Efficacy and safety of rupatadine for allergic rhino-conjunctivitis: a systematic review of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with meta-analysis

Current Management of Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common allergic disease worldwide and one of the most common chronic diseases in general. Allergic rhinitis is caused by inhalant allergens from outdoor and indoor environments with varying significance of different allergens in global regions. We provide options for the current management for AR including pharmacological treatments and nonpharmacological options and allergen immunotherapy (AIT). A literature review has been conducted in Medline, Pubmed, as well as the national and international study (ClinicalTrials.gov) and guideline registers and the Cochrane Library. Human studies published on the topic in the period up to and including November 2023 were taken into account. Allergen avoidance measures, pharmacotherapy, and AIT are the cornerstones of AR treatment. Nonpharmacological measures and behavioral recommendations should be adequately added. Tools of precision medicine are already playing a significant role and will be part of the diagnostic and therapeutic standard in the future. Patients benefit most in a network of different pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment measures including AIT. Application of precision medicine tools for diagnosis and treatment will improve standards of care.

How to handle off-label prescriptions of rupatadine, a second-generation antihistamine and PAF antagonist: a review

The off-label use of second-generation antihistamines, used outside of the formal indications authorized by regulatory authorities, in different age groups, doses or in special populations, is very common for many allergic, autoimmune and dermatological diseases. The off-label use of rupatadine (a second-generation antihistamine with PAF antagonist activity) in these conditions is reviewed here, including in combination with immunotherapy in the treatment of food allergy or allergic rhinitis, at high doses in chronic urticaria, and with prescriptions of less common but challenging conditions such as skin pruritus or mast cell activation disorders like mastocytosis. Rupatadine use is reviewed herein to confirm if its off-label management is supported by well-designed clinical trials or by published real-world cases. This review will contribute to increasing compliance and achieving better results in clinical practice. Off-label use of rupatadine should be left to the discretion of the prescribing healthcare professional after careful clinical evaluation.

Evidence-based use of antihistamines for treatment of allergic conditions

Available since the 1940s, H1 antihistamines are mainstay treatments for allergic conditions such as allergic rhinitis and urticaria. They function as inverse agonists that bind to the H1 receptor to inhibit histamine-induced inflammation. The older, first-generation drugs are no longer recommended for patient use because of their well-documented negative adverse effect profile. Evidence has been accumulating to support a newer generation of H1 antihistamines in oral and intranasal formulations, including in combination with intranasal corticosteroids. The literature is replete with large meta-analyses and systematic reviews establishing the safety and efficacy of second-generation H1 antihistamines in adult and pediatric allergic rhinitis populations, including combination nasal spray agents (eg, MP29-02 or MP-AzeFlu). Although intraclass differences do exist, patient preference, access, and costs should be the priority. Robust data on the regular, not as needed use of H1 antihistamines for urticaria have been published, including in the management of children and pregnant or lactating women. In addition, H1 antihistamines can be used in other related allergic conditions, such as the secondary symptoms of anaphylaxis, to provide patients with greater comfort, including in allergic asthma, depending on the individual.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

PAF-induced inflammatory and immuno-allergic ophthalmic diseases and their mitigation with PAF receptor antagonists: Cell and nuclear effects

Ocular allergies are becoming more prevalent as more airborne pollutants, irritants and microbes pervade our environment. Inflammatory and allergic mediators released by dendritic and mast cells within the conjunctiva cause allergic conjunctivitis (AC), a prevalent ocular surface disorder that affects >40% of the world's human population on a seasonal or perennial basis. Even though histamine is a major culprit, platelet-activating factor (PAF) also contributes to AC, acting either directly or synergistically with histamine and other mediators. PAF receptor-meditated inflammatory reactions, via cell-membrane-bound and nuclear-membrane-bound and nuclear PAF receptors, are also implicated in the etiology of other eye diseases such as uveitis, diabetic retinopathy, corneal and choroidal neovascularization, and age-related macular degeneration which cause serious visual impairment and can lead to blindness. This review highlights the various deleterious elements implicated in the pathological aspects of ocular allergic reactions and inflammation and provides concepts and treatment options to mitigate these eye disorders with a special focus on PAF and PAF receptor antagonists.

