piperidines and rupatadine

Because of its burden on patient's lives and its impact on asthma, allergic rhinitis must be treated properly with more effective and safer treatments. According to guidelines by Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), the classification, pathogenesis, and treatment of allergic rhinitis are well defined. Currently, second-generation antihistamines and inhaled steroids are considered the cornerstone of first-line therapy. However, new formulations of available drugs (e.g., loratadine and rupatadine oral solution, ebastine fast-dissolving tablets, and the combination of intranasal fluticasone propionate and azelastine hydrochloride), recently discovered molecules (e.g., ciclesonide, bilastine, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors), immunologic targets (e.g., omalizumab), and unconventional treatments (e.g., homeopathic treatments) are currently under investigation and represent a new frontier in modern medicine and in allergic rhinitis management. The aim of this review is to provide an update on allergic rhinitis treatment, paying particular attention to clinical trials published within the past 20 months that assessed the efficacy and safety of new formulations of available drugs or new molecules.

Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Androstadienes; Anti-Allergic Agents; Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Benzimidazoles; Butyrophenones; Cyproheptadine; Fluticasone; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Omalizumab; Phthalazines; Piperidines; Pregnenediones; Rhinitis, Allergic; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial

To compare the peripheral antihistaminic activity of bilastine, rupatadine and desloratadine in inhibiting the histamine-induced wheal and flare (W&F) response.. Twenty-four healthy volunteers aged 18-40 years participated in this crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study. Subjects received single doses of bilastine 20 mg, desloratadine 5 mg, rupatadine 10 mg and placebo. W&F responses induced by intradermal injection of histamine 5 μg were evaluated before treatment (basal value) and at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 24 hours after treatment. Fifteen minutes after histamine injection, W&F surface areas (cm. The primary outcome measure was the percentage reduction in W&F areas after each active treatment compared with corresponding basal values.. Bilastine induced the greatest inhibition in wheal area and was significantly superior to desloratadine and rupatadine from 1 to 12 hours (both p < .001). Rupatadine and desloratadine were better than placebo without differences between them. Maximum wheal inhibition occurred at 6 hours (bilastine 83%, desloratadine 38%, rupatadine 37%). Onset of action was 1 hour for bilastine and 4 hours for desloratadine and rupatadine. Bilastine was significantly superior to desloratadine and rupatadine for flare inhibition from 1-24 hours (both p < .001) with an onset of action at 30 minutes. Bilastine was significantly better than desloratadine (2-12 hours; at least p < .05) and rupatadine (2-9 hours; at least p < .01) for reducing itching sensation. Neither desloratadine nor rupatadine significantly reduced itching compared to placebo. All active treatments were well tolerated.. Bilastine 20 mg induced significantly greater inhibition of the W&F response compared with desloratadine 5 mg and rupatadine 10 mg throughout the 24 hour study period, and had the fastest onset of action. Only bilastine significantly reduced itching sensation versus placebo.

Topics: Adult; Benzimidazoles; Cross-Over Studies; Cyproheptadine; Double-Blind Method; Female; Healthy Volunteers; Histamine; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Injections, Intradermal; Loratadine; Male; Piperidines; Skin

The aim of this study is to establish the efficacy and safety of rupatadine vs ebastine and placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Rupatadine is a new second generation H(1)-antihistamine with once-daily dosing that may provide better control of symptoms than the currently used H(1)-receptor blockers because of its dual pharmacological profile (anti-PAF and anti-H(1)).. In a multicentre study, 250 patients with SAR were included in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group and placebo-controlled study. Patients received either rupatadine 10 mg, ebastine 10 mg or placebo once daily for 2 weeks. The main efficacy outcome was based on the patient's record of severity of nasal symptoms (sneezing, nasal itching, runny nose and nasal obstruction) and nonnasal symptoms (conjunctival itching, tearing and pharyngeal itching). The daily total symptom score (DTSS) was the mean of the DSS recorded for each of the seven symptoms assessed, and the mean DTSS (mDTSS) was the mean of the DTSS values for each study day.. Significant differences in mDTSS were detected between rupatadine and placebo (33% lower for rupatadine group; P = 0.005) after 2 weeks of treatment. The TSS for rupatadine were 22% lower than for ebastine, although the differences were not statistically significant. No serious adverse events were reported during the study period.. Rupatadine 10 mg once daily was clearly superior to placebo in alleviating the symptoms of SAR over a 2-week period. In comparison with ebastine, rupatadine shows a trend towards a better profile as regard several secondary efficacy variables.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Analysis of Variance; Anti-Allergic Agents; Butyrophenones; Cyproheptadine; Double-Blind Method; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Piperidines; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome