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)
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: 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). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students on Application, Education, and Ethical Aspects
- Information quality of videos related to esophageal cancer on tiktok, kwai, and bilibili: a cross-sectional study
- The quality and reliability of short videos about hypertension on TikTok: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability evaluation of pancreatic cancer-related video content on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study
- Association between metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) and hypertension: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2007–2018
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.