西替利嗪和缓释伪麻黄碱口服制剂与布地奈德鼻喷雾剂治疗变应性鼻炎鼻塞的疗效和安全性比较

Ursula P Zieglmayer, Friedrich Horak, Josef Toth, Bernhard Marks, Uwe E Berger, Bernard Burtin
{"title":"西替利嗪和缓释伪麻黄碱口服制剂与布地奈德鼻喷雾剂治疗变应性鼻炎鼻塞的疗效和安全性比较","authors":"Ursula P Zieglmayer,&nbsp;Friedrich Horak,&nbsp;Josef Toth,&nbsp;Bernhard Marks,&nbsp;Uwe E Berger,&nbsp;Bernard Burtin","doi":"10.2165/00151829-200504040-00006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the decongestant properties and tolerability of oral cetirizine and pseudoephedrine in a prolonged release form with those of nasal (aqueous spray) budesonide.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six individuals experiencing allergic rhinitis to house dustmites (HDM) participated in a study according to a randomized, crossover, two-period, two-treatment design with at least a 2-week washout period between treatments. In each period of 4 consecutive days, medications were taken twice daily. On day 1, immediately after the first intake of medication, individuals were exposed to HDM extract in the Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC) for 5 hours. The primary efficacy parameter was nasal congestion, assessed by active anterior rhinomanometry and rating of nasal cavity photos.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Rhinomanometry and nasal cavity photos both indicated that cetirizine/pseudoephedrine efficacy was statistically superior to budesonide in the management of nasal congestion during VCC sessions. The efficacy of cetirizine/pseudoephedrine was similar to that of budesonide from the end of day 1 up to day 4 when individuals were exposed to their natural environment post exposure to the aeroallergens. This study confirms the efficacy of cetirizine/pseudoephedrine and budesonide in the management of nasal congestion associated with allergic rhinitis. Both medications were well-tolerated. Cetirizine/pseudoephedrine was more effective than budesonide during HDM exposure, whereas budesonide became as effective as cetirizine/pseudoephedrine several hours post exposure to the allergens.</p>","PeriodicalId":87162,"journal":{"name":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","volume":"4 4","pages":"283-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2165/00151829-200504040-00006","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of an oral formulation of cetirizine and prolonged-release pseudoephedrine versus budesonide nasal spray in the management of nasal congestion in allergic rhinitis.\",\"authors\":\"Ursula P Zieglmayer,&nbsp;Friedrich Horak,&nbsp;Josef Toth,&nbsp;Bernhard Marks,&nbsp;Uwe E Berger,&nbsp;Bernard Burtin\",\"doi\":\"10.2165/00151829-200504040-00006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the decongestant properties and tolerability of oral cetirizine and pseudoephedrine in a prolonged release form with those of nasal (aqueous spray) budesonide.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six individuals experiencing allergic rhinitis to house dustmites (HDM) participated in a study according to a randomized, crossover, two-period, two-treatment design with at least a 2-week washout period between treatments. In each period of 4 consecutive days, medications were taken twice daily. On day 1, immediately after the first intake of medication, individuals were exposed to HDM extract in the Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC) for 5 hours. The primary efficacy parameter was nasal congestion, assessed by active anterior rhinomanometry and rating of nasal cavity photos.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Rhinomanometry and nasal cavity photos both indicated that cetirizine/pseudoephedrine efficacy was statistically superior to budesonide in the management of nasal congestion during VCC sessions. The efficacy of cetirizine/pseudoephedrine was similar to that of budesonide from the end of day 1 up to day 4 when individuals were exposed to their natural environment post exposure to the aeroallergens. This study confirms the efficacy of cetirizine/pseudoephedrine and budesonide in the management of nasal congestion associated with allergic rhinitis. Both medications were well-tolerated. Cetirizine/pseudoephedrine was more effective than budesonide during HDM exposure, whereas budesonide became as effective as cetirizine/pseudoephedrine several hours post exposure to the allergens.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Treatments in respiratory medicine\",\"volume\":\"4 4\",\"pages\":\"283-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2165/00151829-200504040-00006\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Treatments in respiratory medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2165/00151829-200504040-00006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2165/00151829-200504040-00006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

前言:本研究的目的是比较口服西替利嗪和伪麻黄碱缓释与鼻用布地奈德的减充血特性和耐受性。方法:36例室内尘螨过敏性鼻炎(HDM)患者参与了一项随机、交叉、两期、两治疗设计的研究,两治疗之间至少有2周的洗脱期。在连续4天的每个时间段内,每天服药2次。第1天,在第一次服药后,个体在维也纳挑战室(VCC)暴露于HDM提取物5小时。主要疗效指标为鼻塞,通过主动前鼻测压术和鼻腔照片评分来评估。结果:鼻压测量和鼻腔照片均显示西替利嗪/伪麻黄碱在治疗VCC期间鼻塞方面的疗效在统计学上优于布地奈德。从第1天到第4天,当个体暴露于空气过敏原暴露后的自然环境中时,西替利嗪/伪麻黄碱的疗效与布地奈德相似。本研究证实了西替利嗪/伪麻黄碱和布地奈德治疗变应性鼻炎相关鼻塞的疗效。两种药物的耐受性都很好。在暴露于HDM时,西替利嗪/伪麻黄碱比布地奈德更有效,而布地奈德在暴露于过敏原数小时后与西替利嗪/伪麻黄碱一样有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy and safety of an oral formulation of cetirizine and prolonged-release pseudoephedrine versus budesonide nasal spray in the management of nasal congestion in allergic rhinitis.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the decongestant properties and tolerability of oral cetirizine and pseudoephedrine in a prolonged release form with those of nasal (aqueous spray) budesonide.

Methods: Thirty-six individuals experiencing allergic rhinitis to house dustmites (HDM) participated in a study according to a randomized, crossover, two-period, two-treatment design with at least a 2-week washout period between treatments. In each period of 4 consecutive days, medications were taken twice daily. On day 1, immediately after the first intake of medication, individuals were exposed to HDM extract in the Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC) for 5 hours. The primary efficacy parameter was nasal congestion, assessed by active anterior rhinomanometry and rating of nasal cavity photos.

Results: Rhinomanometry and nasal cavity photos both indicated that cetirizine/pseudoephedrine efficacy was statistically superior to budesonide in the management of nasal congestion during VCC sessions. The efficacy of cetirizine/pseudoephedrine was similar to that of budesonide from the end of day 1 up to day 4 when individuals were exposed to their natural environment post exposure to the aeroallergens. This study confirms the efficacy of cetirizine/pseudoephedrine and budesonide in the management of nasal congestion associated with allergic rhinitis. Both medications were well-tolerated. Cetirizine/pseudoephedrine was more effective than budesonide during HDM exposure, whereas budesonide became as effective as cetirizine/pseudoephedrine several hours post exposure to the allergens.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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