Suppression of the early and late cutaneous allergic responses using fexofenadine and montelukast

Multiple Allergen Simultaneous Test-Immunoblot Assay for Immunoglobulin E Detection in Patients with Isolated Allergic Conjunctivitis

We aimed to investigate the immunoglobulin E (IgE) detection rate and allergen patterns in patients with isolated allergic conjunctivitis using the multiple allergen simultaneous test (MAST)-immunoblot assay. A total of 120 patients with allergic conjunctivitis and no associated rhinitis, asthma, or dermatitis underwent the MAST-immunoblot assay to measure serum total IgE (TIgE) and serum specific IgE (SIgE) against 57 allergens. Patients were classified into subgroups based on the season when the eye symptoms were exacerbated, and TIgE and SIgE positivity. Differences between sex and age groups were also analyzed. Of the 120 patients, 57.5% (69 patients) and 69.2% (83 patients) were positive for TIgE (≥100 IU/mL) and SIgE (≥0.7 IU/mL), respectively. The allergens that most frequently triggered sensitization in the study population were Dermatophagoides farinae, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Tyrophagus putrescentiae, Alternaria, and house dust. House dust mites, such as D. farinae and D. pteronyssinus, showed the highest detection rates regardless of the season. Men had a higher positive rate for TIgE than women, whereas a higher rate of sensitization, detected as SIgE positivity, was seen in younger patients. In conclusion, MAST-immunoblot assay can detect sensitizing allergens in patients with isolated allergic conjunctivitis.

Structural and clinical impact of anti-allergy agents: An overview

Allergic disorders are markedly rising in industrialized countries. The identification of compounds that trigger the immunoglobulin E (IgE)-dependent allergic reaction remain the means to improve the quality of life by limiting patient's exposure to critical allergens. Information concerning the treatment and onset of allergic disorders including atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and bronchial asthma has been provided by the research over the past decade. Recent studies also indicated that allergic inflammation is associated closely with their exacerbation and progression and indeed is the basic pathophysiology of allergic diseases. As a result of immunological and molecular biological studies our understanding of the mechanism of allergic inflammation with regard to therapeutic agents has improved. While much effort has been paid to developing a new anti-allergic agent, the allergic disease has yet to be completely conquered. The more extensive research will allow the development of new therapeutics to combat allergic diseases. Currently, with respect to mechanism of action anti-allergy drugs are classified into five types including histamine H₁ antagonists, leukotriene antagonists, Th₂ cytokine inhibitors, thromboxane A₂ inhibitors and mediator-release inhibitors. The use of two or more anti-allergy agents together is not acknowledged at present, but this will be the subject of research in the future because with different mechanisms of action anti-allergy agents used at the same time will theoretically increase their effects. This review article focuses on anti-allergy agents highlighting their applications, clinical trials and recent advancement on drugs.

Chinese Society of Allergy Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health problem that causes major illnesses and disabilities worldwide. Epidemiologic studies have demonstrated that the prevalence of AR has increased progressively over the last few decades in more developed countries and currently affects up to 40% of the population worldwide. Likewise, a rising trend of AR has also been observed over the last 2-3 decades in developing countries including China, with the prevalence of AR varying widely in these countries. A survey of self-reported AR over a 6-year period in the general Chinese adult population reported that the standardized prevalence of adult AR increased from 11.1% in 2005 to 17.6% in 2011. An increasing number of Journal Articles and imporclinical trials on the epidemiology, pathophysiologic mechanisms, diagnosis, management and comorbidities of AR in Chinese subjects have been published in international peer-reviewed journals over the past 2 decades, and substantially added to our understanding of this disease as a global problem. Although guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AR in Chinese subjects have also been published, they have not been translated into English and therefore not generally accessible for reference to non-Chinese speaking international medical communities. Moreover, methods for the diagnosis and treatment of AR in China have not been standardized entirely and some patients are still treated according to regional preferences. Thus, the present guidelines have been developed by the Chinese Society of Allergy to be accessible to both national and international medical communities involved in the management of AR patients. These guidelines have been prepared in line with existing international guidelines to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of AR in China.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Allergy Testing

Allergic diseases are common in outpatient primary care. Allergy testing can guide management to determine allergy as a cause of symptoms and target therapeutic interventions. This article provides a review of common methods of allergy testing available so that physicians may counsel and refer patients appropriately. Immediate-type hypersensitivity skin tests can be used for airborne allergens, foods, insect stings, and penicillin. Radioallergosorbent testing can be used to evaluate immediate-type hypersensitivity. Delayed-type hypersensitivity or patch-type skin tests are used in patients with suspected contact dermatitis.