Current treatment strategies for seasonal allergic rhinitis: where are we heading?

Introduction

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is very commonly caused by pollens. The symptoms of AR consist of sneezing, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, nasal itching and airflow obstruction. The diagnosis has long been based on clinical history, skin prick tests and in vitro measurement of specific IgE, but the innovative approach of precision medicine has made diagnostic tools of much greater accuracy available.

Areas covered

This review covers the advances in the treatment of seasonal AR concerning the drugs to be used according to the grade of disease and the characteristics of the patients, and the role of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), which is the only treatment capable of acting, in addition to the symptoms, on the cause of AR and therefore to modify its natural history.

Expert opinion

Drug treatment of AR include a large number of agents, the choice of which depends on the severity of the disease. AIT has high evidence of efficacy demonstrated by meta-analyses, and further improvement is currently apparent, as for diagnosis, applying the means of precision medicine. However, when AIT is performed in current practice, without the strict rules of controlled trials, long-term low adherence is a major problem to be solved.

Platelet activating factor in the eye: Physiological roles, diseases and future perspectives

Platelet Activating Factor (PAF) is a known phospholipid mediator of inflammation. Since its first description in 1972, it has emerged as a key regulator of vital cellular signaling functions, as proliferation, cell adhesion, and apoptosis. Evidence suggests that interactions between PAF and its receptor (PAFR) play a critical role in nervous system tissues, including the retina. The retina is a very important constituent of the visual system, along with the cornea, sclera, choroid, iris, and ciliary body, that acts synergistically to provide vision and to maintain optical homeostasis. There is evidence that PAF may regulate a wide range of physiological functions in the visual system tissues, such as eye development, inflammation, epithelial wound healing, and synapsis. Due to their multiple functions, PAF and PAFR also have important pathological and clinical implications in ocular disorders such as Choroidal Neovascularization (CNV), Age Macular Degeneration, (AMD), Diabetic Retinopathy (DR), transplant responses, and pharmacological interactions. Studies with PAFR antagonists have shown promising results such as inhibition of neovascularization and chloroquine-induced retinopathies, as well as reducing inflammation and retinal cell death. Due to the importance of PAFR signaling in the visual system and ophthalmology research, this review aims to provide a general overview of current and future perspectives about PAF in eye biology.

Applying GRADE for diagnosis revealed methodological challenges: an illustrative example for guideline developers

OBJECTIVE

To identify challenges in the application of GRADE for diagnosis when assessing the certainty of evidence in the test-treatment strategy (diagnostic accuracy, test burden, management effectiveness, natural course, linked evidence) in an illustrative example and to propose solutions to these challenges.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A case study in applying GRADE for diagnosis that looked at the added value of IgE for diagnosing allergic rhinitis.

RESULTS

Evaluation of the full test-treatment strategy showed a lack of (high-quality) evidence for all elements. In our example, we found a lack of evidence for test burden, natural course, and link between the test result and clinical management. Overall, systematically reviewing the evidence for all elements of a test-treatment strategy is more time-consuming than only considering test accuracy results and management effectiveness. For increasing efficiency, the guideline panel could determine critical elements of the test-treatment strategy that need a systematic review of the evidence. For less critical elements, a guideline panel can rely on gray literature and professional expertise.

CONCLUSION

A lack of high-quality evidence and time investment if the full test-treatment strategy is assessed, creating challenges in applying GRADE for diagnosis. Discussion within guideline panels about critical elements that need to be reviewed might help.

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.

