Literature DB >> 10541424

Comparison of the efficacy, safety, and onset of action of mizolastine, cetirizine, and placebo in the management of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. MIZOCET Study Group.

A Sabbah1, J Daele, A G Wade, P Ben-Soussen, P Attali.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mizolastine is a potent and selective H1-receptor antagonist with additional anti-allergic properties.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this European multicenter, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the efficacy of mizolastine 10 mg (n = 122), cetirizine 10 mg (n = 125), and placebo (n = 128) once daily for 28 days in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR), with focus on the onset of action.
METHODS: Symptoms were evaluated by the investigator using a total symptom score (TS) and by the patient (first week). Responders (R) were patients with a TS decrease of at least 50%. Safety was assessed according to the spontaneous reporting of adverse events.
RESULTS: Both mizolastine and cetirizine were effective in relieving the symptoms of SAR. After 7 days of treatment, the improvement in TS and responder's rate were significantly (P < .05) greater in patients treated with mizolastine (TS change versus baseline, mean +/- SD: -6.40 +/- 5.71; R: 55%) and cetirizine (TS change versus baseline: -6.24 +/- 5.24; R: 53%) than with placebo (TS change versus baseline: -4.11 +/- 5.91; R: 40%). Both drugs acted rapidly, within 2 hours of the first intake. During the first 3 days, mizolastine relieved symptoms more effectively than cetirizine, the difference being significant on the second (P = .027) and third (P = .050) day. Both mizolastine and cetirizine were well tolerated.
CONCLUSION: Mizolastine 10 mg once daily is at least as effective as cetirizine in relieving symptoms of SAR, onset of action is rapid with clinical effect evident within 2 hours.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10541424     DOI: 10.1016/s1081-1206(10)62672-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol        ISSN: 1081-1206            Impact factor:   6.347


  8 in total

1.  Comparative activity of cetirizine and mizolastine on histamine-induced skin wheal and flare responses at 24 h.

Authors:  A Purohit; M Mélac; G Pauli; N Frossard
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 2.  Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis: superior relief?

Authors:  L P Nielsen; N Mygind; R Dahl
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 9.546

3.  Are the birch trees in Southern England a source of Betula pollen for North London?

Authors:  C A Skjøth; M Smith; J Brandt; J Emberlin
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2008-11-11       Impact factor: 3.787

Review 4.  Hay fever in adolescents and adults.

Authors:  Aziz Sheikh; Sukhmeet Singh Panesar; Sarah Salvilla; Sangeeta Dhami
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2009-11-18

Review 5.  Second-generation antihistamines: actions and efficacy in the management of allergic disorders.

Authors:  Larry K Golightly; Leon S Greos
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 6.  Selecting the optimal oral antihistamine for patients with allergic rhinitis.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Lehman; Michael S Blaiss
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 9.546

7.  Cetirizine: a review of its use in allergic disorders.

Authors:  Monique P Curran; Lesley J Scott; Caroline M Perry
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 9.546

8.  The occurrence of Ambrosia pollen in Rzeszów, Kraków and Poznań, Poland: investigation of trends and possible transport of Ambrosia pollen from Ukraine.

Authors:  Idalia Kasprzyk; Dorota Myszkowska; Lukasz Grewling; Alicja Stach; Branko Sikoparija; Carsten Ambelas Skjøth; Matt Smith
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2010-10-30       Impact factor: 3.787

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.