首页> 外文期刊>Arzneimittel-Forschung: =Drug Research >Clinical study of the therapeutic efficacy and safety of emedastine difumarate versus cetirizine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
【24h】

Clinical study of the therapeutic efficacy and safety of emedastine difumarate versus cetirizine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

机译:富马酸依马斯汀与西替利嗪治疗季节性变应性鼻炎的疗效和安全性的临床研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: The therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of emedastine difumarate (CAS 87233-62-3) in male and female Caucasian patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis as compared to cetirizine (CAS 83881-51-0) was evaluated. METHODS: The study was designed as a double-blind, randomised, parallel groups comparison of two antihistamines administered by oral route (emedastine 4 mg o.d. versus cetirizine 10 mg o.d.) in a population of 120 patients suffering from grass pollen allergic rhinitis. The duration of the treatment period was 14 days. Primary efficacy variable was a total symptoms score (including among symptoms nasal congestion, sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal/throat/palate itching, eye itching and lacrimation) evaluated after 14 days of treatment vs. baseline value. Safety was assessed on routine laboratory assays and recording vital signs and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The between-group difference in primary efficacy variable averaged over the 2-week treatment period was not statistically significant. Results clearly showed that no significant difference exists between the two treatments as far as total symptoms score evaluated after 14 days of treatment vs. baseline values are concerned. Therefore, the efficacy profiles of the study medications are overlapping. The pattern and incidence of AEs was similar in both treatment groups. The most frequent AEs with both compounds were related to the CNS, headache being the most reported one. In particular, this study seems to disclose a slighter tendency to drowsiness with emedastine than with cetirizine. CONCLUSIONS: Both drugs under investigation in this trial appear to be effective for relieving the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis in Caucasian adult patients. The results demonstrate that emedastine 4 mg o.d. is comparable in efficacy to cetirizine 10 mg once daily in the symptomatic management of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Moreover, based on the results of this study, emedastine can be considered a safe and well-tolerated drug and its safety profile seems to resemble that of cetirizine.
机译:目的:评价富马酸依马斯丁(CAS 87233-62-3)与西替利嗪(CAS 83881-51-0)相比在男性和女性高加索季节性变应性鼻炎患者中的疗效和耐受性。方法:该研究被设计为在120名患有草花粉过敏性鼻炎的患者中通过口服途径施用两种抗组胺药(美西汀4 mg o.d.与西替利嗪10 mg o.d.)进行的双盲,随机,平行分组比较。治疗期为14天。主要疗效变量是治疗14天后相对于基线值评估的总症状评分(包括鼻塞,打喷嚏,鼻漏,鼻/咽喉/上颚瘙痒,眼痒和流泪症状)。通过常规实验室分析评估安全性,并记录生命体征和不良事件(AE)。结果:在两周的治疗期内平均主要疗效变量的组间差异无统计学意义。结果清楚地表明,就治疗14天后评估的总症状评分与基线值而言,两种治疗之间没有显着差异。因此,研究药物的功效概况是重叠的。在两个治疗组中,AE的模式和发生率相似。两种化合物中最常见的AE与中枢神经系统有关,头痛是报道最多的一种。特别是,这项研究似乎揭示了与依西替利嗪相比,依米斯丁的嗜睡倾向要小一些。结论:该试验中正在研究的两种药物似乎对缓解白种人成年患者的季节性过敏性鼻炎症状均有效。结果表明艾美他汀4 mg o.d.在季节性变应性鼻炎的对症治疗中,其功效与西替利嗪10 mg每天一次相当。此外,根据这项研究的结果,可以将Emedastine视为安全且耐受性良好的药物,其安全性似乎与西替利嗪相似。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号