Resonance Rayleigh scattering and spectrofluorimetric approaches for the selective determination of rupatadine using erythrosin B as a probe: application to content uniformity test

In this study, spectrofluorimetric and resonance Rayleigh scattering techniques were applied for the first time for determination of rupatadine through two validated methods. The proposed methods were based on a facile association complex formation between rupatadine and erythrosin B reagent in acidic medium. Spectrofluorimetric determination relied on the quenching effect of rupatadine on the fluorescence intensity of erythrosin B at 556 nm (excitation = 530 nm). Conversely, the resonance Rayleigh scattering (RRS) method relied on enhancement in the resonance Rayleigh scattering spectrum of erythrosin B at 344 nm after the addition of rupatadine. The developed methods produced linear results over ranges 0.15-2.0 μg/ml and 0.1-1.5 μg/ml, with detection limits of 0.030 μg/ml and 0.018 μg/ml for the spectrofluorimetric method and the RRS method, respectively. All reaction conditions for rupatadine-erythrosin B formation were optimized experimentally and both methods were validated according to International Council for Harmonisation guidelines. The developed methods were applied to estimate rupatadine content in its pharmaceutical tablet dosage form with acceptable recoveries. Furthermore, a content uniformity test for the commercial rupatadine tablets was successfully applied by the suggested spectroscopic methods according to United States Pharmacopeia guidelines.

Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews

Importance

Patient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome.

Objective

To summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases.

Data Source

The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database.

Study Selection

In this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combining eyes and vision keywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability.

Results

This study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs.

Conclusions and Relevance

One in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

Clinically relevant effect of rupatadine 20 mg and 10 mg in seasonal allergic rhinitis: a pooled responder analysis

Background

Different clinical trials showed the superior efficacy of rupatadine compared to placebo at improving seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms, but no study has assessed if the response promoted is clinically meaningful.

Methods

This study is a pooled analysis of data of seven randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAR studies comparing responder proportions upon treatment with rupatadine (10 or 20 mg) or placebo. We evaluated the following symptom scores at baseline (Visit 1) and over 14 days of treatment: Total 4 Nasal Symptom Score (T4NSS), Total 2 Ocular Symptom Score (T2OSS) and Total 6 Symptom Score (T6SS). The proportion of responders (50% and 75% response) and the time to response were compared between groups on days 7 (Visit 2) and 14 (Visit 3). Responder rates were compared between groups on days 7 and 14 for the complete/near-to-complete response for T4NSS (TN4SS score ≤ 2 and each symptom score ≤ 1) and T6SS (T6SS score ≤ 3 and each symptom score ≤ 1).

Results

Data from 1470 patients were analyzed: 332 treated with placebo, 662 with rupatadine 10 mg and 476 with rupatadine 20 mg. The reduction in T4NSS, T2OSS and T6SS over 14 days of treatment relative to baseline was statistically higher in rupatadine groups vs the placebo group, with greater improvements in the 20 mg group. A statistically higher proportion of patients reached the 50% and 75% response for T4NSS, T2OSS and T6SS in rupatadine groups compared to the placebo group across the visits. Among rupatadine-treated patients, those receiving 20 mg compared favourably for both cut-off responses. The time to achieve a proportion of responders was shorter in the rupatadine 20 mg group than in the rupatadine 10 mg and placebo groups for all the symptom scores. The number of patients who achieved a complete/near-to-complete response for both symptom scores was higher in rupatadine groups than in the placebo group, with higher proportions in the 20 mg group.

Conclusions

This responder analysis confirms the superior efficacy of rupatadine vs placebo to treat SAR. Rupatadine promoted higher proportions of responders according to stringent response criteria and in a dose-dependent manner, with faster and higher response rates in the 20 mg group.

Management of ocular allergy

The treatment and management of ocular allergy (OA) remain a major concern for different specialties, including allergists, ophthalmologists, primary care physicians, rhinologists, pediatricians, dermatologists, clinical immunologists, and pharmacists. We performed a systematic review of all relevant publications in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web Science including systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Publications were considered relevant if they addressed treatments, or management strategies of OA. A further wider systematic literature search was performed if no evidence or good quality evidence was found. There are effective drugs for the treatment of OA; however, there is a lack an optimal treatment for the perennial and severe forms. Topical antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, or double-action drugs are the first choice of treatment. All of them are effective in reducing signs and symptoms of OA. The safety and optimal dosing regimen of the most effective topical anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, are still a major concern. Topical calcineurin inhibitors may be used in steroid-dependent/resistant cases of severe allergic keratoconjunctivitis. Allergen-specific immunotherapy may be considered in cases of failure of first-line treatments or to modify the natural course of OA disease. Based on the current wealth of publications and on the collective experience, recommendations on management of OA have been proposed.