Position statement of the Brazilian Academy of Rhinology on the use of antihistamines, antileukotrienes, and oral corticosteroids in the treatment of inflammatory sinonasal diseases

Introduction

Inflammatory conditions of the nose and paranasal sinuses are very prevalent in the general population, resulting in marked loss of quality of life in affected patients, as well as significant work, leisure, and social activity losses. These patients require specific and specialized treatment. A wide range of oral medications are available.

Objective

The present document is aimed to clarify, for professionals treating patients with inflammatory sinonasal diseases, both specialists and general practitioners, specific oral therapies in noninfectious nasal inflammatory conditions.

Methods

The methodology used to create this article included the search for the key words: oral corticosteroids, antihistamines, antileukotrienes, rhinitis, rhinosinusitis in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in the last 5 years. Since no relevant article was found for the text on the subject of interest in the last 5 years, the search was extended for another 5 years, and so on, according to the authors’ needs.

Results

Relevant literature was found regarding the use of antihistamines, antileukotrienes and oral corticosteroids in these conditions. The Brazilian Academy of Rhinology emphasizes, after extensive discussion by the collegiate, key points in the treatment with these drugs.

Conclusion

There is support in the literature for the use of these drugs; however, final considerations about the role of each of them have been made.

Wheal and flare reactions in skin prick tests of patients treated with montelukast alone or in combination with antihistamines

Background

Because antileukotrienes may inhibit inflammation, it is plausible that montelukast administered for a long time could suppress skin wheal and flare reaction, and thus, it should be discarded prior to the tests. This study assessed the effect of long-lasting treatment with montelukast alone or in combination with antihistamines on wheal and flare in skin pricks tests (SPT) in patients sensitized to perennial allergens.

Methods

We conducted a 32-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over and randomized trial that implicated two arms: arm A, 20 patients received levocetirizine, montelukast with or without levocetirizine or placebo; arm B, 20 patients received desloratadine, montelukast with or without desloratadine or placebo. All treatment periods lasted 6 weeks and were separated by 2-week washouts. At baseline and on the last day of each treatment period, SPT were performed in all participants.

Results

Both levocetirizine and desloratadine in monotherapy, or in combination with montelukast, were effective in reducing wheal and flare in SPT. Monotherapy with montelukast did not change the size of the wheal for either histamine or for house dust mites, in either arm of the study, but significantly reduced the size of flare for histamine in arm A. Addition of montelukast to antihistamine did not exceed efficacy of monotherapy with antihistamine in both arms of the study.

Conclusions

Since the size of wheal determines the results of SPT, montelukast, even taken for a long time, does not have to be discarded prior to the tests.

The effect of montelukast on wheal reactions in skin prick tests: a double-blind-placebo-controlled randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

It is well-known that number of drugs may interfere with wheal reactions in skin prick test. However, the effect of long-term use of montelukast, a cystenil leukotriene receptor antagonist, on skin prick test hasn't been full elucidated. The aim of present study was to demonstrate the effect of montelukast on skin prick tests (SPT).

METHODS

This is a single-center, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study including two treatment periods with a wash-out interval. The subjects received montelukast (5 mg per day), fexofenadine HCl (60 mg per day) and placebo (lactose) with a double-blinded manner during 7- and 21-days treatment periods with a 14 days wash-out period. Dermatophagoides farinae (D. farinae) was used as the skin test material, while histamine as positive control and normal saline as negative control. Overall, 7 skin prick tests were performed at following time points: before treatment periods, on the last days of both treatment periods, 24 h after completion of treatment periods, and on the last day of 14-days interval.

RESULTS

Sixty house dust mite (HDM) allergic children (23 girls and 37 boys) with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma completed the study. Mean age was 8.3 ± 2.0 years. In the fexofenadine group, a significant suppression was observed in post-treatment values when compared to baseline values in SPT with D. farinae (p = 0.019). In the montelukast group, no significant suppression was observed in SPT with D. farinae at all time points when compared to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that montelukast had no effect on measurements of SPT. Thus, we concluded that there is no need to discontinue the treatment in order to perform SPT in patients receiving montelukast, even in those on montelukast treatment for at least 21 days.

