Update on rupatadine in the management of allergic disorders

In a review of rupatadine published in 2008, the primary focus was on its role as an antihistamine, with a thorough evaluation of its pharmacology and interaction with histamine H1-receptors. At the time, however, evidence was already emerging of a broader mechanism of action for rupatadine involving other mediators implicated in the inflammatory cascade. Over the past few years, the role of platelet-activating factor (PAF) as a potent mediator involved in the hypersensitivity-type allergic reaction has gained greater recognition. Rupatadine has dual affinity for histamine H1-receptors and PAF receptors. In view of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma group's call for oral antihistamines to exhibit additive anti-allergic/anti-inflammatory properties, further exploration of rupatadine's anti-PAF effects was a logical step forward. New studies have demonstrated that rupatadine inhibits PAF effects in nasal airways and produces a greater reduction in nasal symptoms than levocetirizine. A meta-analysis involving more than 2500 patients has consolidated the clinical evidence for rupatadine in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adults and children (level of evidence Ia, recommendation A). Other recent advances include observational studies of rupatadine in everyday clinical practice situations and approval of a new formulation (1 mg/ml oral solution) for use in children. In this reappraisal, we revisit some key properties and pivotal clinical studies of rupatadine and examine new clinical data in more detail including studies that measured health-related quality of life and studies that investigated the efficacy and safety of rupatadine in other indications such as acquired cold urticaria, mosquito bite allergy and mastocytosis

Patch test results with fragrance markers of the baseline series - Analysis of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) network 2009-2012

Background: Contact allergy to fragrances is common, and impairs quality of life, particularly in young women. Objective: To provide current results on the prevalences of sensitization to fragrance allergens used as markers in the baseline series of most European countries. Methods: Data of patients consecutively patch tested between 2009 and 2012 in 12 European countries with fragrance allergens contained in the baseline series were collected by the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies network and descriptively analysed. Four departments used the TRUE Test(\uae) system. Results: The 'basic markers' were tested on 51 477 [fragrance mix II (FM II)] to 57 123 [Myroxylon pereirae, balsam of Peru] patients, and yielded positive reactions as follows: fragrance mix I 6.9%, Myroxylon pereirae 5.4%, FM II 3.8%, colophonium 2.6%, and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde 1.7%, with some regional differences. Prevalences with TRUE Test(\uae) allergens were lower. Additional fragrances were tested on 3643 (trimethylbenzenepropanol) to 14 071 (oil of turpentine) patients, and yielded between 2.6% (Cananga odorata) and 0.7% (trimethylbenzenepropanol) positive reactions. Conclusions: Contact allergy to fragrances is common throughout Europe, with regional variation probably being explained by patch test technique, and differences in exposure and referral patterns. The current basic markers of fragrance sensitivity in the baseline series should be supplemented with additional fragrance allergens