The world population explosion: causes, backgrounds and -projections for the future

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the total world population crossed the threshold of 1 billion people for the first time in the history of the homo sapiens sapiens. Since then, growth rates have been increasing -exponentially, reaching staggeringly high peaks in the 20th century and slowing down a bit thereafter. Total world population reached 7 billion just after 2010 and is expected to count 9 billion by 2045. This paper first charts the differences in population growth between the world regions. Next, the mechanisms behind unprecedented population growth are explained and plausible scenarios for future developments are discussed. Crucial for the long term trend will be the rate of decline of the number of births per woman, called total fertility. Improvements in education, reproductive health and child survival will be needed to speed up the decline of total fertility, particularly in Africa. But in all scenarios, world population will continue to grow for some time due to population momentum. Finally, the paper outlines the debate about the consequences of the population explosion, involving poverty and food security, the impact on the natural environment, and migration flows.

KEY WORDS

Fertility, family planning, world population, population growth, demographic transition, urbanization, population momentum, population projections.

Efficacy and safety of ebastine 20 mg compared to loratadine 10 mg once daily in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Few randomized studies have compared loratadine to ebastine in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients.

METHODS

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group, comparative trial compared the efficacy and safety of ebastine 20 mg (E20), loratadine 10 mg (L10) and placebo (P), administered once daily, in the control of SAR symptoms over a 2-week period. An additional 2-week treatment period was included in order to check sustained efficacy and tolerability.

RESULTS

A total of 703 patients were enrolled: 282 patients in the E20 group, 279 in the L10 group and 142 in the P group. E20 showed a greater decrease from baseline in the main efficacy variable (mean daily reflective total symptom score) than L10 (p = 0.0018) or P (p = 0.0024), whereas the difference between L10 and P was not significant. Moreover, reductions from baseline in all composite/individual daily reflective rhinitis symptom scores were significantly larger in patients receiving E20 than in patients receiving L10 or P. Most significant differences between E20 and L10 or P were maintained after 4 weeks of treatment. Overall, all treatments were safe and well tolerated. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients who reported one or more adverse events (AEs) between the groups, and most AEs were mild to moderate (89.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

E20 given once daily for 2 weeks was more effective in the treatment of SAR symptoms than L10 or P. E20 also showed a sustained efficacy after 4 weeks of treatment, and overall was well tolerated and proved safe.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the efficacy and safety of ebastine (20 mg and 10 mg) to loratadine 10 mg once daily in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Few randomized studies have compared the H1-receptor antagonists loratadine and ebastine in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ebastine 20 mg (E20), ebastine 10 mg (E10), loratadine 10 mg (L10), and placebo (P), once daily, in controlling symptoms of SAR over a 4-week period. This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group study. Efficacy was assessed in 749 patients (12 to 70 years old) by SAR symptom scores (nasal discharge, congestion, itching, sneezing, and total eye symptoms) entered on diary cards every morning and every evening over the previous 12 hours (reflective score) and at the time of recording (snapshot score). The E20 group showed greater reductions from baseline compared with the L10 group in 2 daily reflective composite scores (nasal index [with or without congestion]) and in all 4 daily snapshot composite scores. E10 and L10 groups showed no significant differences in either the daily reflective or snapshot scores overall although E10 showed a greater improvement of nasal discharge snapshot score than L10. The efficacy of E20 at controlling the symptoms of SAR was well sustained during the fourth week of treatment, with significant differences over placebo in 22/36 total rhinitis symptom scores, followed by E10 (6/36), whereas L10 showed no differences (0/36). Patient and physician global evaluations at the final visit were not statistically significant for any treatment group compared with placebo. There was no significant difference among all groups in the number of patients who reported adverse events. In conclusion, ebastine 20 mg given once daily for 4 weeks in the treatment of SAR showed larger mean reductions from baseline in most rhinitis symptoms scores than loratadine 10 mg. Sustained efficacy was most frequently observed with ebastine 20 mg over placebo, whereas loratadine 10 mg did not provide a statistically significant improvement in any individual or composite symptom score at the end of the fourth week. Both ebastine 20 and 10 mg were well tolerated and proved safe in the treatment of SAR.

Ipratropium nasal spray in children with perennial rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of ipratropium nasal spray and placebo administered twice each day for 4 weeks in pediatric patients with perennial rhinitis who had rhinorrhea as a major complaint.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, double-blind, parallel group study. Patients aged 6 to 18 years with symptoms of perennial nonallergic (PNAR) or perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) were randomized to receive ipratropium (42 micrograms per nostril) or placebo nasal spray, double-blind, twice each day for 4 weeks. Efficacy was evaluated by nasal symptoms, especially anterior rhinorrhea, and quality of life. Previous caregivers for rhinitis and medications used in the past were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 202 patients were empanelled, 162 with PAR, 40 with PNAR; of these 151 with mild-severe rhinorrhea were evaluated for efficacy. Treatment with ipratropium reduced symptoms of rhinorrhea primarily in patients with PNAR. In patients with PAR this response was less pronounced, and was seen as a modest decrease in the severity of rhinorrhea noted in the first 2 weeks of treatment. Quality of life assessments confirmed that rhinorrhea was bothersome to these pediatric patients, and suggested that treatment with ipratropium nasal spray was associated with an improvement, especially in the patients with PNAR. There were few adverse events; these were similar in the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ipratropium nasal spray 0.03% administered at a dose of 42 micrograms/nostril bid is a safe and effective new therapy for control of anterior rhinorrhea in pediatric patients with PNAR. Twice daily administration is adequate for patients with PNAR, but patients with PAR might benefit from more frequent administration (e.g., tid).