeutics for the treatment of pruritus associated with urticaria, allergic rhinitis, and allergic conjunctivitis. However, their efficacy in other pruritic diseases such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis is limited. The other histamine receptors may also play a role in pruritus, with the exception of the histamine H₂receptor, H₂R. Preclinical evidence indicates that local antagonism of the histamine H₃receptor, H₃R, can induce scratching perhaps via blocking inhibitory neuronal signals. The histamine H₄receptor, H₄R, has received a significant amount of attention as to its role in mediating pruritic signals. Indeed, it has now been shown that a selective H₄R antagonist can inhibit histamine-induced itch in humans. This clinical result, in conjunction with efficacy in various preclinical pruritus models, points to the therapeutic potential of H₄R antagonists for the treatment of pruritus not controlled by antihistamines that target the H₁R.

Evaluating approved medications to treat allergic rhinitis in the United States: an evidence-based review of efficacy for nasal symptoms by class

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how well the medications currently approved in the United States for allergic rhinitis (AR) treat nasal symptoms when examined according to Food and Drug Administration-indicated uses and dosages.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1966 onward), EMBASE (1974 onward), and the Cochrane Library (2007) were systematically searched according to the following criteria defined at a roundtable meeting of the authors: randomized controlled trial, at least a 2-week duration, and approved indication and dosage in the United States.

STUDY SELECTION

Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted into evidence tables, which were reviewed twice by the full panel of authors. Individual panel members also were asked to comment on abstracts, articles, and summary tables based on their known expertise. The entire faculty approved the selection of studies included in this review.

RESULTS

Fifty-four randomized, placebo-controlled studies involving more than 14,000 adults and 1,580 children with AR met the criteria for review: 38 studies of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR; n = 11,980 adults and 946 children) and 12 studies of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR; n = 3,800 adults and 366 children). The median percentage changes from baseline for total nasal symptom score for SAR were as follows: nasal antihistamines, -22.2%; oral antihistamines, -23.5%; intranasal steroids (INSs), -40.7%; and placebo, -15.0%. For PAR, the changes were as follows: oral antihistamines, -51.4%; INSs, -37.3%; and placebo, -24.8%. Data for mediator antagonists were limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The data, although limited, confirm that INSs produce the greatest improvements in nasal symptoms in patients with SAR. In addition, INSs are effective for PAR, but the data were of variable quality, and oral antihistamines may be equally effective for some patients. The reporting of published data should be standardized to permit better comparisons in future studies.

Clinical prescribing of allergic rhinitis medication in the preschool and young school-age child: what are the options?

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common chronic condition in children and is estimated to affect up to 40% of all children. It is usually diagnosed by the age of 6 years. The major impact in children is due to co-morbidity of sinusitis, otitis media with effusion, and bronchial asthma. AR also has profound effects on school absenteeism, performance and quality of life. Pharmacotherapy for AR should be based on the severity and duration of signs and symptoms. For mild, intermittent symptoms lasting a few hours to a few days, an oral second-generation antihistamine should be used on an as-needed basis. This is preferable to a less expensive first-generation antihistamine because of the effect of the latter on sedation and cognition. Four second-generation antihistamines are currently available for children under 12 years of age: cetirizine, loratadine, fexofenadine and azelastine nasal spray; each has been found to be well tolerated and effective. There are no clearcut advantages to distinguish these antihistamines, although for children under 5 years of age, only cetirizine and loratadine are approved. Other agents include pseudoephedrine, an oral vasoconstrictor, for nasal congestion, and the anticholinergic nasal spray ipratropium bromide for rhinorrhoea. Sodium cromoglycate, a mast cell stabiliser nasal spray, may also be useful in this population. For patients with more persistent, severe symptoms, intranasal corticosteroids are indicated, although one might consider azelastine nasal spray, which has anti- inflammatory activity in addition to its antihistamine effect. With the exception of fluticasone propionate for children aged 4 years and older, and mometasone furoate for those aged 3 years and older, the other intranasal corticosteroids including beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone, flunisolide and budesonide are approved for children aged 6 years and older. All are effective, so a major consideration would be cost and safety. For short term therapy of 1 to 2 months, the first-generation intranasal corticosteroids (beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone, budesonide and flunisolide) could be used, and mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate could be considered for longer-term treatment. Although somewhat more costly, these second-generation drugs have lower bioavailability and thus would have a better safety profile. In patients not responding to the above programme or who require continuous medication, identification of specific triggers by an allergist can allow for specific avoidance measures and/or immunotherapy to decrease the allergic component and increase the effectiveness of the pharmacological regimen.

