PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Danzig

Publications and source records attributed to M Danzig.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1998

In vivo and ex vivo inhibitory effects of loratadine on histamine release in patients with allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vivo and ex vivo effects of the H1-antagonist loratadine on histamine release. METHODS: The study was designed as a double-blind, crossover trial. Ten patients with allergic rhinitis due to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus were treated with loratadine (10 mg daily p.o.) and with placebo for 1 week, with a 2-week interval between the two treatments. Nasal lavages with saline solution were done before and after challenge with the relevant allergen at the end of treatments with loratadine and placebo. Venous blood was taken after treatments, and basophil histamine release induced by anti-IgE (10 microg/ml), N-formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine (fMLP, 1 microM), and Ca2+ ionophore A23187 (1 microM) was evaluated by an automated fluorometric method. RESULTS: Treatment with loratadine attenuated early antigen-induced nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, and itching. Nasal symptoms were accompanied by a significant histamine release in the nasal lavages collected 5 min after stimulation when the patients received placebo (median 4 ng/ml, range 1-28; P < 0.05). After treatment with loratadine, histamine release in the 5-min postchallenge lavages was almost abrogated (median 0.5 ng/ml, range 0-3; P < 0.01 vs placebo). Median anti-IgE-induced histamine release from basophils was 41.9% (range 27.8-79.2) after placebo and 30.0% (range 1.7-73.3, P < 0.05) after loratadine. Active treatment exerted an inhibitory effect also on basophil histamine release induced by fMLP and Ca2+ ionophore A23187. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment for 1 week with loratadine reduces allergen-induced nasal symptoms and inhibits in vivo and ex vivo histamine release in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Changes in skin-test reactivity do not correlate with clinical efficacy of H1-blockers in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

New-generation H1-blockers may possess antiallergic properties, and their effect may differ, depending on the target organ. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was carried out during the pollen season to compare the clinical effect on nasal and conjunctival symptoms of astemizole (10 mg o.d.) and loratadine (10 mg o.d.) with their effect on skin-test reactivity to allergen and histamine. Thirty-eight patients (12-56 years of age) were studied. Nasal and ocular symptoms were recorded daily from days 4 to 7. Skin prick tests with serial concentrations of allergens and one concentration of histamine were carried out before and at the end of the 7-day treatment period. Parallel-line bioassay, analysis of variance, and covariance were used to analyze skin test data. Loratadine and astemizole significantly decreased symptoms from baseline (P < 0.004 and P < 0.006). Skin-test reactivity to allergen and histamine was more profoundly decreased by astemizole than loratadine. The histamine covariant was more important in the allergen effect of astemizole than in that of loratadine. Two H1-blockers having the same clinical effect on nasal and ocular symptoms during the pollen season have totally different effects on skin-test reactivity. Skin-test reactivity to allergen or histamine is not predictive of the clinical efficacy of H1-blockers during seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

Inhibition of interleukin-5 with a monoclonal antibody attenuates allergic inflammation.

IL-5 is a prominent and perhaps an essential element in the induction of allergic inflammation in human asthma and other allergic diseases. Despite the strong biochemical and clinical correlates between lung eosinophilia and asthma, there is no clear understanding of how eosinophils exacerbate asthma. Antigen administration to sensitized animals produces eosinophilic infiltration that is very similar to that in man, and is prevented by administration of a neutralizing monoclonal antibody against IL-5. Mice in which the IL-5 gene is absent are unable to mount eosinophilic responses to antigen and do not sustain lung damage, but otherwise develop normally. The study of the biology of IL-5 has not only clarified the links between eosinophilia and airway hyperreactivity, but also strongly suggests that anti-IL-5 therapy may be an effective, safe, and novel way of treating human asthma and perhaps other eosinophilic diseases. There are many different potential approaches to the inhibition of IL-5, but the one most likely to provide "proof of principle" in "asthma in the wild" in man is a monoclonal antibody against IL-5.

Animals↗
PubMed1997

Loratadine treatment of rhinitis due to pollen allergy reduces epithelial ICAM-1 expression.

