A direct comparison of the efficacy of antihistamines in SAR and PAR: randomised, placebo-controlled studies with levocetirizine and loratadine using an environmental exposure unit – the Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC)
- 31 March 2004
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Informa Healthcare in Current Medical Research and Opinion
- Vol. 20 (6) , 891-902
- https://doi.org/10.1185/030079904125003700
Abstract
The Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC) is an established method for the controlled exposure of patients to specific allergens, used to make valid comparisons between antihistamines. The aim of the significantly more than loratadine at all time two placebo-controlled, randomised studies reported here was to compare the efficacy and safety of levocetirizine 5 mg od and loratadine 10 mg od in subjects suffering from seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) or perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). During each study period, SAR and PAR subjects were exposed to grass pollen or house-dust mite allergens, respectively for 6 h on 2 consecutive days in the VCC. Each day, medications were administered 2 h after the start of the challenge; with a washout of at least 5 days between each period. The main criterion for evaluation of efficacy was the major symptom complex (MSC) for SAR and the complex symptom score (CSS) for PAR. The pattern of patients' response was similar in SAR and PAR. Both levocetirizine and loratadine were superior to placebo in alleviating SAR and PAR symptoms at all time intervals evaluated during the two study days. Levocetirizine decreased the mean MSC score intervals in SAR subjects, with the most marked difference observed on day 2 (p = 0.002). In PAR patients, although with borderline significance (p = 0.08), levocetirizine decreased the mean CSS more than loratadine. Levocetirizine appeared to have a faster onset of action than loratadine in SAR (45 min versus 1 h 15 min) and PAR (1 h versus 1 h 30 min). However, these apparent differences were not tested for statistical significance. Both medications were well tolerated and no treatment-related adverse events were reported. This level of antihistamine efficacy was maintained regardless of whether the subjects' rhinitis was seasonal or perennial. This study demonstrated that levocetirizine is superior to loratadine in improving symptoms in SAR and that there is a similar trend in PAR.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of the effects of desloratadine 5‐mg daily and placebo on nasal airflow and seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms induced by grass pollen exposureAllergy, 2003
- Effect of desloratadine versus placebo on nasal airflow and subjective measures of nasal obstruction in subjects with grass pollen–induced allergic rhinitis in an allergen-exposure unitJournal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2002
- Die Europäische Studie zu Atemwegserkrankungen bei Erwachsenen (ECRHS) - Bisherige Ergebnisse und der Beitrag der beiden deutschen Studienzentren -Pneumologie, 2002
- Controlled Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Cetirizine 10 mg o.d. and Fexofenadine 120 mg o.d. in Reducing Symptoms of Seasonal Allergic RhinitisInternational Archives of Allergy and Immunology, 2001
- Effect of cetirizine, levocetirizine, and dextrocetirizine on histamine‐induced nasal response in healthy adult volunteersAllergy, 2001
- A randomized, double‐blind, crossover comparison among cetirizine, levocetirizine, and ucb 28557 on histamine‐induced cutaneous responses in healthy adult volunteersAllergy, 2001
- Consensus statement * on the treatment of allergic rhinitisAllergy, 2000
- Clinical assessment of antihistamines in rhinitisClinical and Experimental Allergy, 1999
- Efficacy and safety relative to placebo of an oral formulation of cetirizine and sustained‐release pseudoephedrine in the management of nasal congestionAllergy, 1998
- Controlled exposure to mite allergen for a dose-finding of dimethindene maleate (DMM)Inflammation Research, 1994