Antihistaminic treatment of allergic rhinitis: a double-blind study with terfenadine versus dexchlorpheniramine.

Pharmatherapeutica Pub Date : 1987-01-01
E A Pastorello, C Ortolani, S Gerosa, V Pravettoni, L R Codecasa, A Fugazza, C Zanussi
{"title":"Antihistaminic treatment of allergic rhinitis: a double-blind study with terfenadine versus dexchlorpheniramine.","authors":"E A Pastorello,&nbsp;C Ortolani,&nbsp;S Gerosa,&nbsp;V Pravettoni,&nbsp;L R Codecasa,&nbsp;A Fugazza,&nbsp;C Zanussi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A double-blind study was carried out in 65 patients with seasonal rhinitis to compare the effectiveness and tolerance of terfenadine and dexchlorpheniramine. Patients were allocated at random to receive treatment for 1 week with either 60 mg terfenadine twice daily or 2 mg dexchlorpheniramine maleate 3-times daily. Before and after treatment, patients underwent RAST and skin prick tests for reactivity to pollen and those who were positive also had rhinomanometric measurements made of nasal resistance. Diary cards were used by patients to record the severity of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, watery, irritated and red eyes, itching of the nose, throat and eyes, and cough. Details were also kept of the frequency and severity of any side-effects. Pollen counts were taken daily during the treatment period. The results showed that both terfenadine and dexchlorpheniramine produced good or excellent relief of the main symptoms in 78% and 73% of the patients, respectively. There was no significant correlation between the pollen count and reduced symptom severity. Both drugs produced a reduction in total nasal resistance but this was not significantly different from initial values, neither was there a significant difference between treatment. Terfenadine was well tolerated and side-effects incidence was significantly lower (p less than 0.01) than in patients treated with dexchlorpheniramine, particularly so with reference to drowsiness.</p>","PeriodicalId":19862,"journal":{"name":"Pharmatherapeutica","volume":"5 2","pages":"69-75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmatherapeutica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A double-blind study was carried out in 65 patients with seasonal rhinitis to compare the effectiveness and tolerance of terfenadine and dexchlorpheniramine. Patients were allocated at random to receive treatment for 1 week with either 60 mg terfenadine twice daily or 2 mg dexchlorpheniramine maleate 3-times daily. Before and after treatment, patients underwent RAST and skin prick tests for reactivity to pollen and those who were positive also had rhinomanometric measurements made of nasal resistance. Diary cards were used by patients to record the severity of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, watery, irritated and red eyes, itching of the nose, throat and eyes, and cough. Details were also kept of the frequency and severity of any side-effects. Pollen counts were taken daily during the treatment period. The results showed that both terfenadine and dexchlorpheniramine produced good or excellent relief of the main symptoms in 78% and 73% of the patients, respectively. There was no significant correlation between the pollen count and reduced symptom severity. Both drugs produced a reduction in total nasal resistance but this was not significantly different from initial values, neither was there a significant difference between treatment. Terfenadine was well tolerated and side-effects incidence was significantly lower (p less than 0.01) than in patients treated with dexchlorpheniramine, particularly so with reference to drowsiness.

抗组胺药治疗变应性鼻炎:特非那定与右氯苯那敏的双盲研究。
对65例季节性鼻炎患者进行双盲研究,比较特非那定和右氯苯那敏的疗效和耐受性。随机分配患者接受60 mg特非那定每日2次或2 mg马来酸右氯苯那敏每日3次的治疗,为期1周。在治疗前后,患者进行RAST和皮肤点刺试验以检测对花粉的反应性,阳性患者也进行鼻阻力测量。患者使用日记卡记录鼻塞、流涕、打喷嚏、流涕、眼睛发炎、红肿、鼻、喉、眼痒、咳嗽的严重程度。还保留了任何副作用的频率和严重程度的详细信息。处理期间每天取花粉计数。结果表明,特非那定和右氯苯那敏分别对78%和73%的患者的主要症状有良好或极好的缓解效果。花粉数量与症状严重程度之间无显著相关性。两种药物都降低了总鼻阻力,但这与初始值没有显著差异,两种治疗之间也没有显著差异。特非那定耐受性良好,副作用发生率显著低于右旋氯苯那敏(p < 0.01),尤其是嗜睡方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信