Skin prick tests and allergy diagnosis

Skin testing remains an essential diagnostic tool in modern allergy practice. A significant variability has been reported regarding technical procedures, interpretation of results and documentation. This review has the aim of consolidating methodological recommendations through a critical analysis on past and recent data. This will allow a better understanding on skin prick test (SPT) history; technique; (contra-) indications; interpretation of results; diagnostic pitfalls; adverse reactions; and variability factors.

Caring for patients with allergic rhinitis

PURPOSE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects up to 40 million Americans, with an estimated cost of $2.7 billion per annum. This review discusses several therapeutic options that reduce the symptoms of AR, including allergen avoidance, antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids (INS), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and immunotherapy.

DATA SOURCES

The articles included in this review were retrieved by a search of Medline literature on the subjects of AR, antihistamines, INS, leukotriene antagonists, and immunotherapy, as well as current published guidelines for the treatment of AR.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergen avoidance is recommended for all patients prior to pharmacologic therapy. Oral and nasal H(1)-antihistamines are recommended to alleviate the mild and intermittent symptoms of AR, and INS are recommended as the first-line treatment choice for mild persistent and more moderate-to-severe persistent AR.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There are a number of different types of therapy for the management of AR; with so many options available, successful tailoring of treatment to suit individual requirements is realistically achievable.

Premedication with Montelukast Reduces Local Reactions of Allergen Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Local reactions (LRs) are a very frequent side effect of specific immunotherapy with allergens and can impair patients' adherence. Antihistamine pretreatment--originally introduced as a safety measure to reduce anaphylactic side effects--has been the only treatment option for LRs so far, although these swellings usually do not appear immediately but after hours. We were interested whether pretreatment with the leukotriene antagonist montelukast would be better suited for preventing those reactions than pretreatment with the antihistamine desloratadine.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with a history of severe anaphylactic reactions to hymenoptera stings were enrolled into a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study. We selected a rush immunotherapy protocol consisting of 19 injections of hymenoptera venom administered over 5 consecutive days, where the majority is developing LRs, and counted the number of injections until an LR of >3 cm occurred. The patients were randomized to 3 treatment groups: premedication with placebo, 10 mg montelukast and 5 mg of the antihistamine desloratadine.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, the occurrence of LRs (>3 cm) was significantly delayed by montelukast (p < 0.01, analysis of variance) but not by desloratadine (p = 0.19). The difference between montelukast and desloratadine was close to significant (p = 0.054). Itching, recorded on a scale from 0 to 5, did not differ between the 3 groups.

CONCLUSION

Montelukast can be useful in the prevention of LRs after specific immunotherapy.

Pharmacologic and anti-IgE treatment of allergic rhinitis ARIA update (in collaboration with GA2LEN)

The pharmacologic treatment of allergic rhinitis proposed by ARIA is an evidence-based and step-wise approach based on the classification of the symptoms. The ARIA workshop, held in December 1999, published a report in 2001 and new information has subsequently been published. The initial ARIA document lacked some important information on several issues. This document updates the ARIA sections on the pharmacologic and anti-IgE treatments of allergic rhinitis. Literature published between January 2000 and December 2004 has been included. Only a few studies assessing nasal and non-nasal symptoms are presented as these will be discussed in a separate document.

The effect of montelukast (10mg daily) and loratadine (10mg daily) on wheal, flare and itching reactions in skin prick tests

Antileukotriene agents are widely used for the treatment of allergic conditions including bronchial asthma and allergic rhinitis. The influence of montelukast on skin reactivity has not been clearly evaluated. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of montelukast on wheal, flare and itching in skin prick tests (SPTs).

METHODS

Fifteen atopic patients (5 women and 10 men) with average age 28.04 (SD+/-8.24) were tested with histamine, codeine, negative control solution and allergen extract (grasses). Montelukast (10mg), loratadine (10mg) or placebo were given to the volunteers for 5 days in a double-blind manner, followed by SPT, with 14 days of wash-out period.

