Pros and cons of the use of antihistamines in managing allergic rhinitis

Unintentional cetirizine overdose causing anticholinergic syndrome: A case report

The incidence of anticholinergic syndrome due to second generation antihistamines is infrequently reported. Largely due to their decreased affinity for central nervous system (CNS) receptors, second generation antihistamines are rarely associated with anticholinergic symptoms, though toxicity is still possible particularly when taken in excess. We report a case of a six year old boy who presented with agitation, hallucinations, fixed and dilated pupils, tachycardia, and hyperthermia consistent with anticholinergic toxicity several hours after accidental overdose of a second generation antihistamine, cetirizine. Early identification of this rare phenomenon is important not only for appropriate emergency management but also for avoidance of potentially invasive and unnecessary tests which may further increase patient morbidity.

Combining MucilAir™ and Vitrocell® Powder Chamber for the In Vitro Evaluation of Nasal Ointments in the Context of Aerosolized Pollen

Hay fever is notoriously triggered when nasal mucosa is exposed to allergenic pollen. One possibility to overcome this pollen exposure may be the application of an ointment with physical protective effects. In this context, we have investigated Bepanthen^® Eye and Nose Ointment and the ointment basis petrolatum as reference while using contemporary in vitro techniques. Pollen from false ragweed (Iva xanthiifolia) was used as an allergy-causing model deposited as aerosol using the Vitrocell^® Powder Chamber (VPC) on Transwell^® inserts, while being coated with either Bepanthen^® Eye and Nose Ointment and petrolatum. No pollen penetration into ointments was observed upon confocal scanning laser microscopy during an incubation period of 2 h at 37 °C. The cellular response was further investigated by integrating the MucilAir™ cell system in the VPC and by applying pollen to Bepanthen^® Eye and Nose Ointment covered cell cultures. For comparison, MucilAir™ were stimulated by lipopolysaccharides (LPS). No increased cytokine release of IL-6, TNF-α, or IL-8 was found after 4 h of pollen exposure, which demonstrates the safety of such ointments. Since nasal ointments act as a physical barrier against pollen, such preparations might support the prevention and management of hay fever.

Lack of significant effect of bilastine administered at therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses and concomitantly with ketoconazole on ventricular repolarization: results of a thorough QT study (TQTS) with QT-concentration analysis

The effect of bilastine on cardiac repolarization was studied in 30 healthy participants during a multiple-dose, triple-dummy, crossover, thorough QT study that included 5 arms: placebo, active control (400 mg moxifloxacin), bilastine at therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses (20 mg and 100 mg once daily, respectively), and bilastine 20 mg administered with ketoconazole 400 mg. Time-matched, triplicate electrocardiograms (ECGs) were recorded with 13 time points extracted predose and 16 extracted over 72 hours post day 4 dosing. Four QT/RR corrections were implemented: QTcB; QTcF; a linear individual correction (QTcNi), the primary correction; and a nonlinear one (QTcNnl). Moxifloxacin was associated with a significant increase in QTcNi at all time points between 1 and 12 hours, inclusively. Bilastine administration at 20 mg and 100 mg had no clinically significant impact on QTc (maximum increase in QTcNi, 5.02 ms; upper confidence limit [UCL] of the 1-sided, 95% confidence interval, 7.87 ms). Concomitant administration of ketoconazole and bilastine 20 mg induced a clinically relevant increase in QTc (maximum increase in QTcNi, 9.3 ms; UCL, 12.16 ms). This result was most likely related to the cardiac effect of ketoconazole because for all time points, bilastine plasma concentrations were lower than those observed following the supratherapeutic dose.

Experimental models for the evaluation of treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the experimental models used for the clinical evaluation of treatments for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed clinical studies and review articles were selected from the PubMed database using the following relevant keywords: allergic rhinitis in combination with efficacy, wheal and flare, nasal challenge, park, cat room, or exposure unit. Regulatory guidance documents on allergic rhinitis were also included.

STUDY SELECTION

The authors' knowledge of the field was used to limit references with emphasis on recent randomized and controlled studies. References of historical significance were also included.

RESULTS

Traditional outpatient studies are universally accepted in the evaluation of treatment for allergic rhinitis. Experimental models provide ancillary information on efficacy at different stages of treatment development. Skin histamine and allergen challenge, as well as direct nasal challenge with histamine and allergen, are often used as early steps in assessing drug efficacy. Exposure units, park settings, and cat rooms better approximate real life by drawing on the natural mode of allergen exposure and delivering the sensitizing allergen to allergic individuals in the ambient air. Park studies make use of allergens in the outdoors, whereas cat rooms and exposure units present the sensitizing allergens indoors, with the latter providing consistent predetermined allergen levels. Exposure unit and park studies are acknowledged for the determination of onset of action and are also suited to the measurement of duration of effect and other measures of efficacy. Onset and duration of effect are 2 important pharmacodynamic properties of antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids as determined by the Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma and the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology workshop group.

