RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A circadian rhythm of symptoms has been reported in allergic rhinitis and some studies have shown the dosing time of antihistamines to be of importance for optimizing symptom relief in this disease. The objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of morning vs. evening dosing of the antihistamine desloratadine at different time points during the day. METHODS: Patients >/= 18 years, with seasonal allergic rhinitis received desloratadine 5 mg orally once daily in the morning (AM-group) or evening (PM-group) for two weeks. Rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing and eye symptoms were scored morning and evening. Wilcoxon rank sum and 2-way ANOVA test were used. RESULTS: Six-hundred and sixty-three patients were randomized; 336 in the AM-group; 327 in the PM-group. No statistically significant differences were seen between the AM and PM group at any time points. In the sub-groups with higher morning or evening total symptom score no difference in treatment efficacy was seen whether the dose was taken 12 or 24 hours before the higher score time. There was a circadian variation in baseline total symptom score; highest during daytime and lowest at night. The circadian variation in symptoms was reduced during treatment. This reduction was highest for daytime symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: A circadian rhythm was seen for most symptoms being more pronounced during daytime. This was less apparent after treatment with desloratadine. No statistically significant difference in efficacy was seen whether desloratadine was given in the morning or in the evening. This gives the patients more flexibility in choosing dosing time.
RESUMO
In this multicentre, multinational, comparative, double-blind clinical trial, outpatients with both clinical signs and symptoms and radiographic evidence of acute sinusitis were randomly assigned to receive for 7 days either a twice-daily oral regimen of faropenem daloxate (300 mg) or a twice daily oral regimen of cefuroxime axetil (250 mg). Among 452 patients considered valid for clinical efficacy, faropenem daloxate treatment was found to be statistically equivalent to cefuroxime axetil (89.0% vs. 88.4%-95% CI=-5.2%; +6.4%) at the 7-16 days post-therapy assessment. At 28-35 days post-therapy, the continued clinical cure rate in the faropenem daloxate group was 92.6% and that for the cefuroxime axetil group was 94.9% (95% CI: -6.8%; +1.2%). A total of 148 organisms was obtained in 136 microbiologically valid patients (30.1%). The predominant causative organisms were Streptococcus pneumoniae (47.1%), Haemophilus influenzae (30.1%), Staphylococcus aureus (14.7%) and Moraxella catarrhalis (8.8%). The bacteriological success rate at the 7-16 days post-therapy evaluation was similar in both treatment groups: 91.5% and 90.8% in the faropenem daloxate and cefuroxime axetil groups, respectively (95% CI=-9.2%; +9.5%). Eradication or presumed eradication was detected for 97.3% and 96.3% of S. pneumoniae, 85.0% and 90.5% of H. influenzae, 88.9% and 90.9% of S. aureus and 100.0% and 83.3% of M. catarrhalis in faropenem daloxate and cefuroxime axetil recipients, respectively. At least one drug-related event was reported by 9.5% of the faropenem daloxate-treated patients and by 10.3% of those who received cefuroxime axetil. The most frequently reported drug-related events were diarrhoea (2.2% versus 2.9%), nausea/vomiting (1.5% vs. 0.7%), abdominal pain (0.7% vs 1.5%) and skin reactions (1.5% vs. 1.1%). Overall, faropenem daloxate was at least as effective clinically and bacteriologically as cefuroxime axetil and was well tolerated.