Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2010
Rupatadine and its effects on symptom control, stimulation time, and temperature thresholds in patients with acquired cold urticaria.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Metz Martin, Scholz Elisabeth, Ferrán Marta, Izquierdo Iñaki, Giménez-Arnau Ana, Maurer Marcus
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with acquired cold urticaria (ACU) show itchy wheals during cold exposure. This disturbing condition involves histamine and platelet-activating factor in its pathogenesis. Rupatadine is a dual antagonist of both histamine and platelet-activating factor.
OBJECTIVE: To assess rupatadine efficacy in preventing reactions to cold challenge in patients with ACU.
METHODS: A crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which 21 patients with ACU received rupatadine, 20 mg/d, or placebo for 1 week each is presented. The main outcome was the critical stimulation time threshold (CSTT) determined by ice cube challenge. Secondary outcomes included CSTT and the critical temperature threshold assessed by a cold provocation device (TempTest 3.0), as well as scores for wheal reactions, pruritus, burning sensations, and subjective complaints after cold challenge.
RESULTS: After rupatadine treatment, 11 (52%) of 21 patients exhibited a complete response (ie, no urticaria lesions after ice cube provocation). A significant improvement in CSTT compared with placebo was observed after ice cube and TempTest 3.0 challenge (P = .03 and P = .004, respectively). A significant reduction of critical temperature threshold (P < .001) and reduced scores for cold provocation-induced wheal reactions (P = .01), pruritus (P = .005), burning sensation (P = .03), and subjective complaints (P = .03) after rupatadine treatment were also found. Mild fatigue (n = 4), somnolence (n = 1), and moderate headache (n = 1) were reported during active treatment.
CONCLUSION: Rupatadine, 20 mg/d, shows high efficacy and is well tolerated in the treatment of ACU symptoms.
OBJECTIVE: To assess rupatadine efficacy in preventing reactions to cold challenge in patients with ACU.
METHODS: A crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which 21 patients with ACU received rupatadine, 20 mg/d, or placebo for 1 week each is presented. The main outcome was the critical stimulation time threshold (CSTT) determined by ice cube challenge. Secondary outcomes included CSTT and the critical temperature threshold assessed by a cold provocation device (TempTest 3.0), as well as scores for wheal reactions, pruritus, burning sensations, and subjective complaints after cold challenge.
RESULTS: After rupatadine treatment, 11 (52%) of 21 patients exhibited a complete response (ie, no urticaria lesions after ice cube provocation). A significant improvement in CSTT compared with placebo was observed after ice cube and TempTest 3.0 challenge (P = .03 and P = .004, respectively). A significant reduction of critical temperature threshold (P < .001) and reduced scores for cold provocation-induced wheal reactions (P = .01), pruritus (P = .005), burning sensation (P = .03), and subjective complaints (P = .03) after rupatadine treatment were also found. Mild fatigue (n = 4), somnolence (n = 1), and moderate headache (n = 1) were reported during active treatment.
CONCLUSION: Rupatadine, 20 mg/d, shows high efficacy and is well tolerated in the treatment of ACU symptoms.