BACKGROUND:Antihistaminic treatment of allergic asthma or cough-type asthma, including cough associated with allergic rhinocojunctivitis, has been recently reconsidered prospectively since new very potent compounds, nonsedating with anti-allergic properties, are available. OBJECTIVE: The possible effectiveness of loratadine in the treatment of allergic cough was assessed in 20 patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and cough due to Parietaria judaica during the pollen season (April to July 1993). METHODS:Allergic patients were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized study, and received loratadine 10 mg/d or placebo in oral tablets for 4 weeks. Occurrence and severity of conjunctival and nasal symptoms, severity and frequency of cough attacks were assessed daily by the patients together with peak expiratory flow evaluation performed twice a day, ie, in the morning and in the evening. Physicians evaluated conjunctival and nasal signs, and spirometry on admission (before treatment), 2 and 4 weeks after treatment. On admission methacholine challenge was also performed to assess PD20. Pollen counts were assessed during the study. RESULTS: According to patients' diary cards, ocular and nasal symptoms were progressively reduced by loratadine treatment (respectively P < .05 and P < .01), as well as cough frequency (P < .05) and cough intensity (P < .01). Peak expiratory flow rate, forced vital capacity, and forced expiratory volume in one second significantly decreased in the placebo-treated group (P < .01), while they were not modified in loratadine-treated patients, who remained normal. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that loratadine may be beneficial in the treatment of allergic cough, as well as in rhinoconjunctivitis. Further studies of this may be warranted.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Antihistaminic treatment of allergic asthma or cough-type asthma, including cough associated with allergic rhinocojunctivitis, has been recently reconsidered prospectively since new very potent compounds, nonsedating with anti-allergic properties, are available. OBJECTIVE: The possible effectiveness of loratadine in the treatment of allergic cough was assessed in 20 patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and cough due to Parietaria judaica during the pollen season (April to July 1993). METHODS: Allergic patients were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized study, and received loratadine 10 mg/d or placebo in oral tablets for 4 weeks. Occurrence and severity of conjunctival and nasal symptoms, severity and frequency of cough attacks were assessed daily by the patients together with peak expiratory flow evaluation performed twice a day, ie, in the morning and in the evening. Physicians evaluated conjunctival and nasal signs, and spirometry on admission (before treatment), 2 and 4 weeks after treatment. On admission methacholine challenge was also performed to assess PD20. Pollen counts were assessed during the study. RESULTS: According to patients' diary cards, ocular and nasal symptoms were progressively reduced by loratadine treatment (respectively P < .05 and P < .01), as well as cough frequency (P < .05) and cough intensity (P < .01). Peak expiratory flow rate, forced vital capacity, and forced expiratory volume in one second significantly decreased in the placebo-treated group (P < .01), while they were not modified in loratadine-treated patients, who remained normal. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that loratadine may be beneficial in the treatment of allergic cough, as well as in rhinoconjunctivitis. Further studies of this may be warranted.