Comparison of Ebastine to Cetirizine in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis in Adults

Géhanno, P.; Bremard-Oury, Clothilde; Zeisser, Philippe

doi:10.1016/s1081-1206(10)63269-3

Cited by 36 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In active comparator trials, the incidence of adverse events with ebastine was similar to that with loratadine (55,57,65) or cetirizine (54,66) in patients with allergic rhinitis. Most adverse events were of mild or moderate severity.…”

Section: General Tolerabilitymentioning

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ebastine in allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria

Sastre

2008

Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Histamine is a key mediator in the development of allergy symptoms, and oral H1‐antihistamines are among the most widely used treatments for symptomatic relief in conditions such as allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. Ebastine is a second‐generation antihistamine which has been shown to be an effective treatment for both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. In controlled clinical trials in adult and adolescent patients with allergic rhinitis, ebastine 10 mg once‐daily improved symptoms to a significantly greater extent than placebo and to a similar extent as loratadine 10 mg and cetirizine 10 mg (both once‐daily), while ebastine 20 mg proved to be more effective than these two comparator antihistamines. In addition, ebastine was significantly more effective than placebo at relieving the symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria. Ebastine provides efficacy throughout the 24‐h dosing interval with once‐daily administration and clinical benefit is seen from the first day of treatment. Small studies have found beneficial effects for ebastine in patients with other disorders, including cold urticaria, dermographic urticaria, atopic asthma, mosquito bites and (in combination with pseudoephedrine) the common cold. In addition to the regular ebastine tablet, a fast‐dissolving tablet (FDT) formulation, which disintegrates in the mouth without the aid of a drink, is also available. It has been shown to be bioequivalent to the regular tablet, and to be significantly more effective than desloratadine at reducing histamine‐induced cutaneous wheals. A number of patient surveys demonstrated that the majority of individuals who tried the fast‐dissolving formulation reported it to be convenient for use, fast‐acting and preferred it to their previous antihistamine medication. Perhaps most importantly, a large proportion of patients indicated that they would prefer to use this new formulation in the future. Ebastine has a rapid onset of action and it can be administered once‐daily, with or without food. Dose modifications are not needed in elderly patients, or in those with renal or mild to moderate hepatic impairment. Ebastine is generally well‐tolerated, and clinical studies showed that at usual therapeutic doses of 10 and 20 mg once‐daily, it had no clinically relevant adverse effects on cognitive function and psychomotor performance or on cardiovascular function. In conclusion, ebastine is an effective and generally well‐tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. In addition to the regular tablet formulation, ebastine is available as a FDT, providing a treatment option that is particularly convenient for patients.

show abstract

Section: General Tolerabilitymentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Maximum symptom relief was achieved earlier (within 1 week) with ebastine 20 mg than with ebastine 10 mg or cetirizine. Ebastine 20 mg was significantly more effective than ebastine 10 mg in a subgroup of patients with more severe symptoms at baseline (P = 0.027) (54).…”

Section: Allergic Rhinitismentioning

confidence: 93%

Ebastine in allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria

Sastre

2008

Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several well-controlled trials have compared the efficacy of cetirizine with placebo and/or other H 1 antihistamines in adults and children with SAR and PAR/PER [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80]. The majority of these trials have been conducted as double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies in large groups of patients recruited from a single or multiple centres.…”

Section: Clinical Trials Of Cetirizine In Armentioning

confidence: 99%

The Clinical Use of Cetirizine in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cetirizine is among the first second-generation H₁ antihistamines (SGAHs) developed to provide selective H₁ receptor inhibition without central nervous system depression. Objective: The aim of this review is to summarize the amount of data collected over 25 years of clinical use of cetirizine and compare this with data available for other SGAHs in the management of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). Methods: A comprehensive literature search for publications relating to cetirizine was performed using the Pubmed database, and relevant papers published in English were selected for detailed review. Results: Compared with the majority of other SGAHs, cetirizine was generally shown to have a more favourable pharmacological profile, to be well tolerated, be at least equally or more efficacious in attenuating/inhibiting nasal and ocular symptoms and to improve the quality of life in AR patients. The majority of clinical trials investigating the effect of SGAHs in AR patients further indicated that cetirizine was often employed as the main comparator active drug. Conclusion: Based on the evidence that cetirizine is a commonly employed active comparator drug in AR, it is tempting to suggest that cetirizine may be a suitable benchmark in the development of novel pharmacotherapies for AR.

show abstract

“…The efficacy of ebastine has been reported in several placebo-controlled and comparative trials on the symptomatic treatment of perennial [3, 4] and seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) [5,6,7,8,9]. Loratadine is another H 1 -receptor antagonist available worldwide for SAR [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Ebastine 20 mg Compared to Loratadine 10 mg and Placebo in the Symptomatic Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Ratner

Falqués

Chuecos

et al. 2005

Int Arch Allergy Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Few randomized studies have compared the efficacy of ebastine and loratadine in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Methods: A meta-analysis was performed on data from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials comparing the efficacy of ebastine 20 mg once daily versus loratadine 10 mg once daily in the symptomatic treatment of SAR symptoms. Primary efficacy variable was the mean change in the overall mean daily reflective total symptom score (TSS), i.e. the sum of five rhinitis symptom scores: nasal discharge, nasal congestion, nasal itching, sneezing and total eye symptoms (itchy/watery eyes) over the first 2 weeks of treatment compared to baseline. Results: There were 2,089 patients in the population analyzed: 749, 739 and 601 patients in the ebastine 20 mg, loratadine 10 mg and placebo groups, respectively. Compared to baseline, overall mean daily reflective TSS over the first 2 weeks of treatment was –3.61 (35.4% reduction from baseline) in the ebastine group, –3.05 (29.0% reduction) in the loratadine group and –2.30 (22.7% reduction) in the placebo group. Statistically significant differences in the mean change from baseline were found when comparing ebastine and loratadine (p < 0.001), ebastine and placebo (p < 0.0001), and loratadine and placebo (p < 0.0001). The global effect (i.e. the difference in overall mean daily reflective TSS over the first 2 weeks of treatment) of ebastine compared with loratadine over the first 2 weeks of treatment was –0.56 (95% confidence interval, CI, –0.86 to –0.26), and it was sustained during the whole (4-week) period studied. The global effects of ebastine and loratadine compared with placebo were –1.30 (95% CI, –1.61 to –0.99) and –0.74 (95% CI, –1.05 to –0.43), respectively. Secondary variables (reflective and snapshot individual symptom scores) showed the same trend. Conclusions: This meta-analysis confirms that ebastine 20 mg has a good efficacy profile, inducing a greater decrease from baseline in mean rhinitis symptom scores than loratadine 10 mg or placebo.

show abstract

Comparison of Ebastine to Cetirizine in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis in Adults

Cited by 36 publications

References 12 publications

Ebastine in allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria

Ebastine in allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria

The Clinical Use of Cetirizine in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Ebastine 20 mg Compared to Loratadine 10 mg and Placebo in the Symptomatic Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About