Efficacy of diphenhydramine vs desloratadine and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis

Diphenhydramine: Time to Move on?

Diphenhydramine is one of the most widely available, longest-used antihistamine medications but has many side effects including sedation and risk of toxicity in overdose including cardiac toxicity. It is frequently inappropriately used when newer, more favorable antihistamine medications are available. Second-generation antihistamines are also widely available and affordable, with many of the same desired effects as diphenhydramine and fewer, if any, of the undesirable side effects. Because of the negative side effects and wide availability of alternative antihistamine medications, it is definitively time to move on from diphenhydramine.

Mixed Micellization and Spectroscopic Studies of Anti-Allergic Drug and Non-Ionic Surfactant in the Presence of Ionic Liquid

In drug delivery, surfactants are used to reduce side effects and to increase drug efficiency. The present work aimed to study the interaction of diphenhydramine hydrochloride (anti-allergic drug) with TX–45 (non-ionic surfactant) in the absence and presence of ionic liquid (1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride). The physicochemical parameters were estimated by the surface tension measurement. Various theoretical models (Clint, Rubingh, Motomura, and Maeda) were applied to determine the attractive behavior between drug and surfactant mixtures at the surface and in bulk. The drug and surfactant mixtures exhibit synergistic behavior in the absence and presence of ionic liquid. Several energetic parameters were also estimated with the assistance of regular solution approximation and pseudo phase separation model that indicate micelle formation and adsorption of surfactant at the surface is thermodynamically advantageous. The morphology of pure and mixture of amphiphiles has been estimated by the Tanford and Israelachvili theories. UV-visible spectroscopy was used to quantify the attractive behavior of the drug with surfactant with the help of a binding constant (K).

Brain histamine H1 receptor occupancy after oral administration of desloratadine and loratadine

Some histamine H1 receptor (H1R) antagonists induce adverse sedative reactions caused by blockade of histamine transmission in the brain. Desloratadine is a second-generation antihistamine for treatment of allergic disorders. Its binding to brain H1Rs, which is the basis of sedative property of antihistamines, has not been examined previously in the human brain by positron emission tomography (PET). We examined brain H1R binding potential ratio (BPR), H1R occupancy (H1RO), and subjective sleepiness after oral desloratadine administration in comparison to loratadine. Eight healthy male volunteers underwent PET imaging with [11C]-doxepin, a PET tracer for H1Rs, after a single oral administration of desloratadine (5 mg), loratadine (10 mg), or placebo in a double-blind crossover study. BPR and H1RO in the cerebral cortex were calculated, and plasma concentrations of loratadine and desloratadine were measured. Subjective sleepiness was quantified by the Line Analogue Rating Scale (LARS) and the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS). BPR was significantly lower after loratadine administration than after placebo (0.504 ± 0.074 vs 0.584 ± 0.059 [mean ± SD], P < 0.05), but BPR after desloratadine administration was not significantly different from BPR after placebo (0.546 ± 0.084 vs 0.584 ± 0.059, P = 0.250). The plasma concentration of loratadine was negatively correlated with BPR in subjects receiving loratadine, but that of desloratadine was not correlated with BPR. Brain H1ROs after desloratadine and loratadine administration were 6.47 ± 10.5% and 13.8 ± 7.00%, respectively (P = 0.103). Subjective sleepiness did not significantly differ among subjects receiving the two antihistamines and placebo. At therapeutic doses, desloratadine did not bind significantly to brain H1Rs and did not induce any significant sedation.

A meta-analysis of sublingual allergen immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

The capacity of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) to provide effective symptom relief in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis is often questioned, despite evidence of clinical efficacy from meta-analyses and well-powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. In the absence of direct, head-to-head, comparative trials of SLIT and symptomatic medication, only indirect comparisons are possible.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of classes of products (second-generation H1-antihistamines, nasal corticosteroids and grass pollen SLIT tablet formulations) and single products (the azelastine-fluticasone combination MP29-02, and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast) for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults, adolescents and/or children. We searched the literature for large (n >100 in the smallest treatment arm) double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. For each drug or drug class, we performed a meta-analysis of the effect on symptom scores. For each selected trial, we calculated the relative clinical impact (according to a previously published method) on the basis of the reported post-treatment or season-long nasal or total symptom scores: 100 × (scorePlacebo - scoreActive)/scorePlacebo.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight publications on symptomatic medication trials and ten on SLIT trials met our selection criteria (total number of patients: n = 21,223). The Hedges' g values from the meta-analyses confirmed the presence of a treatment effect for all drug classes. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean (range) relative clinical impacts were -29.6% (-23% to -37%) for five-grass pollen SLIT tablets, -19.2% (-6% to -29%) for timothy pollen SLIT tablets, -23.5% (-7% to -54%) for nasal corticosteroids, -17.1% (-15% to -20%) for MP29-02, -15.0% (-3% to -26%) for H1-antihistamines and -6.5% (-3% to -10%) for montelukast.