Ipratropium bromide nasal spray 0.03% provides additional relief from rhinorrhea when combined with terfenadine in perennial rhinitis patients; a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial

Medical treatment of perennial rhinitis is aimed at providing symptomatic relief of individual symptoms. Multiple agents are administered when no single agent provides complete relief. Studies assessing the benefit/risk of combined therapy are important, especially for newly available agents such as ipratropium bromide nasal spray, a topical anticholinergic agent approved for the treatment of rhinorrhea in allergic and nonallergic perennial rhinitis. The objective was to determine whether the combined use of ipratropium bromide nasal spray 0.03% (42 mcg per nostril) administered three times daily with a nonsedating antihistamine (terfenadine, 60 mg administered twice daily) is safe and provides greater clinical benefit than use of the placebo nasal spray plus terfenadine. Our method was a multicenter, 6-week, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, crossover trial of 205 patients with perennial rhinitis (114 allergic and 91 nonallergic), 18 to 75 years of age, who had clinically significant rhinorrhea. After a 1-week run-in period, patients were treated for 2 weeks with one of the two treatment regimens, followed by a 1-week washout period, and then were treated for another 2 weeks with the other treatment regimen. Daily diary symptoms scores of rhinorrhea, congestion, and sneezing were obtained, as well as biweekly patient and physician global assessments of treatment effectiveness of each of the nasal symptoms. Ipratropium bromide nasal spray plus terfenadine was more effective than vehicle plus terfenadine in reducing the average severity (38% versus 28%) and duration (46% versus 30%) of rhinorrhea during the 2 weeks of treatment from baseline (p < 0.05). The advantage of ipratropium bromide nasal spray plus terfenadine was evident by the second day of treatment and continued throughout the 2-week treatment period. Of patients who responded more to one treatment than another, 69% responded to ipratropium bromide nasal spray plus terfenadine, compared to 31% to vehicle plus terfenadine (p < 0.05). Both physicians and patients rated control of rhinorrhea and sneezing by ipratropium bromide nasal spray plus terfenadine as superior to vehicle plus terfenadine (p < 0.05). The symptom of congestion was controlled equally well by both treatments. Combined active therapy was well tolerated with no increase in adverse events over that seen previously with ipratropium bromide nasal spray alone. The combination of ipratropium bromide nasal spray with terfenadine is more effective than vehicle plus terfenadine for the treatment of rhinorrhea, and does not result in a potentiation of adverse drug reactions.

Loratadine-pseudoephedrine in children with allergic rhinitis, a controlled double-blind trial

AIMS

To conduct a randomized placebo controlled double-blind crossover trial in order to evaluate a loratadine-pseudoephedrine combination (L + PS) in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Forty children (15 males; 25 females), aged 3-15 years, were included in this study. They were randomized to receive L + PS (0.2 mg kg[-1] body weight-2.4 mg kg[-1] body weight respectively) or placebo (PLA) for 14 days. After 7 days of washout, patients were shifted to the other treatment for a further 14 days. Nasal symptoms (sneezing/itching, congestion, nasal dripping) and signs (turbinal swelling, retronasal drainage), rated on a scale ranging from: 1. absent to 5. very intense, and their sum or mean total symptom score (MTSS) were used as efficacy measurement.

RESULTS

Significant relief was observed; post-treatment MTSS difference and its percent change were respectively; L + PS = -4.29; 95% CI: -3.64 and -4.94 (27.8%), and PLA = -1.63; 95% CI: -0.95 and -2.31 (10.7%) (P < 0.001 baseline vs endpoint and between treatments). Furthermore, L + PS and PLA significantly modified symptoms, but only L + PS significantly modified signs. No clinical changes were observed during the trial; only one patient showed slight transient insomnia when receiving L + PS.

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that L + PS is useful and well tolerated in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis. However, elements such as placebo effect must be taken into account for planning future trials.

Pharmacokinetics of loratadine and pseudoephedrine following single and multiple doses of once- versus twice-daily combination tablet formulations in healthy adult males

The pharmacokinetic profiles of single and multiple doses of loratadine, descarboethoxyloratadine (DCL) (the major active metabolite of loratadine), and pseudoephedrine were determined in a randomized, open-label, two-way crossover study in 24 healthy men. Subjects received a single dose (day 1) and multiple doses (days 3 to 10) of a once-daily (QD) formulation of loratadine 10 mg in an immediate-release coating and pseudoephedrine sulfate 240 mg in an extended-release core (CLAR-ITIN-D 24 HOUR tablets), and a twice-daily (BID) formulation of loratadine 5 mg in an immediate-release coating and pseudoephedrine sulfate 120 mg, with 60 mg in an immediate-release coating and 60 mg in the barrier-protected core (CLARITIN-D 12 HOUR tablets) in study sessions, each separated by a 10-day washout period. Both regimens were safe and well tolerated. On day 1, plasma loratadine, DCL, and pseudoephedrine concentrations were higher following the QD formulation than following the BID formulation, as expected. On day 10, loratadine and DCL maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) values were, on average, 87% and 35% higher, respectively, for the QD formulation than for the BID formulation; however, the values of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 hours (AUC0-24) for loratadine and DCL were equivalent (90% confidence interval [CI]: 83% to 110% for loratadine; 90% to 107% for DCL). On day 10, pseudoephedrine Cmax and AUC0-24 values were equivalent (90% CI for Cmax: 94% to 109%; for AUC: 91% to 106%) for the two formulations, and lower pseudoephedrine concentrations were observed from 16 to 24 hours with the QD formulation. Both loratadine/pseudoephedrine formulations produced equivalent loratadine and DCL AUC0-24 values and equivalent pseudoephedrine Cmax and AUC0-24 values following multiple dosing. The lower pseudoephedrine concentrations in the evening with the QD formulation may minimize the potential for insomnia in patients when compared with the BID formulation.

