Safety of levocetirizine treatment in young atopic children: An 18-month study

Biowaiver Monograph for Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Levocetirizine Dihydrochloride

Levocetirizine, a histamine H1-receptor antagonist, is prescribed to treat uncomplicated skin rashes associated with chronic idiopathic urticaria as well as the symptoms of both seasonal and continual allergic rhinitis. In this monograph, the practicality of using Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) based methodologies as a substitute for pharmacokinetic studies in human volunteers to appraise the bioequivalence of immediate-release (IR) oral, solid dosage forms containing levocetirizine dihydrochloride was investigated, using data from the literature and in-house testing. Levocetirizine's solubility and permeability properties, as well as its dissolution from commercial products, its therapeutic uses, therapeutic index, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic traits, were reviewed in accordance with the BCS, along with any reports in the literature about failure to meet bioequivalence (BE) requirements, bioavailability issues, drug-excipient interactions as well as other relevant information. The data presented in this monograph unequivocally point to classification of levocetirizine in BCS Class 1. For products that are somewhat supra-equivalent or somewhat sub-equivalent, clinical risks are expected to be insignificant in light of levocetirizine's wide therapeutic index and unlikelihood of severe adverse effects. After careful consideration of all the information available, it was concluded that the BCS-based biowaiver can be implemented for products which contain levocetirizine dihydrochloride, provided (a) the test product comprises excipients that are typically found in IR oral, solid drug products that have been approved by a country belonging to or associated with ICH and are used in quantities that are typical for such products, (b) data supporting the BCS-based biowaiver are gathered using ICH-recommended methods, and (c) all in vitro dissolution requirements specified in the ICH guidance are met by both the test and comparator products (in this case, the comparator is the innovator product).

Newer-generation antihistamines and the risk of adverse events in children: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

H1-antihistamines (AHs) are widely used for the treatment of allergic diseases, being one of the most commonly prescribed classes of medications in pediatrics. Newer-generation AHs are associated with fewer adverse effects compared with first-generation AHs. However, their relative harms in the pediatric population still need scrutiny.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which included comparisons of safety parameters between an orally administered newer-generation AH and another AH (first- or second-generation), montelukast, or placebo in children aged ≤12 years. We searched MEDLINE and CENTRAL, independently extracted data on study population, interventions, adverse events (AEs), and treatment discontinuations, and assessed the methodologic quality of the included RCTs using the Cochrane's risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Forty-five RCTs published between 1989 and 2017 met eligibility criteria. The majority of RCTs included school-aged children with allergic rhinitis and had a follow-up period of up to a month. Four RCTs reported serious AEs in patients receiving a newer-generation AH, but only two patients experienced a possibly drug-related serious AE. The occurrence of AEs, drug-related AEs, and treatment discontinuations due to AEs varied between RCTs. Most AEs reported were of mild intensity. Indirect evidence indicates that cetirizine is more sedating than the other newer-generation AHs.

CONCLUSION

Our findings confirm that newer-generation AHs have a favorable safety and tolerability profile. However, we could not draw firm conclusions regarding the comparative safety profile of the newer-generation AHs due to the paucity of head-to-head RCTs, variation in definitions and reporting of AEs, and short follow-up duration.

Do Pediatric Emergency Physicians Comply With Guideline Recommendations in Management of Patients With Acute Urticaria?

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of knowledge and practical preferences of pediatricians regarding acute urticaria (AU) management and to assess the effects of training provided in accordance with the current urticaria guideline recommendations on pediatricians who work in the pediatric emergency department (PED).

METHODS

A theoretical training was provided to pediatricians regarding the diagnosis and treatment of AU in line with current urticaria guideline recommendations. Before the training, pediatricians completed a 10-item questionnaire. This prospective study assesses their treatment approaches in patients admitted to PED because of AU during the 6-month period before and the 1-year period after training.

RESULTS

Four hundred seventeen children in the pretraining and 1085 children in the posttraining periods were treated for AU in PED. Forty-eight pediatricians participated in the training. According to their questionnaire responses, 35% of them used only H1 antihistamine (AH) treatment, 50% used second-generation H1 AH (2nd-GAH) as AHs, 75% preferred the oral route of administration, and 85.4% did not administer systemic corticosteroid (sCS) to all patients. Comparing the practice approaches of the pediatricians in the pretraining and posttraining periods, first-generation H1 antihistamine (1st-GAH) preference rate decreased from 68.4% to 30.3% and the sCS preference rate decreased from 58.5% to 25.7%, while the 2nd-GAH preference rate increased from 31.7% to 69.7% (P < 0.001 for all). No treatments were prescribed for 10.8% of patients before the training and 3% after the training during discharge at home (P < 0.05). Comparing the home treatment choices of the pediatricians in the pretraining and posttraining periods, 1st-GAH preference rate decreased from 11.5% to 5%, while the 2nd-GAH preference rate increased from 78.7% to 91.5% (for both parameters, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Practical treatment preferences of pediatricians in the treatment of children with AU differ considerably from both current guideline recommendations and their own theoretical knowledge, and training can enhance pediatricians' compliance with current guideline recommendations.

Immunologic Strategies for Prevention of Asthma

A new understanding of factors leading to the development of asthma has pointed to potential primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies. Some, such as genetic makeup, are not yet modifiable. Interventions targeting other factors such as maternal intake of vitamin D or environmental control can be used to decrease the risk of asthma development (primary prevention). The benefits of a diversified microbiome could be considered when recommending allergen avoidance and pet ownership. In addition to reducing symptoms, allergen immunotherapy is also worth considering for prevention of new sensitivities (secondary prevention) in addition to the development of asthma. Ongoing studies involving the use of bacterial vaccines and biologics may provide additional strategies for primary prevention of asthma and for reducing symptoms once it has developed (tertiary prevention). As the relative benefits of these strategies are defined, they should have an increasingly important place in the prevention and management of asthma.