RESULTS

There was no differences in wheal, flare and itching (p=0.205; 0.086 and 0.069, respectively, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) between SPT performed after placebo and wash-out period. The analysis revealed a statistically significant suppression of wheal and flare by loratadine (p<0.05 for all tested solutions). Pre-treatment with montelukast did not influence wheal size (p=0.099, 0.21, 0.066 for histamine, codeine and allergens, respectively), but significantly reduced flare (p=0.005; 0.003; 0.02 for histamine, codeine and allergens, respectively). We found a significant suppression of itching produced by montelukast (p=0.02) and loratadine (p=0.03) as compared to placebo (p=0.068 vs. wash out).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show a tendency to suppressive effect of montelukast on flare and itching but not on wheal which is basic for SPT interpretation. We conclude that found suppression have little impact on clinical effectiveness of SPT as a diagnostic tool.

Evaluation of the optimal oral antihistamine for patients with allergic rhinitis

Because of its bothersome symptoms, allergic rhinitis (AR) is 1 of the top 10 reasons for patient visits to primary care physicians. This highly prevalent disease also results in loss of productivity, both at work and in school. Oral antihistamines are one of the most frequently prescribed medications for the management of AR and, with several agents available, it is important to discern the specific benefits and detriments of each. To assess the differences in efficacy and safety factors among antihistamines, the Individual therapeutic window of each agent can be used as a comparative reference tool because it defines the dose range over which an antihistamine is efficacious and free of adverse effects. As such, the therapeutic window includes both undesired effects, such as sedation, and desired properties, such as rapid onset of action, long duration of efficacy, broad age range of applicability, and potential to Improve quality of life. Therefore, agents with broad therapeutic windows, based on both efficacy and safety, are expected to be more favorable; this therapeutic window should be understood by the primary care physician when prescribing a medication.

Second-Generation Antihistamines

Antihistamines are useful medications for the treatment of a variety of allergic disorders. Second-generation antihistamines avidly and selectively bind to peripheral histamine H1 receptors and, consequently, provide gratifying relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a majority of atopic patients. This tight receptor specificity additionally leads to few effects on other neuronal or hormonal systems, with the result that adverse effects associated with these medications, with the exception of noticeable sedation in about 10% of cetirizine-treated patients, resemble those of placebo overall. Similarly, serious adverse drug reactions and interactions are uncommon with these medicines. Therapeutic interchange to one of the available second-generation antihistamines is a reasonable approach to limiting an institutional formulary, and adoption of such a policy has proven capable of creating substantial cost savings. Differences in overall efficacy and safety between available second-generation antihistamines, when administered in equivalent dosages, are not large. However, among the antihistamines presently available, fexofenadine may offer the best overall balance of effectiveness and safety, and this agent is an appropriate selection for initial or switch therapy for most patients with mild or moderate allergic symptoms. Cetirizine is the most potent antihistamine available and has been subjected to more clinical study than any other. This agent is appropriate for patients proven unresponsive to other antihistamines and for those with the most severe symptoms who might benefit from antihistamine treatment of the highest potency that can be dose-titrated up to maximal intensity.

Effects of single or combined histamine H1-receptor and leukotriene CysLT1-receptor antagonism on nasal adenosine monophosphate challenge in persistent allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The effects of single or combined histamine H(1)-receptor and leukotriene CysLT(1)-receptor antagonism on nasal adenosine monophosphate (AMP) challenge in allergic rhinitis are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We elected to study the effects of usual clinically recommended doses of fexofenadine (FEX), montelukast (ML) and FEX + ML combination, compared with placebo (PL), on nasal AMP challenge in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Twelve patients with persistent allergic rhinitis (all skin prick positive to house dust mite) were randomized in a double-blind cross-over fashion to receive for 1 week either FEX 180 mg, ML 10 mg, FEX 180 mg + ML 10 mg combination, or PL, with nasal AMP challenge performed 12 h after dosing. There was a 1-week washout period between each randomized treatment. The primary outcome measure was the maximum percentage peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) fall from baseline over a 60-min period after nasal challenge with a single 400 mg ml(-1) dose of AMP. The area under the 60-min time-response curve (AUC) and nasal symptoms were measured as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There was significant attenuation (P < 0.05) of the mean maximum percentage PNIF fall from baseline after nasal AMP challenge vs. PL, 48; with FEX, 37; 95% confidence interval for difference 2, 20; ML, 35 (4, 22); and FEX + ML, 32 (7, 24). The AUC (%.min) was also significantly attenuated (P < 0.05) vs. PL, 1893; with FEX, 1306 (30, 1143); ML, 1246 (214, 1078); and FEX + ML, 1153 (251, 1227). There were no significant differences for FEX vs. ML vs. FEX + ML comparing either the maximum or AUC response. The total nasal symptom score (out of 12) was also significantly improved (P < 0.05) vs. PL, 3.3; with FEX, 2.1 (0.3, 2.0); ML, 2.0 (0.5, 1.9); and FEX + ML, 2.5 (0.1, 1.4).