CONCLUSIONS

All challenge models serve as important instruments in the evaluation of antiallergic medications and provide additional information to complement traditional studies.

Pharmacological management of allergic rhinitis in the elderly: safety issues with oral antihistamines

An increasing number of elderly persons in our society experience allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Different agents are used in the pharmacological treatment of allergic rhinitis, with histamine H1 receptor antagonists (antihistamines) being the most frequently prescribed class. However, drug therapy of aged persons differs to a degree from that in other age groups primarily because of quantitative pharmacotherapeutic problems. The main problems are co-morbidities and polymedication, which may lead to drug-drug interactions. H1 receptor antagonists block the action of histamine at specific receptors and are available for both topical and systemic administration. First-generation H1 receptor antagonists are lipophilic and therefore may cross the blood-brain barrier; they also lack specificity for the H1 receptor. Second-generation H1 receptor antagonists have reduced capacity to cross the blood-brain barrier and greater specificity for the H1 receptor. Use of first-generation H1 receptor antagonists in the elderly should be considered carefully because of the large number of adverse effects and potential for interactions with these agents. Second-generation H1 receptor antagonists such as desloratadine, levocetirizine and ebastine provide good selective H1 receptor blockade without anticholinergic or alpha-adrenoceptor antagonist activity. Furthermore, they inhibit proinflammatory cytokines and are safe. Second-generation H1 receptor antagonists also offer therapeutic possibilities in patients with severe liver and/or renal dysfunction.

Allergic rhinitis in children : diagnosis and management strategies

The incidence of allergic rhinitis has been increasing for the last few decades, in keeping with the rising incidence of atopy worldwide. Allergic rhinitis has a prevalence of up to 40% in children, although it frequently goes unrecognized and untreated. This can have enormous negative consequences, particularly in children, since it is associated with numerous complications and comorbidities that have a significant health impact on quality of life. In fact, allergic rhinitis is considered to be a risk factor for asthma. There are numerous signs of allergic rhinitis, particularly in children, that can alert an observant clinician to its presence. Children with severe allergic rhinitis often have facial manifestations of itching and obstructed breathing, including a gaping mouth, chapped lips, evidence of sleep deprivation, a long face, dental malloclusions, and the allergic shiner, allergic salute, or allergic crease. The medical history is extremely important as it can reveal information regarding a family history of atopy and the progression of atopy in the child. It is also important to identify the specific triggers of allergic rhinitis, because one of the keys to successful management is the avoidance of triggers. A tripartite treatment strategy that embraces environmental control, immunotherapy, and pharmacologic treatment is the most comprehensive approach. Immunotherapy has come to be viewed as potentially prophylactic, capable of altering the course of allergic rhinitis. The most recent guidelines for the management of allergic rhinitis issued by the WHO recommend a tiered approach that integrates diagnosis and treatment, in which allergic rhinitis is subclassified both by frequency, as either intermittent or persistent, and by severity, as either mild or moderate to severe. Oral or topical antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are the mainstay of pharmacologic therapy for allergic rhinitis, depending upon its severity, and several agents have been approved for use in children aged 5 years old and younger.

Desloratadine: an update of its efficacy in the management of allergic disorders

Desloratadine (Clarinex, Neoclarityn, Aerius, Azomyr, Opulis, Allex), the principal metabolite of loratadine, is itself an orally active, nonsedating, peripheral histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist. It is indicated in the US and Europe for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). It has a rapid onset of effect, efficacy throughout a 24-hour dosage interval, and sustained efficacy in these allergic conditions, as demonstrated in placebo-controlled trials of up to 6 weeks' duration in adult and adolescent patients. At present, there are no published direct comparisons of desloratadine and other H(1)-antihistamines; however, the principal, potential clinical advantages of desloratadine over late-generation H(1)-antihistamines are the drug's decongestant activity, which has been corroborated in several studies of patients with allergic rhinitis, and its anti-inflammatory effects. Indeed, the decongestant activity of desloratadine did not differ from that of pseudoephedrine in a trial in patients with SAR, and in patients with SAR and coexisting asthma, desloratadine reduced asthma symptoms and beta(2)-agonist use, and improved forced expiratory flow in 1 second. However, these issues warrant further study. Desloratadine is generally well tolerated. The overall incidence of adverse events in adults, adolescents and children was not significantly different to that with placebo, and similar proportions of desloratadine or placebo recipients reported events such as pharyngitis, dry mouth, myalgia, somnolence, dysmenorrhoea or fatigue. Desloratadine does not cause sedation or prolong the corrected QT (QTc) interval, can be administered without regard to concurrent intake of food and grapefruit juice, and appears to have negligible potential for drug interactions mediated by several metabolic systems.