The clinical evidence of second-generation H1-antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria in children over 2 years with a special focus on rupatadine

INTRODUCTION

Many obstacles limit the development of pharmacologic studies in children, in particular ethical and practical issues. Therefore, although second-generation H1-antihistamines (sgAH) are recommended by international guidelines as first-line therapy in childhood allergies, most data on the efficacy of antihistamines in children has been extrapolated from studies in adult patients.

AREAS COVERED

The current review focuses on rupatadine, a well-studied modern sgAH that has dual affinity for histamine H1-receptors and PAF receptors. In recent years, clinical efficacy and safety controlled-clinical trials on rupatadine were conducted in children and were based on latest current guidelines using validated tools of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

EXPERT OPINION

Children are not little adults since they present specific physiologic, metabolic, and developmental differences that should be evaluated in specific trials. The clinical evidence with rupatadine in children is the most recent and validated in accordance with current recommendations, with extensive direct data on efficacy and safety in pediatric populations over 2 years old.

The Effect Of Food On The Pharmacokinetic Properties And Bioequivalence Of Two Formulations Of Levocetirizine Dihydrochloride In Healthy Chinese Volunteers

Purpose

The aim of this study is to assess the bioequivalence of a new generic formulation and the branded formulation of levocetirizine dihydrochloride in healthy Chinese volunteers under fasting and fed conditions, and food-intake effect on the pharmacokinetic properties is also evaluated.

Patients and methods

Volunteers were randomly allocated into two groups to receive a single oral dose of generic formulation and branded formulation under fasting or fed conditions, respectively. Blood samples were collected at designated time points. Plasma concentrations of levocetirizine were determined by UFLC-MS/MS. Safety evaluations were carried out through the study. The main pharmacokinetic parameters of the two formulations of levocetirizine were calculated using non-compartmental analysis incorporated in WinNonlin^® 7.0 software.

Results

Forty-nine volunteers were enrolled; 46 completed the studies. Under fasting and fed conditions, the 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean of generic/branded ratios were in the range of 94.75–107.24% and 99.98–114.69% for the maximum observed concentration, and 97.13–102.50% and 98.36–103.98% for the area under the concentration–time curve. As a result of food intake before administration, the reduced rate and extent of absorption of levocetirizine were observed. Both formulations were generally well tolerated, with no serious adverse reactions reported.

Conclusion

The two formulations demonstrated essentially identical pharmacokinetic profiles and were all well within the FDA/CFDA bioequivalence standards. Meanwhile, food intake can delay the absorption rate and reduced the bioavailability of levocetirizine in healthy Chinese volunteers.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/-Xhw5uFbQfw

Management of chronic urticaria in children: a clinical guideline

The aim of this guidance is to provide recommendations to clinicians and other interested parties on chronic urticaria in children. The Italian Society for Pediatrics (SIP), the Italian Society for Allergy and Immunology (SIAIP), the Italian Society for Pediatric dermatology (SIDerP) convened a multidisciplinary panel that prepared clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management of chronic urticaria in childhood. Key questions on epidemiology, natural history, diagnosis, and management were developed. The literature was systematically searched and evaluated, recommendations were rated and algorithms for diagnosis and treatment were developed. The recommendations focus on identification of diseases and comorbidities, strategies to recognize triggering factors, improvement of treatment by individualized care.

Histamine, histamine receptors, and anti-histamines in the context of allergic responses

Histamine is a bioactive amine which is considered a key player in the allergic response. Thus, histamine receptor blockers (antihistamines) play an important role in the treatment of a number atopic diseases such as allergic rhinitis, conjunctivitis, and acute and chronic forms of urticaria. Histamine is produced by immune cells but also by bacteria in the gut. Beyond its role in the acute allergic response, histamine exerts numerous effects by binding to its 4 pleiotropic G-protein coupled histamine receptors. Here, we describe the roles of these histamine receptors and antihistamines in the human system, clinical applications, side effects, and novel concepts for the usage of antihistamines with different specificity based on guidelines and recommendations.

Statement of novelty: This review provides an overview of histamine receptors and links it to clinical relevance of antagonizing their action in clinical routine.

Oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for eczema

BACKGROUND

The symptoms of eczema can lead to sleeplessness and fatigue and may have a substantial impact on quality of life. Use of oral H1 antihistamines (H1 AH) as adjuvant therapy alongside topical agents is based on the idea that combining the anti-inflammatory effects of topical treatments with the blocking action of histamine on its receptors in the skin by H1 AH (to reduce the principal symptom of itch) might magnify or intensify the effect of treatment. Also, it would be unethical to compare oral H1 AH alone versus no treatment, as topical treatment is the standard management for this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment in adults and children with eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to May 2018: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the GREAT database (Global Resource of EczemA Trials; from inception). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the abstracts of four conference proceedings held between 2000 and 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought RCTs assessing oral H1 AH as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for people with eczema compared with topical treatment plus placebo or no additional treatment as add-on therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcome measures were 'Mean change in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema' and 'Proportion of participants reporting adverse effects and serious adverse events'. Secondary outcomes were 'Mean change in physician-assessed clinical signs', 'Mean change in quality of life', and 'Number of eczema flares'.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies (3285 randomised participants). Seventeen studies included 1344 adults, and eight studies included 1941 children. Most studies failed to report eczema severity at baseline, but they were conducted in secondary care settings, so it is likely that they recruited patients with more severe cases of eczema. Trial duration was between three days and 18 months. Researchers studied 13 different H1 AH treatments. We could not undertake pooling because of the high level of diversity across studies in terms of duration and dose of intervention, concomitant topical therapy, and outcome assessment. Risk of bias was generally unclear, but five studies had high risk of bias in one domain (attrition, selection, or reporting bias). Only one study measured quality of life, but these results were insufficient for statistical analysis.Although this review assessed 17 comparisons, we summarise here the results of three key comparisons in this review.Cetirizine versus placeboOne study compared cetirizine 0.5 mg/kg/d against placebo over 18 months in 795 children. Study authors did not report patient-assessed symptoms of eczema separately for pruritus. Cetirizine is probably associated with fewer adverse events (mainly mild) (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01) and the need for slightly less additional H1 AH use as an indication of eczema flare rate (P = 0.035; no further numerical data given). Physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index (SCORAD)) were reduced in both groups, but the difference between groups was reported as non-significant (no P value given). Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.One study assessed cetirizine 10 mg/d against placebo over four weeks in 84 adults. Results show no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema (pruritus measured as part of SCORAD; no numerical data given), numbers of adverse events (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45; mainly sedation, other skin-related problems, respiratory symptoms, or headache), or physician-assessed changes in clinical signs, amount of local rescue therapy required, or number of applications as an indicator of eczema flares (no numerical data reported). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality.Fexofenadine versus placeboCompared with placebo, fexofenadine 120 mg/d taken in adults over one week (one study) probably leads to a small reduction in patient-assessed symptoms of pruritus on a scale of 0 to 8 (mean difference (MD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.07; n = 400) and a greater reduction in the ratio of physician-assessed pruritus area to whole body surface area (P = 0.007; no further numerical data given); however, these reductions may not be clinically meaningful. Results suggest probably little or no difference in adverse events (mostly somnolence and headache) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.50; n = 411) nor in the amount of 0.1% hydrocortisone butyrate used (co-intervention in both groups) as an indicator of eczema flare, but no numerical data were given. Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.Loratadine versus placeboA study of 28 adults compared loratadine 10 mg/d taken over 4 weeks versus placebo. Researchers found no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed pruritus, measured by a 100-point visual analogue scale (MD -2.30, 95% CI -20.27 to 15.67); reduction in physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORAD) (MD -4.10, 95% CI -13.22 to 5.02); or adverse events. Study authors reported only one side effect (folliculitis with placebo) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.76). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality. Number of eczema flares was not measured for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the main comparisons, we did not find consistent evidence that H1 AH treatments are effective as 'add-on' therapy for eczema when compared to placebo; evidence for this comparison was of low and moderate quality. However, fexofenadine probably leads to a small improvement in patient-assessed pruritus, with probably no significant difference in the amount of treatment used to prevent eczema flares. Cetirizine was no better than placebo in terms of physician-assessed clinical signs nor patient-assessed symptoms, and we found no evidence that loratadine was more beneficial than placebo, although all interventions seem safe.The quality of evidence was limited because of poor study design and imprecise results. Future researchers should clearly define the condition (course and severity) and clearly report their methods, especially participant selection and randomisation; baseline characteristics; and outcomes (based on the Harmonising Outcome Measures in Eczema initiative).

Consensus-based European guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) in adults and children: part II

This guideline was developed as a joint interdisciplinary European project, including physicians from all relevant disciplines as well as patients. It is a consensus-based guideline, taking available evidence from other guidelines, systematic reviews and published studies into account. This second part of the guideline covers antimicrobial therapy, systemic treatment, allergen-specific immunotherapy, complementary medicine, psychosomatic counselling and educational interventions, whereas the first part covers methods, patient perspective, general measures and avoidance strategies, basic emollient treatment and bathing, dietary intervention, topical anti-inflammatory therapy, phototherapy and antipruritic therapy. Management of AE must consider the individual clinical variability of the disease. Systemic immunosuppressive treatment with cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine and mycophenolic acid is established option for severe refractory cases, and widely available. Biologicals targeting the T helper 2 pathway such as dupilumab may be a safe and effective, disease-modifying alternative when available. Oral drugs such as JAK inhibitors and histamine 4 receptor antagonists are in development. Microbial colonization and superinfection may cause disease exacerbation and can require additional antimicrobial treatment. Allergen-specific immunotherapy with aeroallergens may be considered in selected cases. Psychosomatic counselling is recommended especially in stress-induced exacerbations. Therapeutic patient education ('Eczema school') is recommended for children and adult patients. General measures, basic emollient treatment, bathing, dietary intervention, topical anti-inflammatory therapy, phototherapy and antipruritic therapy have been addressed in the first part of the guideline.

Consensus-based European guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) in adults and children: part I

This guideline was developed as a joint interdisciplinary European project, including physicians from all relevant disciplines as well as patients. It is a consensus-based guideline, taking available evidence from other guidelines, systematic reviews and published studies into account. This first part of the guideline covers methods, patient perspective, general measures and avoidance strategies, basic emollient treatment and bathing, dietary intervention, topical anti-inflammatory therapy, phototherapy and antipruritic therapy, whereas the second part covers antimicrobial therapy, systemic treatment, allergen-specific immunotherapy, complementary medicine, psychosomatic counselling and educational interventions. Management of AE must consider the individual clinical variability of the disease; highly standardized treatment rules are not recommended. Basic therapy is focused on treatment of disturbed barrier function by hydrating and lubricating topical treatment, besides further avoidance of specific and unspecific provocation factors. Topical anti-inflammatory treatment based on glucocorticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors is used for flare management and for proactive therapy for long-term control. Topical corticosteroids remain the mainstay of therapy, whereas tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are preferred in sensitive skin areas and for long-term use. Topical phosphodiesterase inhibitors may be a treatment alternative when available. Adjuvant therapy includes UV irradiation, preferably with UVB 311 nm or UVA1. Pruritus is targeted with the majority of the recommended therapies, but some patients may need additional antipruritic therapy. Antimicrobial therapy, systemic anti-inflammatory treatment, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational intervention will be addressed in part II of the guideline.

