title: Meta-analysis of the efficacy of ebastine 20 mg compared to loratadine 10 mg and placebo in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Few randomized studies have compared the efficacy of ebastine and loratadine in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).
  
  
  METHODS
  A meta-analysis was performed on data from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials comparing the efficacy of ebastine 20 mg once daily versus loratadine 10 mg once daily in the symptomatic treatment of SAR symptoms. Primary efficacy variable was the mean change in the overall mean daily reflective total symptom score (TSS), i.e. the sum of five rhinitis symptom scores: nasal discharge, nasal congestion, nasal itching, sneezing and total eye symptoms (itchy/watery eyes) over the first 2 weeks of treatment compared to baseline.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There were 2,089 patients in the population analyzed: 749, 739 and 601 patients in the ebastine 20 mg, loratadine 10 mg and placebo groups, respectively. Compared to baseline, overall mean daily reflective TSS over the first 2 weeks of treatment was -3.61 (35.4% reduction from baseline) in the ebastine group, -3.05 (29.0% reduction) in the loratadine group and -2.30 (22.7% reduction) in the placebo group. Statistically significant differences in the mean change from baseline were found when comparing ebastine and loratadine (p<0.001), ebastine and placebo (p<0.0001), and loratadine and placebo (p<0.0001). The global effect (i.e. the difference in overall mean daily reflective TSS over the first 2 weeks of treatment) of ebastine compared with loratadine over the first 2 weeks of treatment was -0.56 (95% confidence interval, CI, -0.86 to -0.26), and it was sustained during the whole (4-week) period studied. The global effects of ebastine and loratadine compared with placebo were -1.30 (95% CI, -1.61 to -0.99) and -0.74 (95% CI, -1.05 to -0.43), respectively. Secondary variables (reflective and snapshot individual symptom scores) showed the same trend.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This meta-analysis confirms that ebastine 20 mg has a good efficacy profile, inducing a greater decrease from baseline in mean rhinitis symptom scores than loratadine 10 mg or placebo.
authors.affiliation: Sylvana Research Associates, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Ratner
authors.forename: Meritxell
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Falqués
authors.forename: Ferran
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Chuecos
authors.forename: Ramon
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Esbrí
authors.forename: Juan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Gispert
authors.forename: Francesc
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Peris
authors.forename: Xavier
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Luria
authors.forename: María José
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Rosales
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002090:Butyrophenones / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D005260:Female; D039563:Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006801:Humans; D017336:Loratadine / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D008297:Male; D015337:Multicenter Studies as Topic; D010880:Piperidines / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D010919:Placebos; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D006255:Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000473:pathology
chemical_list: D002090:Butyrophenones; D039563:Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; D010880:Piperidines; D010919:Placebos; D017336:Loratadine; C058249:ebastine