Astemizole-D causes less sleep impairment than loratadine-D

This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial was initiated to evaluate and compare the tolerability of once-daily astemizole-D capsules (10 mg astemizole/240 mg pseudoephedrine) and twice-daily loratadine-D tablets (5 mg loratadine/120 mg pseudoephedrine), with particular reference to the impact of treatment on quality of sleep. A total of 240 healthy volunteers participated in this study with a treatment duration of 3 days. Astemizole-D consistently produced less sleep impairment than loratadine-D with statistically significant differences in favour of astemizole-D reported for night-time waking on days 4 and 5 (P = 0.004 and P = 0.006, respectively), as well as for night-time restlessness on day 4 and the total score for all sleep parameters on day 4 (P < 0.05). Global evaluations of overall sleep quality at the end of the trial also revealed some statistically significant differences in favour of astemizole-D. Both drugs were well tolerated and there were no differences in the incidence and type of adverse events reported in the two treatment groups. Slight changes in heart rate and blood-pressure were observed in both treatment groups, but these were small and were not considered to be of clinical significance. In conclusion, once-daily astemizole-D is well tolerated and appears to cause less sleep impairment than twice-daily loratadine-D.

Loratadine. A reappraisal of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in allergic disorders

Loratadine is a long-acting antihistamine agent, exhibiting partial selectivity for peripheral histamine H1-receptors. To date, loratadine has been evaluated in allergic rhinitis, urticaria and, to a limited extent, in asthma. In several large controlled comparative clinical studies, loratadine was superior to placebo, faster acting than astemizole and as effective as azatadine, cetirizine, chlorpheniramine (chlorphenamine), clemastine, hydroxyzine, mequitazine and terfenadine in patients with allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. The clinical effectiveness of loratadine in asthma is at present unclear. Loratadine is well tolerated. At dosages of 10 mg daily, commonly reported adverse events were somnolence, fatigue and headache. Sedation occurred less frequently with loratadine than with azatadine, cetirizine, chlorpheniramine, clemastine and mequitazine. Serious ventricular arrhythmias, as reported with some other second generation histamine H1-receptor antagonists, have not been observed with loratadine to date. Thus, loratadine, with its attributes of once daily administration, fast onset of action and essentially nonsedating properties, would appear to be an appropriate first-line agent for the treatment of allergic rhinitis or urticaria.

The pharmacology and use of H1-receptor-antagonist drugs

The second-generation H1-antagonist drugs are supplanting their predecessors in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria. Their use can be justified mainly on the basis of a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, because they are less toxic to the central nervous system. Future research into H1 antagonists should include additional dose-response studies in patients with allergic disorders, especially children and the elderly; objective studies of adverse effects; studies of topical mucosal application of H1 antagonists; and studies of H1-antagonist enantiomers and active metabolites. With the cloning of the gene encoding the H1 receptor and increased understanding of the precise structural requirements for H1-receptor activity, H1 antagonists with an even more favorable therapeutic index may be developed.

Loratadine. A review of recent findings in pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety, with a look at its use in combination with pseudoephedrine

Antihistamines are considered first-line therapy for the relief of symptoms from allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. The newer, second-generation, nonsedating antihistamines reduce the central nervous system and anticholinergic side effects commonly found with previous drugs. The availability of H1-receptor antagonists that produce therapeutic effects without causing unwanted CNS effects fulfills an important practical need, since these drugs are clearly preferable in patients who drive or operate heavy machinery, or who are involved in activities requiring full alertness. Physicians and patients alike are pleased with the efficacy and safety the second-generation antihistamines bring to the treatment of allergy symptoms. Loratadine is an especially effective second-generation H1-receptor antagonist and is comparable to many of the other second-generation antihistamines. Loratadine may be particularly advantageous because of its low dose and the convenience of once-daily dosing. A more subtle advantage, loratadine's antiallergic properties, may warrant its use for specific treatment situations as future research clarifies the nature of the inflammatory response and the mechanisms of action antiallergic antagonists have in this regard.