Rupatadine 10 mg in adolescent and adult symptom relief of perennial allergic rhinitis

Efficacy of different oral H1 antihistamine treatments on allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Oral H1 antihistamines are the first-line treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis, while it is uncertain which kind and dosage of the antihistamines are more effective in improving symptoms of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of different oral H1 antihistamine treatments on patients with allergic rhinitis by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

The search was executed in PubMed, Embase, OVID, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant studies. The network meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 16.0, and the outcome measures of the analysis were symptom score reductions of patients. Relative risks with 95% Confidence Intervals were used in the network meta-analysis to compare the clinical effect of treatments involved, and Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curves (SUCRAs) were also calculated to rank the treatments' efficacy.

RESULTS

18 eligible randomized controlled studies, involving a total of 9419 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. All the antihistamine treatments outperformed placebo in total symptom score reduction and each individual symptom score reduction. According to the results of SUCRA, rupatadine 20 mg and rupatadine 10 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of total symptom score (SUCRA: 99.7%, 76.3%), nasal congestion score (SUCRA: 96.4%, 76.4%), rhinorrhea score (SUCRA: 96.6%, 74.6%) and ocular symptom score (SUCRA: 97.2%, 88.8%); rupatadine 20 mg and levocetirizine 5 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of nasal itching score (SUCRA: 84.8%, 83.4%) and sneezing score (SUCRA: 87.3%, 95.4%); loratadine 10 mg was ranked the lowest in each symptom score reduction besides placebo.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that rupatadine is the most effective in alleviating symptoms of patients with allergic rhinitis among different oral H1 antihistamine treatments involved, and rupatadine 20 mg performs better than rupatadine 10 mg. While loratadine 10 mg has inferior efficacy for patients to the other antihistamine treatments.

Higher efficacy of rupatadine 20 mg and 10 mg versus placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: a pooled responder analysis

Background

The clinical efficacy of rupatadine in terms of responders has not been previously explored in perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

Methods

This pooled analysis included data from 6 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials conducted in PAR patients treated with rupatadine 10 mg or 20 mg, or placebo. Participants were aged ≥ 18 years, with diagnosis of PAR and a Total 4 Nasal Symptom Score (T4NSS) ≥ 5. We evaluated the T4NSS and Total 5 Symptom Score (T5SS) for 28 days of treatment, the responder proportion (50% and 75% response), and the time to response.

Results

Efficacy data from 1486 patients were analysed: 585 received placebo, 682 rupatadine 10 mg, and 219 rupatadine 20 mg. Compared with placebo, rupatadine promoted greater symptom improvements and higher responder proportions (50% and 75% response) for T4NSS and T5SS over 28 days. Symptom improvements and responder proportions were higher in the rupatadine 20 mg group vs the 10 mg group. The time to response was shorter in the rupatadine 20 mg group vs the 10 mg group for T4NSS (16 and 9 days for the 50% and 75% responses, respectively) and for T5SS (13 and 8 days for the 50% and 75% responses, respectively).

Conclusions

Rupatadine was efficacious in reducing allergic rhinitis symptoms, showing high responder proportions. The faster and stronger effect of rupatadine 20 mg may suggest its use in patients with severe PAR or not responding to the standard dose.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a complex inflammatory disease whose pathophysiology involves local and systemic mechanisms. Rupatadine, a molecule with intense antihistaminic activity and with antagonist PAF effects through its interaction with specific receptors, is indicated for the treatment of intermittent or persistent allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

SCOPE

This systematic review was aimed at identifying in the most important databases, up to January 2013, the double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials administering rupatadine in allergic rhinitis. No restriction was introduced for treatment duration and dose, study design, population age, allergen exposition and disease classification. The methodological quality of included studies and risk of bias were systematically assessed. Meta-analysis was performed when possible to summarize information.

FINDINGS

Seventeen of 413 initially identified records were fully assessed for eligibility. Ten trials involving 2573 patients overall met the inclusion criteria and entered the analysis. Their internal validity was satisfactory. Data synthesis showed that rupatadine is superior to placebo in relieving the overall allergy symptoms on reflective (SMD: -0.37, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.27; p < 0.00001) and instantaneous (SMD: -0.41, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.11; p = 0.007) assessment, the nasal symptoms considered together (reflective SMD: -0.36, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.25; p < 0.00001; instantaneous SMD: -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.17; p = 0.0004) or individually and ocular symptoms. Inter-study heterogeneity was low for the main outcomes and the risk of publication bias was judged as unlikely. A number of secondary endpoints were favorably affected by rupatadine. No difference was observed in the incidence of total adverse reactions between rupatadine and placebo (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59; p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

Randomized double-blind controlled trials show a favorable risk-benefit ratio in rupatadine for the treatment of allergic rhino-conjunctivitis. This evidence is strengthened when data are pooled in the form of meta-analysis, where accurate and robust effect estimations are derived from a large population.