BACKGROUND: Loratadine and cetirizine are new generation antihistamines, which are clinically effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate antiallergic activity of loratadine compared with cetirizine, over a 2 week period under natural allergen exposure, in a double-blind parallel groups, randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Twenty patients, sensitized to grass and/or Parietaria pollen, were subdivided into two groups, one receiving loratadine the other cetirizine respectively. Both were dosed at 10 mg/day. Evaluated parameters were: clinical symptoms, nasal inflammatory cell (such as neutrophil, eosinophil and metachromatic cells) counts, ICAM-1 expression on nasal epithelial cells, and nasal mediators (e.g. histamine, ECP, EPO and MPO). RESULTS: Loratadine and cetirizine significantly improved symptoms (P < 0.002), significantly reduced eosinophil (P < 0.016) and metachromatic cell (P < 0.01) infiltration, levels of ECP (P < 0.002), EPO (P < 0.006) and histamine (P < 0.01) and ICAM-1 expression on nasal epithelial cells (P < 0.02). No difference was demonstrated between the two drugs. CONCLUSION: The antiallergic activity of loratadine and cetirizine is documented by their actions on the inflammatory and clinical parameters, especially ICAM-1 modulation.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

Efficacy of loratadine versus placebo in the prophylactic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The efficacy of loratadine as prophylactic therapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled study. One hundred eighteen subjects received either loratadine, 10 mg once daily, or placebo for 6 weeks. Treatment was begun prior to the onset of grass pollen seasonal symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Total symptom-free days occurred more frequently in subjects receiving loratadine. More loratadine than placebo subjects (65% versus 49%) had no symptoms or mild rhinitis at the end of the study. In contrast, the differences between loratadine and placebo in symptom scores did not achieve significance. The incidence of sedation and anticholinergic effects were comparable between the groups. Prophylactic loratadine therapy was effective in suppressing symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and providing patients with symptom-free days throughout the pollen season.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

Protective effect of loratadine on late phase reaction induced by conjunctival provocation test.

The protective effect of Loratadine, a new generation, non-sedating antihistamine, on clinical and cellular events during the early phase reaction (EPR) and late phase reaction (LPR) of the allergen-specific conjunctival provocation test (CPT) was assessed out of the pollen season in 20 seasonally allergic rhino-conjunctivitis patients. After a screening CPT, selected patients were randomized to Loratadine (10 mg OD) or matching placebo for 7 days. CPT was repeated following treatment. Clinical and cellular responses were evaluated by a symptom score and cell counting in conjunctival scrapings before, and 30 min and 6 h after challenge with allergen (one eye) or placebo (control eye). Conjunctival symptom severity following CPT was reduced at 30 min (EPR) and 6 h (LPR) after CPT in the Loratadine group compared to placebo group (p < 0.01), as was the total number of inflammatory cells (p < 0.001). In conclusion, Loratadine protects against the clinical and cellular EPR and LPR events consequent to CPT, showing antiallergic properties.

Allergens↗
PubMed1981

Comparative clinical trial of sisomicin and gentamicin in serious systemic gram-negative infections.

One hundred one hospitalized patients with serious gram-negative infections were treated with either sisomicin, 1.0 mg/kg every eight hours, or gentamicin, 1.5 mg/kg every eight hours, in a multicenter study conducted at ten separate locations in the United States. Since the drugs were administered at different dosages, a blinded investigator was employed to assess treatment response, while an unblinded investigator was responsible for making dosage adjustments based on each patient's renal function and clinical response. Sixty of the patients (sisomicin, 29; gentamicin, 31) were treated for a sufficient period (average seven to ten days) to be valid for inclusion in the assessment of treatment efficacy; 81 were included in the safety analysis. Sisomicin was found to be superior to gentamicin in bacteriological response and slightly better than gentamicin in producing favorable clinical responses. Elimination of pathogens or a significant reduction in pathogen population was observed in 93% of the sisomicin-treated patients, compared with 67% in the gentamicin group (P = 0.06). The incidence of adverse effects in both treatment groups was low, with no significant differences in adverse reaction patterns.

Bacterial Infections↗
PubMed1980

Conceptual development in learning-disabled and normal boys.

In two related studies, a pictorial sorting task served as the means of measuring conceptual development in LD and normal boys. The studies found no differences in the bases on which groups were formed (perceptible attributes, function, or nominal class membership) or in the manner in which groups were structured (thematically, in complexive groups or superordinate groups). Furthermore, parallel developmental trends were found in both LD and normal subjects groups. These findings are not consistent with early studies of concept formation in brain-damaged subjects, most of whom were retarded. Subjects in the present studies were selected on the basis of clinical diagnosis of LD and average IQ. The findings of the present studies suggest that generalizations about conceptual abilities of LD children of normal intelligence should not be based on early studies of the effects of brain damage.

Adolescent↗