Rupatadine oral solution for 2-5-year-old children with allergic rhinitis: a safety, open-label, prospective study

Background

There are few clinical trials that assess the efficacy of antihistamines in very young children. Rupatadine is a second-generation antihistamine indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and urticaria. In this study, AR symptoms were evaluated before and after daily 1 mg/mL rupatadine oral solution administration in 2–5-year-old children.

Methods

A multicenter open-label study was carried out in 2–5-year-old children with AR. Safety assessments were collected during the study including spontaneous adverse events, vital signs, and electrocardiogram (QTc interval). Additionally, evaluations of Total Five Symptoms Score (T5SS, including: nasal congestion; sneezing; rhinorrhoea; itchy nose, mouth, throat, and/or ears; and itchy, watery, and red eyes) were analyzed. Symptoms were evaluated by parents/legal guardian before and after 4 weeks of rupatadine administration, dosed according to body weight.

Results

A total of 44 children received the study treatment. Only 15 adverse events were reported. All of them were of mild intensity and considered not related to the study treatment. No patient exceeded the standard parameter of >450 ms in the last visit, for the QTc interval on their electrocardiograms. From a maximum score value of 15, T5SS values at Day 14 (6.35) and Day 28 (5.42) were both statistically significant different (p<0.001) from the baseline T5SS value (mean 8.65), with a reduction of 26.6% and 37.4%, respectively. All individual symptoms, including nasal congestion, showed also a decrease from baseline at both 14 and 28 days.

Conclusion

Rupatadine 1 mg/mL oral solution was found to be safe in 2–5-year-old children, correlating with an improvement of AR symptoms, overall and each individually, after a daily dose administration. With this study, we enlarge the available information in this very young pediatric patients’ group, in which there is a general lack of clinical evidence.

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.

Co-Activation of Glucocorticoid Receptor and Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor-γ in Murine Skin Prevents Worsening of Atopic March

Children with atopic dermatitis show an increased risk to develop asthma later in life, a phenomenon referred to as "atopic march," which emphasizes the need for secondary prevention therapies. This study aimed to investigate whether relief of skin inflammation by glucocorticoids and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists might influence the subsequent development of asthma in a murine model for the atopic march in which mice were repeatedly exposed to house dust mite via the skin, followed by exposure to house dust mite in lungs. To abrogate atopic dermatitis, mice received topical treatment with glucocorticoid receptor/peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ agonists. Nuclear receptor ligand effects were assessed on primary keratinocytes and dendritic cells, as central players in skin inflammation. Prior house dust mite-induced skin inflammation aggravates allergic airway inflammation and induces a mixed T helper type 2/T helper type 17 response in the lungs. Cutaneous combined activation of glucocorticoid receptor/peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ reduced skin inflammation to a higher extent compared to single activation. Additive anti-inflammatory effects were more prominent in dendritic cells, as compared to keratinocytes. Alleviation of allergic skin inflammation by activation of glucocorticoid receptor/peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ appeared insufficient to avoid the allergic immune response in the lungs, but efficiently reduced asthma severity by counteracting the Th17 response. Glucocorticoid receptor/peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ co-activation represents a potent remedy against allergic skin inflammation and worsening of atopic march.

Adverse drug reactions of systemic antihistamines in children in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines are used for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria and atopic eczema.

OBJECTIVE

To study the reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in children using antihistamines to provide prescribers with an overview of the possible toxicity.

DESIGN

We studied ADRs in children reported to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb in the years 1991-2014, assessed the Naranjo score and, when possible, computed the reporting OR.

RESULTS

Serious ADRs included one death (malignant neuroleptic syndrome), cardiac arrhythmia (one case) and convulsions (three cases). Skin eruptions, headache and somnolence were the most frequently reported ADRs. Aggression and agitation were also reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Toxicity can occur with second-generation antihistamines. The main toxicity relates to skin eruptions and central nervous system problems.

Safety and tolerability of bilastine 10 mg administered for 12 weeks in children with allergic diseases

BACKGROUND

Regulations on medicinal products for paediatric use require that pharmacokinetics and safety be characterized specifically in the paediatric population. A previous study established that a 10-mg dose of bilastine in children aged 2 to <12 years provided an equivalent systemic exposure as 20 mg in adults. The current study assessed the safety and tolerability of bilastine 10 mg in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria.

METHODS

In this phase III, multicentre, double-blind study, children were randomized to once-daily treatment with bilastine 10-mg oral dispersible table (n = 260) or placebo (n = 249) for 12 weeks. Safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory tests, cardiac safety (ECG recordings) and somnolence/sedation using the Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ).

RESULTS

The primary hypothesis of non-inferiority between bilastine 10 mg and placebo was demonstrated on the basis of a near-equivalent proportion of children in each treatment arm without TEAEs during 12 weeks' treatment (31.5 vs. 32.5%). No clinically relevant differences between bilastine 10 mg and placebo were observed from baseline to study end for TEAEs or related TEAEs, ECG parameters and PSQ scores. The majority of TEAEs were mild or moderate in intensity. TEAEs led to discontinuation of two patients treated with bilastine 10 mg and one patient treated with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilastine 10 mg had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of placebo in children aged 2 to <12 years with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or chronic urticaria.

Consensus Conference on Clinical Management of pediatric Atopic Dermatitis

The Italian Consensus Conference on clinical management of atopic dermatitis in children reflects the best and most recent scientific evidence, with the aim to provide specialists with a useful tool for managing this common, but complex clinical condition. Thanks to the contribution of experts in the field and members of the Italian Society of Pediatric Allergology and Immunology (SIAIP) and the Italian Society of Pediatric Dermatology (SIDerP), this Consensus statement integrates the basic principles of the most recent guidelines for the management of atopic dermatitis to facilitate a practical approach to the disease. The therapeutical approach should be adapted to the clinical severity and requires a tailored strategy to ensure good compliance by children and their parents. In this Consensus, levels and models of intervention are also enriched by the Italian experience to facilitate a practical approach to the disease.

