levocetirizine and rupatadine

Background Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterised by the development of crops of red, itchy, raised weals or hives with no identifiable external cause.Objectives To assess the effects of H1-antihistamines for CSU.Search methods We searched the following databases up to June 2014: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE(from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and PsycINFO (from 1806). We searched five trials registers and checked articles for references to relevant randomised controlled trials.Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of H1-antihistamines for CSU. Interventions included single therapy or a combination of H1-antihistamines compared with no treatment (placebo) or another active pharmacological compound at any dose.Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.Our primary outcome measures were proportion of participants with complete suppression of urticaria: 'good or excellent' response,50% or greater improvement in quality of life measures, and adverse events.We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs). Main results We identified 73 studies (9759 participants); 34 studies provided data for 23 comparisons. The duration of the intervention was up to two weeks (short-term) or longer than two weeks and up to three months (intermediate-term).Cetirizine 10mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term led to complete suppression of urticaria by more participants than was seen with placebo (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.91). For this same outcome, comparison of desloratadine versus placebo in the intermediate term (5 mg) (RR 37.00, 95% CI 2.31 to 593.70) and in the short term (20 mg) (RR 15.97, 95% CI 1.04 to 245.04)favoured desloratadine, but no differences were seen between 5 mg and 10 mg for short-term treatment.Levocetirizine 20 mg per day (short-term) was more effective for complete suppression of urticaria compared with placebo (RR 20.87,95% CI 1.37 to 317.60), and at 5 mg was effective in the intermediate term (RR 52.88, 95% CI 3.31 to 843.81) but not in the shortterm, nor was 10 mg effective in the short term.Rupatadine at 10 mg and 20 mg in the intermediate term achieved a 'good or excellent response' compared with placebo (RR 1.35,95% CI 1.03 to 1.77).Loratadine (10 mg) versus placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.79) and loratadine (10 mg) versus cetirizine (10 mg) (RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 t

Topics: Cetirizine; Cyproheptadine; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Loratadine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urticaria

To perform a critical evaluation of the more recent H1 antihistamines and the various terms used to describe them, based on a review of evidence on their role in the treatment of allergic disorders.. Original articles, reviews and consensus documents published from 1998 to 2006 and indexed in the MEDLINE and PubMed databases. Keyword: antihistamines.. Second-generation antihistamines differ from first-generation ones because of their elevated specificity and affinity for peripheral H1 receptors and because of their lower penetration of the central nervous system (CNS), having fewer sedative effects as a result. Whilst second-generation antihistamines are in general better tolerated than their predecessors, some adverse effects, principally cardiotoxicity, have been observed with some of them. Over the last 20 years, new compounds with different pharmacokinetic properties have been synthesized. The majority of these exhibit anti-inflammatory properties that are independent of their action on the H1 receptor. More recent improvements, generally in the form of active metabolites, led to the use of the term third-generation antihistamines. This term emerged spontaneously, with no clear definition of its meaning or clinical implications, creating great confusion among healthcare professionals.. On the basis of the evidence on H1 antihistamines, none of them deserve the title "third-generation antihistamine." As the Consensus Group on New Generation Antihistamines concluded, to merit this definition, a new class of antihistamines would have to demonstrate distinct clinical advantages over existing compounds and fulfill at least three prerequisites: they should be free from cardiotoxicity, drug interactions and effects on the CNS.

Topics: Anti-Allergic Agents; Blood-Brain Barrier; Central Nervous System Diseases; Cetirizine; Child; Cyproheptadine; Heart Diseases; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Loratadine; Mast Cells; Piperazines; Receptors, Histamine H1; Terfenadine

Chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) is a common dermatological condition. Its pathogenesis involves mainly histamine and also other mediators, including platelet-activating factor (PAF) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). In the absence of an exact etiology, H1 -antihistaminics are the mainstay of treatment. Levocetirizine is widely prescribed for CIU. Rupatadine, a newer antihistaminic, has PAF receptor antagonist activity and has shown anti-TNF-α activity in vitro. These additional anti-inflammatory effects may improve its efficacy.. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of rupatadine and levocetirizine, respectively, in CIU patients.. A prospective, open, comparative, randomized study was conducted in 100 patients, of whom 50 were treated with levocetirizine and 50 were treated with rupatadine. Efficacy parameters used were urticarial activity score (UAS) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) values. Safety was evaluated by monitoring for adverse drug reactions and by using the critical flicker fusion threshold (CFFT) test and a visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline, and at 2, 4, and 6 weeks.. The mean UAS decreased to 0.10 in the levocetirizine group and to 0.38 in the rupatadine group. Patients in the levocetirizine group showed a more significant (P < 0.001) improvement, although symptoms improved in both groups. Significant reductions in mean DLQI scores were observed in both groups, but the decrease was statistically significant in the levocetirizine group (P < 0.05). Somnolence was the most common side effect in both groups. Patients in the levocetirizine group showed more psychomotor impairment based on the CFFT test. Findings on the VAS showed sedative effects in both groups (P < 0.05).. Levocetirizine was found to be more efficacious than rupatadine in CIU patients, but both drugs caused mild sedation.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Cetirizine; Child; Chronic Disease; Cyproheptadine; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Platelet Activating Factor; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Urticaria; Young Adult

Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria is difficult to treat due to its persistent debilitating symptoms. New generation anti-histaminics are first line treatment for this condition. The aim of this study is to compare efficacy and safety of rupatadine and levocetirizine in chronic idiopathic urticaria.. A randomized, single blinded, single-centred, parallel group outdoor based clinical study was conducted in 70 patients of CIU to compare the two drugs. After initial clinical assessment and baseline investigations, rupatadine was prescribed to 35 patients and levocetirizine to another 35 patients for 4 weeks. At follow-up, the patients were re-evaluated and then compared using different statistical tools. Main outcome measures were DC eosinophil, Absolute Eosinophil Count (AEC), serum IgE, Total Symptom Score, Aerius Quality of Life Questionnaire score, and Global efficacy score.. Rupatadine significantly improved patients' clinical condition including symptom score from baseline to day 28. In rupatadine group, there was 27.9 percent decrease (P=0.027) in DC eosinophil, 35.6 percent decrease (P=0.036) in AEC, 15.3 percent decrease (P=0.024) in serum IgE, 28.2 percent decrease (P=0.02) in Total Symptom Scoring, and 27.3 percent decrease (P=0.006) in Aerius Quality of Life Questionnaire score. Global efficacy score of rupatadine was found to be significantly greater (P=0.009) than levocetirizine. The overall incidence of adverse drug reactions was also found to be less in rupatadine group.. Rupatadine is a better choice in CIU in comparison to levocetirizine due to better efficacy and safety profile.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Cetirizine; Child; Chronic Disease; Cyproheptadine; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Single-Blind Method; Treatment Outcome; Urticaria; Young Adult

To determine the better agent among rupatadine fumarate and levocetirizine dihydrochloride for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Although treating and ensuring a decent quality of life to patients is challenging, an increasing understanding of pathomechanisms has revealed the potentiality of new-generation antihistamines in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.. A 2-week, single-center, randomized, open, parallel group comparative clinical study between rupatadine and levocetirizine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.. A tertiary care center.. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 60 patients were assigned to either the rupatadine or levocetirizine group.. Two-week treatment with rupatadine or levocetirizine.. After 2 weeks, all postdrug symptoms were listed, baseline laboratory investigations (total and differential leukocyte count and IgE level) were repeated, and clinical improvement was assessed in terms of change in Total Nasal Symptom Score, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score, and laboratory parameters.. Differential count (P = .01) and absolute eosinophil count (P = .009) was significantly lowered by both drugs, but rupatadine was found to be superior. In the rupatadine group there was a significantly higher reduction (P = .004) in IgE level and Total Nasal Symptom Score (P < .001) compared with the levocetirizine group. There was a decrease of 18.08% (P = .02) in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score in the rupatadine group, which was significantly greater compared with the levocetirizine group. Incidence of adverse effects was less in the rupatadine group compared with the levocetirizine group.. Rupatadine is a better choice for seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with levocetirizine because of its better efficacy and safety profile.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Cetirizine; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Cyproheptadine; Eosinophils; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Leukocyte Count; Male; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Single-Blind Method; Young Adult