Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16970513›Full record

Trial reportDrug safety2006

Comparison of the risk of drowsiness and sedation between levocetirizine and desloratadine: a prescription-event monitoring study in England.

Deborah Layton, Lynda Wilton, Andrew Boshier, Victoria Cornelius, Scott Harris, Saad A W Shakir

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drug safety, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Efficacy and Safety of Diethylcarbamazine in Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Double Blind Randomised Controlled Trial.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022
    Article
  7. Towards definitive management of allergic rhinitis: best use of new and established therapies.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Intranasal steroids in the treatment of allergy-induced rhinorrhea.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2011
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. H1 antihistamines: current status and future directions.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2008
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Deborah LaytonDrug Safety Research Unit, Southampton, Hants, UK.
Lynda Wilton
Andrew Boshier
Victoria Cornelius
Scott Harris
Saad A W Shakir
University of Portsmouth · GBDrug Safety Research Unit · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesDesloratadine and levocetirizine are histamine H(1) receptor antagonists (antihistamines) that were launched in the UK in 2001. Our objective was to compare the frequency with which drowsiness and sedation were reported for desloratadine and levocetirizine within the first 30 days of observation, as monitored using the observational cohort technique of prescription-event monitoring (PEM).

methodsExposure data were derived from dispensed prescriptions written by primary care physicians and outcome data were derived from questionnaires that were posted to prescribers at least 6 months after the date of the first prescription for each patient. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated using unconditional logistic regression modelling. The effect of age, sex, reported prescribing indication (allergic rhinitis with asthma/wheezing, allergic rhinitis without asthma/wheezing, 'other'), pattern of use and reported previous antihistamine use on the OR was examined. A time-to-event analysis was performed.

resultsThe cohorts comprised >24,000 patients in total. Cohort demographics were similar (both cohorts: median age 37 years; 60% women); the most frequently reported prescribing indication for both drugs was allergic rhinitis without asthma/wheezing (54%). The incidence of first reports of drowsiness/sedation for levocetirizine or desloratadine was low (46 [0.37%] and 9 [0.08%], respectively) and statistically different (p < 0.0001). These events tended to occur earlier for desloratadine than levocetirizine (50% at 7 or 14 days of observation, respectively; p = 0.6487), but the cumulative time to event differed, with more events observed for levocetirizine than expected (p < 0.0001; 46 vs 28.09). The final estimates of risk were the sex-adjusted ORs for each prescribing indication category: allergic rhinitis with asthma/wheezing (3.51; 95% CI 0.71, 17.43; n = 3357), allergic rhinitis without asthma/wheezing (6.75; 95% CI 2.37, 19.22; n = 12,627) and 'other' (3.11; 95% CI 0.86, 11.31; n = 6725). DISCUSSION: Although the reporting rates of drowsiness and sedation are low for both drugs, patients prescribed levocetirizine are more likely to experience drowsiness and sedation in the first month of observation (after starting treatment) than patients prescribed desloratadine. For patients with allergic rhinitis without asthma/wheezing, the sex-adjusted odds of drowsiness/sedation were over six times greater in patients using levocetirizine than desloratadine in the first month of observation, with the OR being statistically significant. For the other two indication categories, allergic rhinitis with asthma/wheezing and 'other', the OR was not statistically significant.

conclusionsAlthough the risk of drowsiness/sedation is low, conditions such as allergic rhinitis are common, which makes any impact on patient cognitive function important. Doctors should be aware of this when prescribing these products to patients where daytime sedation is undesirable. However, essential components of the comparative benefit-risk evaluation of these two products include assessment of efficacy and patient preference (neither of which forms part of this study).

Indexed as

Procedural SedationAdultCetirizineCohort StudiesDrug MonitoringEnglandFemaleHistamine H1 AntagonistsHistamine H1 Antagonists, Non-SedatingHumansLoratadineMaleMiddle AgedPiperazinesRhinitisSleep StagesCetirizinedesloratadineHistamine H1 AntagonistsHistamine H1 Antagonists, Non-SedatinglevocetirizineLoratadinePiperazines

Identifiers

PMID16970513
OpenAlexW2042844694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.