Rupatadine is effective in the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria in children aged 2-11 years

BACKGROUND

Recommendations in current guidelines for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in infants and children are mostly based on extrapolation of data obtained in adults. This study reports the efficacy and safety of rupatadine, a modern H1 and PAF antagonist recently authorized in Europe for children with allergic rhinitis and CSU.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre, placebo-controlled compared study to desloratadine was carried out in children aged 2-11 years with CSU, with or without angio-oedema. Patients received either rupatadine (1 mg/ml), or desloratadine (0.5 mg/ml) or placebo once daily over 6 weeks. A modified 7-day cumulative Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) was employed as the primary end-point.

RESULTS

The absolute change of UAS7 at 42 days showed statistically significant differences between active treatments vs. placebo (-5.5 ± 7.5 placebo, -11.8 ± 8.7 rupatadine and -10.6 ± 9.6 desloratadine; p < 0.001) and without differences between antihistamines compounds. There was a 55.8% decrease for rupatadine followed by desloratadine (-48.4%) and placebo (-30.3%). Rupatadine but not desloratadine was statistically superior to placebo in reduction of pruritus (-57%). Active treatments also showed a statistically better improvement in children's quality of life compared to placebo. Adverse events were uncommon and non-serious in both active groups.

CONCLUSION

Rupatadine is effective and well tolerated in the relief of urticaria symptoms, improving quality of life over 6 weeks in children with CSU. This is the first study using a modified UAS to assess severity and efficacy outcome in CSU in children.

Atopic dermatitis: current treatment guidelines. Statement of the experts of the Dermatological Section, Polish Society of Allergology, and the Allergology Section, Polish Society of Dermatology

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a condition frequently encountered in medical practices across the country. More than 60% of children with AD are at risk to develop allergic rhinitis or asthma (the atopic march). Patients with AD have a unique predisposition to colonization or infection by Staphylococcus aureus. Treatments for AD need to rapidly control symptoms of the disease, improve quality of life and prevent exacerbations. Given the chronic and relapsing nature of the disease, therapies need to encourage good compliance and be well tolerated.

Demographic and clinical profiles in patients with acute urticaria

BACKGROUND

Urticaria is a common cause for consultation in general and specialised medical practices. There is scarce information on the characteristics of patients suffering acute urticaria in Latin America.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate demographic and clinical features of patients with acute urticaria attending two allergy clinics in Caracas, Venezuela.

METHODS

A prospective study of all new patients who consulted during a three-year period because of acute urticaria. Information on age, gender, symptom duration, previous medical history, body distribution of wheals and angio-oedema, laboratory investigations, skin prick tests, and pharmacological treatment, was collected. Patients were classified according to their age as children/adolescents and adults.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty eight patients (177 adults and 71 children) were studied. Acute urticaria was more frequent in middle-aged atopic female patients. Lesions more often involved upper and lower limbs and head, and 31% of patients exhibited generalised urticaria. Laboratory investigations, performed only in selected cases, did not contribute to the final diagnosis. Most frequent subtypes of acute urticaria were spontaneous, dermographic, papular, and drug-induced urticaria. Most patients were treated with non-sedating antihistamines, with increased use of cetirizine and levocetirizine in children, while 5.6% of children and 20.3% of adults required the addition of short courses of systemic corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute urticaria is a frequent cause of consultation for allergists, affecting more often middle-aged female atopic patients. The use of extensive complementary tests does not seem to be cost-effective for this clinical condition. Spontaneous, dermographic, papular and drug-induced urticaria are the most common subtypes.

Antihistamine use in children

This review provides an overview of the use of antihistamines in children. We discuss types of histamine receptors and their mechanism of action, absorption, onset and duration of action of first-generation and second-generation H(1)-antihistamines, as well as elimination of H(1)-antihistamines which has important implications for dosing in children. The rationale for the use of H(1)-antihistamines is explored for the relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a variety of allergic conditions including: non-anaphylactic allergic reactions, atopic eczema (AE), allergic rhinitis (AR) and conjunctivitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and whether they have a role in the management of intermittent and chronic cough, anaphylaxis, food protein-induced gastrointestinal allergy and asthma prevention. Second-generation H(1)-antihistamines are preferable to first-generation H(1)-antihistamines in the management of non-anaphylactic allergic reactions, AR, AE and CSU due to: their better safety profile, including minimal cognitive and antimuscarinic side effects and a longer duration of action. We offer some guidance as to the choices of H(1)-antihistamines available currently and their use in specific clinical settings. H(1)-antihistamine class, availability, licensing, age and dosing administration, recommended indications in allergic conditions and modalities of delivery for the 12 more commonly used H(1)-antihistamines in children are also tabulated.

Contributing factors to the development of childhood asthma: working toward risk minimization

Asthma is the most common chronic disease in childhood, and considerable research has been undertaken to find ways to prevent its development and reduce its prevalence. For such interventions to be successful, risk factors for asthma emergence should be identified and clearly defined. Data are robust for some of them, including atopy, viral infections and exposure to airborne irritants, whereas it is less conclusive for others, such as aeroallergen exposure and bacterial infections. Several interventions for asthma prevention, including avoidance and pharmacotherapy, have been attempted. However, most of them have furnished equivocal results. Various issues hinder the establishment of risk factors for asthma development and reduce the effectiveness of interventions, including the complexity of the disease and the fluidity of the developing systems in childhood. In this review, we revisit the evidence on pediatric asthma risk factors and prevention and discuss issues that perplex this field.

Off-label prescribing for allergic diseases in pre-school children

BACKGROUND

Several studies have demonstrated that medication is commonly used off-label in children with allergic diseases. The aim of this study was to characterise off-label use of prescriptions for allergic diseases in pre-school children from an allergology outpatient unit.