CONCLUSIONS

In an indirect comparison, grass pollen SLIT tablets had a greater mean relative clinical impact than second-generation antihistamines and montelukast and much the same mean relative clinical impact as nasal corticosteroids. This result was obtained despite the presence of methodological factors that mask the clinical efficacy of SLIT for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Development of small molecules to target the IgE:FcεRI protein-protein interaction in allergies

The protein-protein interaction (PPI) between IgE and its high-affinity receptor (FcεRI) is a key component of the allergic response. Inhibiting the IgE:FcεRI PPI is an attractive strategy for therapeutic intervention and the development of allergy treatments. This PPI has been validated as a viable target by the monoclonal anti-IgE antibody omalizumab (Xolair(®)), which has demonstrated clinical efficacy when prescribed to treat moderate-to-severe asthma and hay fever, but small molecules would be a more convenient form of treatment. Cyclic peptides, small proteins and a natural product have all been developed to target the IgE:FcεRI PPI, and these will be discussed in this review. Targeting the IgE:FcεRI complex with small molecules presents various challenges, some of which are inherent in all PPI targets but some of which are unique to this system, which presents great opportunities for the development of new therapeutics for the treatment of allergies.

Antihistamine therapy in allergic rhinitis

Antihistamines have long been a mainstay in the therapy for allergic rhinitis. Many different oral antihistamines are available for use, and they are classified as first generation or second generation based on their pharmacologic properties and side-effect profiles. The recent introduction of intranasal antihistamines has further expanded the role of antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Certain patient populations, such as children and pregnant or lactating women, require special consideration regarding antihistamine choice and dosing as part of rhinitis therapy.

Histamine in allergic rhinitis

Histamine plays a major role in allergic rhinitis. In susceptible individuals, allergen induces nasal mast cell degranulation and the release of histamine into the nasal mucosa. Histamine has been detected after controlled challenges with allergen and, when administered into the nasal cavity, elicits signs and symptoms similar to those elicited by allergen. All four histamine receptors have been demonstrated in the nasal mucosa. The role of the four histamine receptors in the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis are discussed.

Inhibition of the histamine-induced weal and flare response: a valid surrogate measure for antihistamine clinical efficacy?

Histamine plays a central role in allergic responses. Inhibition of the weal and flare response to histamine is a traditional pharmacodynamic tool to measure the activity of H(1)-receptor antagonists. The time course and duration of cutaneous weal and flare inhibition are often used as surrogate measures of clinical efficacy. Pharmacodynamic differences among antihistamines are often interpreted to indicate differences in clinical efficacy. A systematic review of literature from 1980 to 2006 regarding the histamine induced weal and flare was undertaken. Search terms included 'histamine', 'skin test', 'weal', 'flare', and 'antihistamine'; retrieved articles were searched for relevant studies not identified initially. Data from human studies on the inhibition of the weal and flare by second-generation antihistamines were extracted and assessed. A literature search from 1980 to 2006 was undertaken for comparative studies of second-generation antihistamines in the clinical settings of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria; data extracted from these studies underwent systematic review. Differences were noted among second-generation antihistamines in terms of their ability to inhibit the histamine-induced weal and flare. Corresponding differences in terms of clinical efficacy in AR and chronic urticaria were not identified following a systematic review. The reasons for the disconnect between pharmacodynamic effects and clinical efficacy may include differences between the route and concentration of histamine, the involvement of mediators other than histamine in the allergic response, and the short time course of pharmacodynamic studies. The histamine-induced weal and flare response is a pharmacodynamic test that should not be used to compare the clinical efficacy of different antihistamines, and is not an adequate alternative to clinical end-point assessments in AR or chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Effectiveness of desloratadine 5 mg once daily in patients with symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis: results of a Canadian multicenter, open-label trial

BACKGROUND

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is an inflammatory response to seasonal allergens. Desloratadine, a once-daily selective histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist, has been reported to be efficacious in relieving symptoms of SAR in controlled clinical trials. However, to assess the actual effectiveness of a drug, it is important to examine information about its use in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The Partners in Allergy Control and Therapy (PACT) study examined the effectiveness of desloratadine in patients with SAR symptoms receiving treatment in a community setting of primary care physicians in Canada.

METHODS

Patients with symptoms of SAR received desloratadine 5 mg once daily for 7 days during the spring-summer allergy season (April-July 2002). Patients rated their SAR symptoms along with their physicians by completing a questionnaire at baseline and day 7. Nasal, ocular, respiratory, and overall symptoms were rated on a scale of 0 (no symptoms evident) to 3 (severe/interfere with activities of daily living and/or sleeping). Physicians were asked to keep a record of adverse events reported by patients. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate symptom severity scores. A 2-way (time x treatment), repeated measures, mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was constructed to assess differences in variables over time.

RESULTS

A total of 6829 patients participated in the study. Patients reported nasal stuffiness/congestion as their most severe symptom. Just over half (50.1%) of patients were receiving another medication for SAR at study entry; 29.7% were receiving an intranasal corticosteroid. After 7 days of treatment with desloratadine, individual symptom scores and overall symptom scores were significantly reduced compared with baseline (all scores, P<0.001). An improvement in nasal/stuffiness/ congestion was reported by 88.0% of patients. The ANOVA detected a statistically significant incremental benefit with desloratadine and an intranasal corticosteroid compared with desloratadine monotherapy (P<0.001). No severe adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Desloratadine 5 mg once daily was associated with significant improvement in symptoms of SAR, and appeared to provide additional benefit in relieving moderate to severe nasal stuffiness/congestion in 6786 patients receiving 7-day treatment in an actual practice setting of primary care physicians in Canada.