CONCLUSION

FEX and ML as monotherapy significantly attenuated the response to nasal AMP challenge and improved nasal symptoms compared with PL, while combination therapy conferred no additional benefit.

Advances in the treatment of chronic urticaria

There have been a number of exciting developments in the treatment of allergic diseases in recent years, but the development of new treatments for urticaria has lagged behind. The standard treatment for chronic urticaria (CU) involves the use of H1 antagonists. A number of small but promising studies have found potential benefit with medications that are used less often. This article reviews the established therapies for CU and the experimental evidence for the use of nonstandard and relatively unknown therapies. The potential usefulness of some of the new allergy medications for the treatment of CU also is discussed.

The effects of butterbur on the histamine and allergen cutaneous response

BACKGROUND

Butterbur or Petasites hybridus is an herbal remedy that exhibits antihistamine and antileukotriene activity and has been shown to attenuate the response to adenosine monophosphate challenge in patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma. However, no data are available regarding its effects on the histamine and allergen cutaneous response.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of butterbur compared with fexofenadine and montelukast on the histamine and allergen wheal and flare cutaneous responses.

METHODS

Atopic patients were randomized into a double-blind, double-dummy, crossover study to receive for 1 week butterbur, 50 mg twice daily (8 AM and 10 PM); fexofenadine, 180 mg once daily (10 PM), and placebo once daily (8 AM); montelukast, 10 mg once daily (10 PM), and placebo once daily (8 AM); or placebo twice daily (8 AM and 10 PM). Patients attended the department at 10 AM and had measurements of the cutaneous wheal and flare responses to histamine, allergen, and saline control at 10-minute intervals for 60 minutes.

RESULTS

Twenty patients completed the study. The mean +/- SE histamine wheal and flare responses, respectively, were significantly attenuated (P < .05) by fexofenadine (9.4 +/- 1.8 mm2 and 13.5 +/- 3.2 mm2) compared with placebo (15.5 +/- 3.3 mm2 and 179.8 +/- 74.3 mm2) but not by butterbur (16.4 +/- 2.1 mm2 and 297.7 +/- 121.2 mm2) or montelukast (19 +/- 1.9 mm2 and 240.2 +/- 66.6 mm2). The allergen wheal and flare responses, respectively, were also significantly attenuated (P < .05) by fexofenadine (31.1 +/- 6.3 mm2 and 256.9 +/- 86.5 mm2) compared with placebo (65.4 +/- 15.2 mm2 and 1,014.5 +/- 250.0 mm2) but not by butterbur (50.4 +/- 9.2 mm2 and 1,110.3 +/- 256.1 mm2) or montelukast (58.8 +/- 9.1 mm2 and 1,463.6 +/- 295.6 mm2).

CONCLUSIONS

Butterbur did not produce any significant effects on the histamine and allergen cutaneous response compared with placebo, whereas mediator antagonism with fexofenadine but not montelukast produced significant attenuation. This finding would suggest that butterbur may not be effective in allergic skin disease.

H1-Antihistamines: more relevant than ever in the treatment of allergic disorders

Histamine is an important chemical mediator of inflammation, vasodilation, increased vascular permeability, decreased peripheral resistance, airway smooth muscle contraction, and sensory nerve stimulation causing itching. It also plays a significant role in neurotransmission and in cardiac function. In allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria, there is strong evidence for the role of H(1)-antihistamine treatment. In asthma, additional dose-response studies, including higher doses of antihistamines than those used in allergic rhinitis, are needed to determine the role of antihistamines. In atopic dermatitis, the itch-relieving topical glucocorticoid-sparing effects of H(1)-antihistamines also require further documentation. The potential benefits of each H(1)-antihistamine should be weighed against the potential risks, and second-generation H(1)-antihistamines with excellent, well-documented safety records should be used in preference to older, less safe H(1)-antihistamines. Second-generation H(1)-antihistamines are more relevant than ever in the treatment of allergic disorders.

The effects of montelukast on intradermal wheal and flare

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the effect of montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, on intradermal skin testing. Study design and setting We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in a university setting.