METHODS

The clinical files of children aged ≤ 6 years seen in a reference allergology consultation with asthma, allergic rhinitis, and/or atopic eczema were reviewed. A total of 500 patients were consecutively observed from January to June 2012. The data collected included gender, age, diagnosis, and prescriptions with the respective daily dosage.

RESULTS

A total of 1224 prescriptions were registered. The most prescribed medications were oral antihistamines (34.6%), antileukotrienes (22.6%), topical nasal corticosteroids (20.3%), and inhaled corticosteroids (17.7%). From all prescriptions, 422 (34.5%) were considered off-label for age (62.6%), dosage (31.7%), or clinical indication (5.7%). Off-label use was more frequent in children aged <2 years, with 73.5% prescribed for children of this age.

CONCLUSIONS

Off-label use of drugs for the treatment of paediatric allergic diseases is high. However, these prescriptions are not necessarily wrong, and are recommended in many guidelines. Randomised controlled studies are limited by methodological difficulties creating the need for more observational studies in order to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs used in children.

Stabbing headache in an 8-year-old girl: primary or drug induced headache?

The occurrence of stabbing headaches in children requires a thorough diagnostic approach that excludes secondary headaches. The organic background should be taken into consideration when alarming symptoms occur, such as a purely 1-sided location, a change in the character of the headache, or possibly a link to physical activity. The current study describes the case of an 8-year-old girl who suffered short-lasting stabbing headache attacks. The headaches with increasing intensity and frequency started 1 month before her hospitalization and were usually preceded by physical activity (dancing, running). The pain, which was located in the right supraorbital region, lasted 1 second and occurred several times during the day. No associated symptoms were observed. In addition, the girl suffered from allergic rhinitis and was on antiallergic treatment (levocetirizine, fluticasone nasal spray). On admission she was in good general condition, and a pediatric and neurologic examination revealed no abnormalities. Her brain MRI was normal. The initial diagnosis was that the patient was suffering from primary stabbing headaches. However, during a follow-up visit 4 months later, a relationship was observed between the cessation of the headache attacks and the discontinuation of an antihistaminic drug. Six months later, the girl remained headache free. In cases involving differential diagnoses of stabbing headaches, it is important to consider the adverse reactions of the drugs used.

Off-label prescribing for allergic diseases in children

The majority of drugs prescribed have not been tested in children and safety and efficacy of children's medicines are frequently supported by low quality of evidence. Therefore, a large percentage of prescriptions for children in the clinical daily practice are used off label. Despite the several recent legislation and regulatory efforts performed worldwide, they have not been successful in increasing availability of medicines adapted to children. Moreover, if we consider that 30% of the prescribed drugs for children are for the respiratory field and only 4% of new investigation projects for children research were proposed to access drugs for respiratory and allergy treatment, there is a clear imbalance of the children needs in this therapeutic area. This narrative review aimed to describe and discuss the off-label use of medicines in the treatment and control of respiratory and allergic diseases in children. It was recognized that a large percentage of prescriptions performed for allergy treatment in daily clinical practice are off label. The clinicians struggle on a daily basis with the responsibility to balance risk-benefits of an off-label prescription while involving the patients and their families in this decision. It is crucial to increase awareness of this reality not only for the clinician, but also to the global organizations and competent authorities. New measures for surveillance of off-label use should be established, namely through population databases implementation. There is a need for new proposal to correct the inconsistency between the priorities for pediatric drug research, frequently dependent on commercial motivations, in order to comply to the true needs of the children, especially on the respiratory and allergy fields.

Comparison of levocetirizine pharmacokinetics after single doses of levocetirizine oral solution and cetirizine dry syrup in healthy Japanese male subjects

Objective

Levocetirizine, the R-enantiomer of cetirizine, is classified as a second generation antihistamine used for the treatment of allergic disorders. This study aimed to compare exposure to levocetirizine when given as levocetirizine oral solution (OS) 5 mg to that when given as cetirizine dry syrup (DS) 10 mg, which contains equal proportions of levocetirizine and dextrocetirizine, in healthy Japanese male subjects.

Methods

The study was conducted in an open-label, single dose, randomized and two-way cross-over design. Eligible subjects were allocated to one of two groups and received either levocetirizine OS 5 mg or cetirizine DS 10 mg under fasting conditions, and the alternate treatment after a 7-days washout period. Serial blood samples were taken after each administration, and plasma levocetirizine concentrations were determined using a validated LC-MS/MS method. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated by using non-compartmental analysis. Comparisons of levocetirizine pharmacokinetics were conducted with maximum concentration (C_max) and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from dosing until 48 h post-dose (AUC_0–48) after each treatment.

Clinical Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT01622283

Results

The mean C_max and AUC_0–48 of levocetirizine after a single dose of levocetirizine OS 5 mg and cetirizine DS 10 mg were 203.3 ± 42.49 ng/mL and 1814.9 ± 304.22 ng.hr/mL, and 196.5 ± 31.31 ng/mL and 1710.5 ± 263.31 ng hr/mL, respectively. The ratios and the 90% CIs of the geometric least squares means ratios of C_max and AUC_0–48 were 1.027 (0.968–1.091) and 1.059 (1.024–1.094), respectively.

Limitation

The small sample size and single dose design of this study prevent definitive conclusions regarding the pharmacokinetics and safety of levocetirizine OS in a Japanese patient population being made. Study limitations include conducting the study in adult males, not in children.

Conclusions

Levocetirizine exposure in plasma was equivalent when given as levocetirizine OS 5 mg and as cetirizine DS 10 mg. Both preparations were safe and well-tolerated in healthy Japanese male subjects.