CONCLUSION

Although comparative studies with second-generation and other recently developed H(1)-antihistamines are needed to define the drug's clinical profile more clearly, desloratadine can be expected to claim a prominent place in the management of allergic disorders in general, and in the amelioration of specific symptoms of allergy (e.g. nasal congestion) in patients with such disorders.

The emerging role of leukotriene modifiers in allergic rhinitis

Leukotriene modifiers have been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of asthma. Because of this success, and the fact that leukotrienes can be recovered not only from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid but also nasal lavage fluid, some researchers have suggested that these medications may also be useful for treating allergic rhinitis. Because the upper and lower airways are linked physically, there has been an assumption that therapy for upper and lower airway disease should be similar. This critical appraisal examines available data both supporting and refuting the emerging role of leukotriene modifiers in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Although many studies have shown an improvement in nasal symptoms when comparing a leukotriene modifier with placebo, few studies have conclusively shown that a leukotriene modifier is any more effective in treating allergic rhinitis than an antihistamine. Results from several reported studies suggest that the addition of a leukotriene antagonist to an antihistamine is no more efficacious than antihistamine alone. However, many of these studies were small and/or primarily designed to examine the asthmatic response, with nasal symptoms being a lesser endpoint. To better understand how, where, and when leukotriene modifiers should be used in the armamentarium of therapies for allergic rhinitis, larger clinical investigations designed specifically to study allergic rhinitis need to be undertaken. We conclude that currently, the data do not support widespread use of a leukotriene modifier with or without an antihistamine in place of an intranasal corticosteroid with or without an antihistamine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis, a common and often debilitating disease marked by rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itching, and sneezing, is on the increase worldwide. Treatment involves allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, and, in selected cases, immunotherapy. This overview describes the characteristics, pathogenesis, and diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. The major contributing allergens of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis are identified. Pharmacotherapy is described within the context of treatment guidelines developed by the major asthma and allergy professional organizations. Oral H1 antihistamines are first-line therapy for mild-to-moderate allergic rhinitis. The newer, nonsedating agents are recommended over first-generation antihistamines. Some of the newer oral antihistamines, such as cetirizine, desloratadine, and fexofenadine, have been shown to relieve the symptom of nasal congestion. Intranasal steroids are first-line therapy for patients with more severe symptoms.

Effects of fexofenadine and desloratadine on subjective and objective measures of nasal congestion in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

In vitro studies have shown much higher H1-receptor antagonist potency with desloratadine (DL) compared to fexofenadine (FEX), although it is unclear whether this has any clinical relevance on disease control parameters in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), especially for nasal congestion.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative efficacy between presently recommended doses of DL and FEX on daily measurements of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and nasal symptoms in SAR.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients with SAR were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study during the grass pollen season, comparing 2 weeks of once daily treatment with (a) 180 mg FEX or (b) 5 mg DL, taken in the morning. There was a 7-10 day placebo run-in and washout prior to each randomized treatment. Measurements were made in the morning (AM) and in the evening (PM) for PNIF (the primary outcome variable), nasal and eye symptoms. The average of AM/PM values were used for analysis.

RESULTS

There were significant (P < 0.05) improvements, compared to placebo, with FEX and DL, for PNIF, nasal blockage, nasal irritation, and total nasal symptoms, but not nasal discharge or eye symptoms. There were no significant differences between active treatments. Values for PNIF (L/min) for mean placebo baseline, mean difference from baseline (95% CI for difference) were 126, 10 (4-16) for FEX; and 122, 11 (4-17) for DL. The mean difference (95% CI) between FEX vs. DL was 1 L/min (-7-8). Values for total nasal symptoms (out of 12) were: 3.2, 0.7 (0.2-1.2) for FEX; and 3.4, 0.9 (0.3-1.5) for DL, and for nasal blockage (out of 3) were: 1.1, 0.2 (0.1-0.4) for FEX; and 1.2, 0.3 (0.1-0.5) for DL. The mean difference (95% CI) in total nasal symptoms and nasal blockage between FEX vs. DL was 0.1 (-0.6-0.8) and 0.1 (-0.2-0.3), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommended once daily doses of fexofenadine and desloratadine were equally effective in improving nasal peak flow and nasal symptoms in SAR.

Basic Bibliographies

In order to help readers monitor the most important developments in specialized areas of pharmacy practice in organized health systems, Hospital Pharmacy commissions Basic Bibliographies by guest editors, who have expertise in their respective fields. These guest editors survey the relevant literature and rank approximately 15 to 20 references that represent the most significant research and practice contributions in their areas. The more fundamental are listed first so that persons with limited time can select reading appropriate to their needs. Readers are urged to forward reactions or challenges to: Joyce A. Generali, Contributing Editor, Drug Information Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS 66160 or jgeneral@kumc.edu .