Increased platelet activating factor levels in chronic spontaneous urticaria predicts refractoriness to antihistamine treatment: an observational study

Background

Platelet activating factor (PAF) is an endogenous, active phospholipid released from inflammatory cells, platelets, and endothelial cells, and is involved in the regulation of immune responses. Degradation of PAF by PAF acetylhydrolase (PAF-AH) has been shown to be associated with anaphylaxis, asthma, and peanut allergy. The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships among clinical parameters, including urticaria severity and treatment responsiveness, and PAF and PAF-AH levels in sera from patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU).

Methods

Serum PAF and PAF-AH levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 283 CSU patients and 111 age- and sex-matched, healthy normal controls (NCs). Urticaria severity was evaluated by urticaria activity score over 7 days (UAS7). Within 3 months after measuring PAF levels, patients whose urticaria was not controlled by antihistamine treatment were classified as histamine receptor 1 antagonist (H1RA) non-responders.

Results

Serum PAF levels were significantly higher in CSU patients than in NCs (median 4368.9 vs. 3256.4 pg/ml, p = 0.015), while serum PAF-AH levels were significantly lower in CSU patients (105.6 vs. 125.7 ng/ml, p = 0.001). H1RA non-responders had higher levels of PAF in their sera than H1RA responders. A generalized linear model revealed that a higher UAS7 score (odds ratio 1.023, p = 0.024) and a PAF level ≥ 5000 pg/ml (1.409, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of a poor response to H1RA treatment.

Conclusions

Compared with NCs, CSU patients, particularly those with H1RA refractoriness, showed significant increases in serum PAF levels and decreases in PAF-AH. Therapies modulating PAF and PAF-AH levels could be effective in patients with CSU refractory to antihistamines.

A preliminary study on efficacy of rupatadine for the treatment of acute dengue infection

Currently there are no specific treatments available for acute dengue infection. We considered that rupatadine, a platelet-activating factor receptor inhibitor, might modulate dengue-associated vascular leak. The effects of rupatadine were assessed in vitro, and in a dengue model, which showed that rupatadine significantly reduced endothelial permeability by dengue sera in vitro, and significantly inhibited the increased haematocrit in dengue-infected mice with dose-dependency. We conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 183 adult patients in Sri Lanka with acute dengue, which showed that rupatadine up to 40 mg daily appeared safe and well-tolerated with similar proportions of adverse events with rupatadine and placebo. Although the primary end-point of a significant reduction in fluid leakage (development of pleural effusions or ascites) was not met, post-hoc analyses revealed small but significant differences in several parameters on individual illness days - higher platelet counts and lower aspartate-aminotransferase levels on day 7 in the rupatadine group compared to the placebo group, and smaller effusions on day 8 in the subgroup of patients with pleural effusions. However, due to the small sample size and range of recruitment time, the potential beneficial effects of rupatadine require further evaluation in large studies focused on recruitment during the early febrile phase.

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.

Rupatadine: global safety evaluation in allergic rhinitis and urticaria

INTRODUCTION

Rupatadine is a second-generation H1-antihistamine with dual affinity for histamine H1 and PAF receptors. Rupatadine is indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

AREAS COVERED

A Medline search was conducted to identify preclinical and clinical studies of rupatadine. This was supplemented with additional articles obtained from online sources. The focus of this review is on the safety profile of rupatadine.

EXPERT OPINION

The review of these data indicates that rupatadine is highly selective for histamine H1-receptors, exhibits additional PAF antagonism in in vitro and in vivo studies, does not cross the blood-brain barrier, and has similar adverse events comparable with other second-generation antihistamines. Rupatadine is a safe and well tolerated drug in patients over 2 years old, with no central nervous system or cardiovascular effects and it can be taken with or without foods.