Atopic dermatitis and the atopic march revisited

Atopic dermatitis (AD) has become a significant public health problem because of increasing prevalence, together with increasing evidence that it may progress to other allergic phenotypes. While it is now acknowledged that AD commonly precedes other allergic diseases, a link termed 'the atopic march', debate continues as to whether this represents a causal relationship. An alternative hypothesis is that this association may be related to confounding by familial factors or phenotypes that comanifest, such as early-life wheeze and sensitization. However, there is increasing evidence from longitudinal studies suggesting that the association between AD and other allergies is independent of confounding by comanifest allergic phenotypes. The hypotheses on plausible biological mechanisms for the atopic march focus on defective skin barrier function and overexpression of inflammatory mediators released by the skin affected by AD (including thymic stromal lymphopoietin). Both human and animal studies have provided evidence supporting these potential biological mechanisms. Evidence from prevention trials is now critical to establishing a causal nature of the atopic march. An emerging area of research is investigation into environmental modifiers of the atopic march. Such information will assist in identifying secondary prevention strategies to arrest the atopic march. Despite much research into the aetiology of allergies, little progress has been made in identifying effective strategies to reduce the burden of allergic conditions. In this context, the atopic march remains a promising area of investigation.

Pediatric allergic rhinitis and asthma: can the march be halted?

The strong epidemiologic and pathophysiologic link between allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma has led to the concept of 'united airways disease' or 'respiratory allergy', implying that allergy, in its widest sense, underlies this clinical syndrome. Progression from AR to asthma is frequent and part of the 'atopic march'. Since pediatric immune responses are more adaptable and therefore may be more amenable to treatment, interventions at early childhood are characterized by a higher chance to affect the natural history of respiratory allergy. Although current treatments are quite effective in alleviating respiratory allergy symptoms, it has proven much more difficult to confirm any influence on the progression of the disease. Much more promising is the field of specific allergen immunotherapy, where current evidence, although not yet of ideal robustness, points towards a disease-modifying effect. In addition, newer or emerging, possibly more effective or more targeted interventions are promising in the preventive sense.

Oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common skin disease in many countries, and although the majority of cases of eczema occur before the age of five years and often resolve during childhood or adolescence, it can also persist into adulthood. Itch is the most important aspect of eczema, often impacting significantly on the quality of life of an affected individual.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral antihistamines (H1 antagonists) as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to March 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We examined the reference lists of excluded studies in order to identify further references to relevant trials. We searched trials registers for ongoing and unpublished trials. We also handsearched the abstracts of the International Research Workshops on eczema, as well as the conference proceedings of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) and the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), from 2000 to 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects and safety of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema. We excluded studies that compared an antihistamine versus another antihistamine and had no placebo control arm. We also excluded topical antihistamines and oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy and studies using any concomitant therapy other than emollients or moisturisers, principally because some of these forms of concomitant therapy may be considered treatment modifiers in assessments of the effects of antihistamines on eczema.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our search retrieved 409 references to studies. Based on assessments of their titles, abstracts, or both, we excluded all except 36 of these studies. After evaluation of the full text of each report, we excluded a further 35 studies, and 1 study is awaiting classification pending a response from the trial investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no high-level evidence to support or refute the efficacy or safety of oral H1 antihistamines used as monotherapy for eczema. Because most of the studies allowed the use of concomitant medications and involved multi-therapeutic approaches, meaningful assessments of the individual effects of oral H1 antihistamines on eczema were not feasible. Although well-designed randomised controlled trials excluding concomitant medications appear to be needed, consideration should be given to the potential ethical issues raised with the use of antihistamines as monotherapy for the management of eczema by withholding the use of rescue or additional therapies. A further systematic review of studies in which concomitant therapies were permitted might be of value in determining the potential benefits of oral H1 antihistamines as add-on therapy.

Oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common skin disease in many countries, and although the majority of cases of eczema occur before the age of five years and often resolve during childhood or adolescence, it can also persist into adulthood. Itch is the most important aspect of eczema, often impacting significantly on the quality of life of an affected individual.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral antihistamines (H1 antagonists) as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to March 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We examined the reference lists of excluded studies in order to identify further references to relevant trials. We searched trials registers for ongoing and unpublished trials. We also handsearched the abstracts of the International Research Workshops on eczema, as well as the conference proceedings of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) and the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), from 2000 to 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects and safety of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema. We excluded studies that compared an antihistamine versus another antihistamine and had no placebo control arm. We also excluded topical antihistamines and oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy and studies using any concomitant therapy other than emollients or moisturisers, principally because some of these forms of concomitant therapy may be considered treatment modifiers in assessments of the effects of antihistamines on eczema.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our search retrieved 409 references to studies. Based on assessments of their titles, abstracts, or both, we excluded all except 36 of these studies. After evaluation of the full text of each report, we excluded a further 35 studies, and 1 study is awaiting classification pending a response from the trial investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no high-level evidence to support or refute the efficacy or safety of oral H1 antihistamines used as monotherapy for eczema. Because most of the studies allowed the use of concomitant medications and involved multi-therapeutic approaches, meaningful assessments of the individual effects of oral H1 antihistamines on eczema were not feasible. Although well-designed randomised controlled trials excluding concomitant medications appear to be needed, consideration should be given to the potential ethical issues raised with the use of antihistamines as monotherapy for the management of eczema by withholding the use of rescue or additional therapies. A further systematic review of studies in which concomitant therapies were permitted might be of value in determining the potential benefits of oral H1 antihistamines as add-on therapy.

Guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) part I

The existing evidence for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis, AE) is evaluated using the national standard Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation. The consensus process consisted of a nominal group process and a DELPHI procedure. Management of AE must consider the individual symptomatic variability of the disease. Basic therapy is focused on hydrating topical treatment, and avoidance of specific and unspecific provocation factors. Anti-inflammatory treatment based on topical glucocorticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) is used for exacerbation management and more recently for proactive therapy in selected cases. Topical corticosteroids remain the mainstay of therapy, but the TCI tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are preferred in certain locations. Systemic immune-suppressive treatment is an option for severe refractory cases. Microbial colonization and superinfection may induce disease exacerbation and can justify additional antimicrobial treatment. Adjuvant therapy includes UV irradiation preferably with UVA1 wavelength or UVB 311 nm. Dietary recommendations should be specific and given only in diagnosed individual food allergy. Allergen-specific immunotherapy to aeroallergens may be useful in selected cases. Stress-induced exacerbations may make psychosomatic counselling recommendable. 'Eczema school' educational programs have been proven to be helpful. Pruritus is targeted with the majority of the recommended therapies, but some patients need additional antipruritic therapies.

A comparative study of loratadine syrup and cyproheptadine HCL solution for treating perennial allergic rhinitis in Taiwanese children aged 2-12 years

We assessed the efficacy of loratadine syrup compared with cyproheptadine HCl solution for treating children aged from 2 to 12 years with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) in Taiwan. Sixty children with mite-induced PAR were enrolled and randomly placed into two treatment groups: loratadine syrup or cyproheptadine HCl solution. Treatment efficacy and symptom changes from baseline to post-treatment were evaluated by total symptom scores and visual analogue scales (VAS) during a 2-week period. There were no differences in age, gender, height, or weight between the two groups. After 2 weeks of treatment, there was a significantly greater reduction in symptom scores in the loratadine group than in the cyproheptadine group (p&#x003C;0.001). Clinical and subjective VAS showed significant differences in percentage changes from baseline between the loratadine and cyproheptadine groups at all time points (all p&#x003C;0.001, in favor of loratadine). Clinical VAS change at week 1: 95.1 vs 11.3; subjective VAS change at week 1: 88.6 vs 13.6; clinical VAS change at week 2: 125.5 vs 18.3; subjective VAS change at week 2: 101.4 vs 7.1. Thus, loratadine was superior to cyproheptadine for alleviating both nasal and non-nasal symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis in Taiwanese children aged 2-12 years.

Safety considerations in the management of allergic diseases: focus on antihistamines

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of evidence supporting the safety profiles of frequently used oral H(1)-antihistamines (AHs) for the treatment of patients with histamine-release related allergic diseases, e.g. allergic rhinitis and urticaria, and to compare them to the safety profiles of other medications, mostly topical corticosteroids and leukotriene antagonists (LTRA).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Systematic search of the published literature (PubMed) and of the regulatory authorities databases (EMA and FDA) for oral AHs.

RESULTS

Similarly to histamine, antihistamines (AHs) have organ-specific efficacy and adverse effects. The peripheral H(1)-receptor (PrH1R) stimulation leads to allergic symptoms while the brain H(1)-receptor (BrH1R) blockade leads to somnolence, fatigue, increased appetite, decreased cognitive functions (impaired memory and learning), seizures, aggressive behaviour, etc. First-generation oral AHs (FGAHs) inhibit the effects of histamine not only peripherally but also in the brain, and additionally have potent antimuscarinic, anti-α-adrenergic and antiserotonin effects leading to symptoms such as visual disturbances (mydriasis, photophobia, and diplopia), dry mouth, tachycardia, constipation, urinary retention, agitation, and confusion. The somnolence caused by FGAHs interferes with the natural circadian sleep-wake cycle and therefore FGAHs are not suitable to be used as sleeping pills. Second-generation oral AHs (SGAHs) have proven better safety and tolerability profiles, much lower proportional impairment ratios, with at least similar if not better efficacy, than their predecessors. Only SGAHs, and especially those with a proven long-term (e.g., ≥12 months) clinical safety, should be prescribed for young children. Evidence exist that intranasally applied medications, like intranasal antihistamines, have the potential to reach the brain and cause somnolence.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-generation oral antihistamines are the preferred first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis and urticaria. Patients taking SGAHs report relatively little and mild adverse events even after long-term continuous treatments. An antihistamine should ideally possess high selectivity for the H(1)-receptor, high PrH1R occupancy and low to no BrH1R occupancy.

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.

The relationship of rhinitis and asthma, sinusitis, food allergy, and eczema

Epidemiologic, genetic, immunologic, and clinical studies show a close relationship between allergic rhinitis and asthma, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis. Rhinitis and sinusitis often coexist and are commonly referred to with the term rhinosinusitis. These conditions are also linked in the so-called atopic march, which is the sequential appearance of atopic manifestations starting with atopic dermatitis and later followed by food allergy, allergic rhinitis, and asthma. Allergic rhinitis and asthma are now increasingly being approached diagnostically and therapeutically as the one-airway concept.

Specific immunotherapy: beyond the clinical scores

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of specific immunotherapy always has been evaluated by clinical scores (symptoms or medication intake). Nonetheless, specific immunotherapy possesses some special or "additional" effects, including the carryover effect and the preventive actions, which are unique. Those effects are the consequence of the complex mechanism of action, which induces profound and persistent modifications in the immune response to allergens. The literature is reviewed to evaluate the available experimental data on this.

DATA SOURCES

The main databases (EmBase, Medline, Scopus) were searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials of immunotherapy, either randomized or not, including placebo-controlled trials, were selected.

RESULTS

Currently, the carryover effect (persistence of the benefit after stopping the treatment) is well ascertained for injection immunotherapy, whereas fewer data are available for the sublingual route. On the contrary, the demonstration of the prevention of asthma onset relies on 2 randomized studies for sublingual immunotherapy, and 1 single study for subcutaneous immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Although additional confirmatory data are needed, possibly obtained with a rigorous methodology, the long-lasting and preventive effects of specific immunotherapy always should be taken into account when the efficacy is evaluated. The additional effects also may have relevant socioeconomic implications.