scholarly journals Antihistamines for Allergic Rhinitis Treatment from the Viewpoint of Nonsedative Properties

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideyuki Kawauchi ◽  
Kazuhiko Yanai ◽  
De-Yun Wang ◽  
Koju Itahashi ◽  
Kimihiro Okubo

Antihistamines targeting the histamine H1 receptor play an important role in improving and maintaining the quality of life of patients with allergic rhinitis. For more effective and safer use of second-generation drugs, which are recommended by various guidelines, a classification based on their detailed characteristics is necessary. Antihistamines for first-line therapy should not have central depressant/sedative activities. Sedative properties (drowsiness and impaired performance) are associated with the inhibition of central histamine neurons. Brain H1 receptor occupancy (H1RO) is a useful index shown to be correlated with indices based on clinical findings. Antihistamines are classified into non-sedating (<20%), less-sedating (20–50%), and sedating (≥50%) groups based on H1RO. Among the non-sedating group, fexofenadine and bilastine are classified into “non-brain-penetrating antihistamines” based on the H1RO. These two drugs have many common chemical properties. However, bilastine has more potent binding affinity to the H1 receptor, and its action tends to last longer. In well-controlled studies using objective indices, bilastine does not affect psychomotor or driving performance even at twice the usual dose (20 mg). Upon selecting antihistamines for allergic rhinitis, various situations should be taken into our consideration. This review summarizes that the non-brain-penetrating antihistamines should be chosen for the first-line therapy of mild allergic rhinitis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4151-TPS4151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Morano ◽  
Monica Niger ◽  
Salvatore Corallo ◽  
Sara Lonardi ◽  
Stefano Tamberi ◽  
...  

TPS4151 Background: Platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimens are the backbone of first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The optimal duration of first-line therapy is still unknown and its continuation until disease progression represents the standard. However this strategy is often associated with cumulative toxicity and rapid development of drug resistance. Moreover, only 40% of AGC pts are eligible for second-line treatment. This study aims at assessing whether switch maintenance to ramucirumab plus paclitaxel will extend the progression-free survival (PFS) of subjects with HER-2 negative AGC who have not progressed after a first-line with a platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimen. The hypothesis is that the early administration of an active, non-cross resistant regimen may delay disease progression and, consequently, improve pts’ quality of life. This strategy may also rescue all those subjects that become ineligible for a second-line therapy due to the rapid clinical deterioration. Methods: This is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III trial. Eligibility criteria are: unresectable/metastatic HER-2 negative AGC or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer; ECOG PS 0-1; measurable and/or evaluable disease by RECIST v1.1; no progression after 3 months of therapy with either FOLFOX4, mFOLFOX6 or XELOX . The primary endpoint is to compare PFS of pts in ARM A (continuation of the same first-line therapy with oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidine) versus ARM B (switch maintenance to ramucirumab and placlitaxel). Secondary endpoints are: overall survival, time-to-treatment failure, overall response rate, duration of response, percentage of pts receiving a second-line therapy per treatment arm, safety and quality of life. Exploratory analyses to identify primary resistance and prognosis biomarkers are planned, including Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) on archival tumor tissues. The ARMANI study is sponsored by the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori and it is ongoing at 29 Italian centers with a planned population of 280 pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02934464.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 5034-5034
Author(s):  
Francesca Pierdomenico ◽  
Antonio Almeida

Abstract Abstract 5034 Background: Azacitidine is a hypomethylating agent indicated for treatment of higher risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS). A recently published phase III trial demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) of MDS patients treated with Azacitidine compared to those receiving conventional care regimens, thus establishing this treatment option as first line therapy in those patients for whom bone marrow transplantation is not an option. Standard regime has been 75 mg /m2/day during 7 days; however several other treatment schedules have been explored that may have equal efficacy and tolerability though being more cost-effective. Aims: Evaluate the efficacy of Azacitidine regimen in terms of transfusion independence (TI), overall response (OR), AML transformation and tolerability in patients with higher risk MDS and AML with dysplasia. Methods: Higher risk (IPSS INT-2 and high risk) MDS patients were treated at a single institution with Azacitidine with a dosing regime of 500 mg/m2 every 4 weeks administered over 5 days. The total dose was adjusted so that entire vials were used. OR, including complete response (CR), haematological response (HR) and partial response (PR) and TI, defined according to the 2000 International Working Group Criteria (IWG), were assessed by blood and bone marrow examination. Treatment cycles were repeated until toxicity or disease progression. Results: A total of 38 patients were treated with Azacitidine between January 2007 and December 2010. Mean age was 68 years old (range 85–33) and male sex was predominant (M:F of 1.5) Fifteen patients had refractory anaemia with excess blasts, eleven had AML with dysplasia, five had chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia, tree had refractory cytopenias with multilineage dysplasia and four had acute erythroblastic leukemia. Most patients were high risk according to IPSS scoring (82%). Azacytidine was used as first line therapy in 32% and as second line in 61%. An average of 5 cycles (1–22) per patient were administered. The TI rate was of 45%, with average response duration of 6.5 months. OR rate was of 32% (9 CR, 1 HR and 2 PR). Twenty-two patients died during the follow-up period. Six patients progressed to AML: five of them had never shown any response to Azacitidine, while the other one had obtained TI. Median survival from diagnosis was of 22 months, while median survival from beginning of treatment was of 12 months. Tolerability was good, mainly grades I and II gastrointestinal and skin toxicity. Eleven patients (26%) had Grade III haematological toxicity and four (11%) suffered Grade IV haematological toxicity. The Azacitidine schedule using 500 mg/m2/4 weeks with the total dose adjusted across the 5 days in order to avoid wastage, instead of 75 mg/m2/day during 7 days, allowed for significant costs reductions. Conclusion: The efficacy of Azacitidine in achieving TI and prolonging survival in MDS is well recognized. In this study, Azacitidine improved quality of life and overall survival regardless of the quality of response. Treatment was well tolerated, with limited toxicity. Our results, though coming from a small group of patients, were comparable to what reported in the literature in terms of efficacy and tolerability, and we showed that it is cost effective to use our schedule regime. Disclosures: Almeida: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document