METHODS

After a 1-week washout of allergy pharmacotherapy, intradermal skin testing was performed on 23 atopic subjects. Whealing size was measured 20 minutes after injection. Subjects then began a 1-week regimen of daily loratadine, montelukast, or placebo. At 1 week, subjects again underwent intradermal skin testing. The change in wheal size was then calculated from baseline.

RESULTS

A significant difference (P < 0.05) between the montelukast and loratadine groups in suppression of intradermal whealing at 1 week was observed. No significant difference was noted between the montelukast and placebo subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Montelukast demonstrated no significant suppression of skin whealing after antigen challenge over placebo.

SIGNIFICANCE

Montelukast does not need to be discontinued before intradermal allergy testing.

The effect of montelukast on allergen-induced cutaneous responses in house dust mite allergic children

The benefits of a leukotriene modifier on allergen-induced cutaneous responses have not been studied in children. We hypothesized that a leukotriene-receptor antagonist would provide protection against allergen-induced early and/or late phase cutaneous responses in susceptible children. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study in 6- to 15-year-old house dust mite allergic children, we compared the benefit of either montelukast or a matching placebo for 2 days on cutaneous responses induced by intradermal injection of house dust mite extract. Responses were measured as the mean of the longest diameter and its longest perpendicular of the induration response after 10, 20 min, 4 h and 6 h of the challenge. A total of 30 children were randomized to placebo or montelukast. The mean decline from baseline was significantly greater (p = 0.04) in the montelukast-treated children [-5.20 mm (-12.03-1.63)][median (95% CI)] than in the placebo-treated children [0.13 mm (-6.46-6.73] at 6th hour of the challenge, as was the mean diameter (p = 0.04), but did not differ in the remaining time points. We concluded that in house dust mite allergic children, montelukast 5 mg provided significant improvement in allergen-induced cutaneous late-phase responses, suggesting its contribution to allergic skin responses and its potential therapeutic value.

Fexofenadine is efficacious and safe in children (aged 6-11 years) with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

This is the first prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study showing statistical improvement of an H(1)-antihistamine in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis in all symptoms throughout the entire treatment period.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind study was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of fexofenadine in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

This study was conducted at 148 centers in 15 countries. Nine hundred thirty-five children (aged 6-11 years) were randomized and treated with either fexofenadine HCl 30 mg (n = 464) or placebo (n = 471) tablets twice a day for 14 days. Individual symptoms (sneezing; rhinorrhea; itchy nose, mouth, throat, and/or ears; itchy, watery, and/or red eyes; and nasal congestion) were assessed at baseline and then daily at 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM (+/-1 hour) during the double-blind treatment period. Each total symptom score was the sum of all symptoms, excluding nasal congestion. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in the average of the daily 12-hour evening reflective total symptom scores throughout the double-blind treatment. Safety was evaluated from adverse-event reporting, vital signs, physical examinations, and clinical laboratory data at screening and study end point.

RESULTS

Fexofenadine was significantly superior to placebo in the primary efficacy analysis (P </=.0001). Individual symptom scores showed statistically significant superiority compared with placebo (P <.05), including nasal congestion in the evening reflective assessment (P <.05). There was no significant difference in adverse events between fexofenadine and placebo, either overall or by causality.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of the H(1)-antihistamine fexofenadine has been confirmed in this multicenter, multinational study of children aged 6 to 11 years with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast in the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria: a single-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical study

BACKGROUND

Chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) might be refractory to standard therapies. For the patients with severe unremitting CIU who have failed to benefit from conventional therapy with antihistamines, other effective and safe therapeutic modalities are required.

OBJECTIVE

A randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the new selective leukotriene antagonist montelukast sodium in the treatment of refractory CIU.

METHODS

Thirty patients with refractory CIU were enrolled in the trial. After informed consent was obtained, patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups. The patients in group A received 10 mg/d montelukast and a nonsedating H(1) antihistamine (cetirizine) when needed for 6 weeks. After a 2-week washout period, they received placebo for 6 weeks and the same H(1) antihistamine as needed. Group B received the treatment vice versa. Improvement was monitored by using the self-estimated urticaria activity score, which is the sum of the wheal number score and the itch severity score, and the antihistamine counts used in each study period.