Platelets in the immune response: Revisiting platelet-activating factor in anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, severe, life-threatening multisystem allergic reaction resulting from the sudden systemic release of biochemical mediators and chemotactic substances. Release of both preformed granule-associated mediators and newly generated lipid-derived mediators contributes to the amplification and prolongation of anaphylaxis. Platelet-activating factor (PAF) is a potent phospholipid-derived mediator the central role of which has been well established in experimental models of both immune-mediated and non-immune mediated anaphylaxis. It is produced and secreted by several types of cells, including mast cells, monocytes, tissue macrophages, platelets, eosinophils, endothelial cells, and neutrophils. PAF is implicated in platelet aggregation and activation through release of vasoactive amines in the inflammatory response, resulting in increased vascular permeability, circulatory collapse, decreased cardiac output, and various other biological effects. PAF is rapidly hydrolyzed and degraded to an inactive metabolite, lysoPAF, by the enzyme PAF acetylhydrolase, the activity of which has shown to correlate inversely with PAF levels and predispose to severe anaphylaxis. In addition to its role in anaphylaxis, PAF has also been implicated as a mediator in both allergic and nonallergic inflammatory diseases, including allergic rhinitis, sepsis, atherosclerotic disease, and malignancy, in which PAF signaling has an established role. The therapeutic role of PAF antagonism has been investigated for several diseases, with variable results thus far. Further investigation of its role in pathology and therapeutic modulation is highly anticipated because of the pressing need for more selective and targeted therapy for the management of severe anaphylaxis.

Update on rupatadine in the management of allergic disorders

In a review of rupatadine published in 2008, the primary focus was on its role as an antihistamine, with a thorough evaluation of its pharmacology and interaction with histamine H1 -receptors. At the time, however, evidence was already emerging of a broader mechanism of action for rupatadine involving other mediators implicated in the inflammatory cascade. Over the past few years, the role of platelet-activating factor (PAF) as a potent mediator involved in the hypersensitivity-type allergic reaction has gained greater recognition. Rupatadine has dual affinity for histamine H1 -receptors and PAF receptors. In view of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma group's call for oral antihistamines to exhibit additive anti-allergic/anti-inflammatory properties, further exploration of rupatadine's anti-PAF effects was a logical step forward. New studies have demonstrated that rupatadine inhibits PAF effects in nasal airways and produces a greater reduction in nasal symptoms than levocetirizine. A meta-analysis involving more than 2500 patients has consolidated the clinical evidence for rupatadine in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adults and children (level of evidence Ia, recommendation A). Other recent advances include observational studies of rupatadine in everyday clinical practice situations and approval of a new formulation (1 mg/ml oral solution) for use in children. In this reappraisal, we revisit some key properties and pivotal clinical studies of rupatadine and examine new clinical data in more detail including studies that measured health-related quality of life and studies that investigated the efficacy and safety of rupatadine in other indications such as acquired cold urticaria, mosquito bite allergy and mastocytosis.

Allergic rhinitis: current options and future perspectives

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergic rhinitis due its high prevalence and burden needs to be properly treated. The disease's clinical features impose well tolerated drugs usable for long-term treatment. Nowadays, second-generation antihistamines and inhaled steroids represent the milestone of rhinitis therapy. The aim of the present review is to provide an update on allergic rhinitis treatment. A particular attention has been deserved to clinical trials, published in the last year that assess the efficacy and safety of new formulation of available drugs or new molecules.

RECENT FINDINGS

Available and new drugs under investigation seem able to control rhinitis symptoms without a significant patient's burden. The challenge for the next years will be to improve treatment adherence rather than to introduce new drugs.

SUMMARY

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines have brought attention to allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma, but have also proposed a new classification in terms of symptoms severity and persistence useful for tailoring treatment on patients' phenotypes. Their further dissemination is needed; furthermore, they represent a cornerstone for the scientific community through a continuous update on relevant issues such as rhinitis phenotypes, disease management on the basis of new treatments, clinical trials transferability in real life, and allergic rhinitis management in public health programs.

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.