RESULTS

More significant decreases occurred in urticaria activity scores with montelukast therapy compared with those with placebo therapy (P <.001). H(1) antihistamine use was also significantly less frequent during the montelukast period (P <.001). There were no significant side effects with montelukast therapy.

CONCLUSION

The present study results suggest that montelukast might be an effective and safe therapeutic agent in the treatment of refractory CIU.

Next generation antihistamines: therapeutic rationale, accomplishments and advances

Antihistamines, among the most commonly prescribed drugs in the world, have evolved considerably since the first generation was introduced >50 years ago. The first generation antihistamines (e.g., chlorpheniramine, diphenhydramine, promethazine and hydroxyzine) are still widely available and in use today. These drugs have considerable sedative effects caused by their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. The next generation of antihistamines to emerge in the market were devoid of these sedative effects; however, two (terfenadine and astemizole) have shown rare but lethal cardiotoxic side effects. The third generation antihistamines, metabolites of the earlier drugs, have demonstrated no cardiac effects of the parent drugs and are at least as potent. Many have exhibited superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacological profiles, including an improved onset of action and duration of effect. The clinical benefit of these newer oral antihistamines will clearly help improve the quality of life of patients with chronic allergies.

Pathophysiological role of leukotrienes in dermatological diseases: potential therapeutic implications

In vitro and in vivo data have demonstrated that leukotrienes play a key role not only in allergic airway diseases but also in inflammatory reactions of the skin. Antileukotriene drugs, i.e. leukotriene receptor antagonists and synthesis inhibitors, are a new class of anti-inflammatory drugs that have shown clinical efficacy in the management of asthma, allergic rhinitis and inflammatory bowel disease. To address the question of the validity and applicability of published evidence of the use of antileukotriene drugs in dermatological diseases, we reviewed data concerning the pathophysiological effect of leukotrienes in the skin and in skin diseases, and the experience with antileukotriene treatment that has been published. In vivo and in vitro data suggest that antileukotriene treatment may have efficacy in atopic dermatitis, different types of urticaria or psoriasis and other skin diseases such as bullous skin diseases, collagenoses, Sjogren-Larsson syndrome or Kawasaki disease. Nevertheless, published evidence is very limited and before any conclusions can be drawn, additional basic research needs to be performed with regard to the role of different leukotrienes and leukotriene receptors in skin diseases. On the basis of these data, randomised and placebo-controlled clinical trials with leukotriene antagonists and synthesis inhibitors should be performed. Moreover, future studies investigating the additive benefit of antileukotriene drugs are warranted, e.g. in combination with antihistamines, corticosteroids or other anti-inflammatory drugs.

A comparison of once daily fexofenadine versus the combination of montelukast plus loratadine on domiciliary nasal peak flow and symptoms in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The combination of montelukast (ML) and loratadine (LT) has previously been shown to be superior to either drug alone in managing seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), whilst fexofenadine (FEX) has been shown to be better than LT as monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

We wished to compare ML + LT vs. FEX alone for effects on daily measurements (am/pm) of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and symptoms.

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients with SAR (skin prick positive to grass pollen) were randomised into a single-blind, double-dummy placebo (PL)-controlled cross-over study during the grass pollen season, comparing 2 weeks of once daily treatment with (a) 120mg FEX or (b) 10mg ML + 10mg LT. There was a 7-10 day placebo run-in and washout prior to each randomised treatment. The average of am/pm PIF (the primary outcome variable) was analysed. Patients recorded their symptom scores (from 0 to 3) twice daily, for nasal blockage, discharge, itching and sneezing with; total eye symptoms, ocular cromoglycate use, and daily activity. The total nasal symptom score was calculated as a composite (out of 24).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between baselines after the run-in and washout placebos for any variables. There were significant (P < 0.05, Bonferroni) improvements in all symptoms and PIF compared to pooled placebo with both treatments for all end-points, but no differences between the two treatment regimes (as means and within-treatment 95% confidence intervals): PIF: PL 102 (98-107), FEX 111 (107-116), ML+LT 113 (109-118); total nasal symptoms: PL 7.4 (6.7-2.0), FEX 5.0 (4.3-5.7), ML + LT 4.0 (3.3-4.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Once daily FEX as monotherapy was equally effective as the combination of once daily ML + LT in improving nasal peak flow and controlling symptoms in SAR. Further studies are indicated to assess whether ML confers additional benefits to FEX in SAR.