Jump to content

Talk:Loratadine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk

[edit]

Wasn't there some big scandal several years ago about how Claritin only worked on about 51% of the people used it? --User:Arm

Never heard of it. I doubt that's possible. I just know around cats I mine as well die and claritin makes LAN parties possible - or if I have housecalls for work, I have to run and grab a claritin asap - or the homeowner will think I have a terrible flu.--x1987x(talk) 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Arm is right. I've added a link to a New York Times Magazine article from 2001 that talks about that, and I've added some discussion of its effectiveness to the article.--76.81.180.3 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there any difference in chemical makeup between Claritin© and Claritin-D©? It'd just be helpful information for the article. MToolen 22:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link "Lek" inside Wikipedia did not lead neither to pharmaceutical company "Lek" nor to "Sandoz", whose part it is now. I added a line about it on disambiguation page.


Says "doesn't cause drowsiness" but in the side-effects it says "drowsiness"

  • In normal doses it doesn't -- apparently it's fairly poor at crossing the blood-brain barrier or something like that. You have to overdose on it to get a sedative effect. Haikupoet 04:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haikupoet, it's not quite accurate to say that you have to "overdose" to get a sedative effect. "Overdose" implies using a very large, harmful amount. Actually the history of the drug's development was that 10 mg was the highest dose at which it seemed to be nonsedating. At 20 mg, it is both more effective and somewhat sedating, but I wouldn't apply the term "overdose" to that dosage. Also, the sedative effect may vary from person to person.--76.81.180.3 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that the side effects of dry mouth, GI disturbance and drowsiness are listed in the side effects of almost every drug sold. In fact, in several studies even placebo has these "side effects." the concensus is that these "side effects" are common everyday feelings that people get and are unrelated to the drugs. how often do you how upset stomachs or feel tired? 69.160.209.33 20:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Quote: "In the U.S. and UK loratadine is the only drug of its class available over the counter." it is controversial. Assuming Loratadine as a systemic anti-hystamine with standard allergy relief properties, the product Cetirizine is also classed as GSL in the UK. I suggest rephrasing or correcting.--nicowalker 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korea and foreign names

[edit]

The name in Korea is 로라타딘 but I'm not sure where it should go in the article. --Gbleem 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Callum! xxx 08:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I edited it to describe the availability in the UK - In my store, packs of up to seven can be sold normally, whereas larger packs must be sold - as with all "P Line" medicines - by a pharmacist.[reply]

I know that it is commercially available as Piriton and Claritine in the UK--RadicalSean (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cautions and contraindications

[edit]

In this section, it says this is a Class B pregnancy drug, yet the article linked in source 7 says that it is Class C. Which is correct? Elizabeb (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeb, good catch. I looked it up to make sure and loratadine is indeed pregnancy risk class B as per medscape.com. Hagenb (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand...

[edit]

"Reviewing a randomized, double-blind trial, Dr. Sherwin D. Straus of the FDA argued at one point that "10 milligrams is not very different than placebo clinically," and that the reason for making the dose so low was that at higher, more effective doses, it became sedating."

Does this not just say that the drug is ineffective? Why was it approved at this dosage that is ineffective just so they can put a "non-drowsy" label on it? This is just further proof of the corruption and ineffectiveness of the FDA. Billions were made, million were deceived and their money taken in fraud and false advertising. Yeah FDA!

Coop2112 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The link in References, Source 2 (Key and Harris 1999), seems to be broken.

Metabolism?

[edit]

Can someone find more specific data on metabolism? I know it is processed by the liver (hepatic), but by what enzyme class? CYP3A4? Please include reference. --1000Faces (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4. See Foye's Principles of Medicinal Chemistry. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness

[edit]

This article, as well as the ones on Desloratadine and Fexofenadine, seem to suggest that these drugs have minimal effectiveness. This article states that clearly, noting that it is "not very different than placebo clinically". The Desloratadine article states it works no better than Loratadine, which would imply that it too is not very different that placebo. That article goes on to state that the only real indication for its use is that it might be lower-cost in a co-pay situation. The Desloratadine article also contains the telling statement that it "...is similar in effectiveness to fexofenadine", which suggests a general ineffectiveness of that drug as well.

But all three are on the market, and appear to take up a large section of my drug store's counter space. If these drugs are not as effective as older ones, I would think that it would be of vital importance to mention this clearly to the reader! Yet it seems there is little in any of these articles that compares any of these to the first generation drugs they replaced.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With recognition that my personal experience is merely anecdotal, let me assure you that loratadine is quite effective. It's what I've settled on to get me through allergy season (which has been a nightmare for me all my life) after trying everything else (and deciding that I actually preferred the waking nightmare to the walking sleep that most other anti-histamines tend to induce in me). Without it, you'd be able to identify me as the guy walking around in public with a tissue hanging from each nostril (seriously, I lived that way for most of my life). Ten milligrams in the morning and I'm allergy-free all day with no drowsiness. No way could a sugar-pill do that for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.201.14 (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up at this page because the over the counter 10mg was ineffective for me, and I decided to read around about the various antihistamines. I was suprised to read such a strong criticism of it though. I read fully the NYTimes article, and I think that this wikipedia article needs an expert to evaluate and rewrite that section. I'm not sure the article as it stands fairly describes the controversy. The article as it stands made me think that Loratadine was totally bogus, but it appears the NYTimes article does not take quite a strong stand, they seem to think more along the lines of, it does make a small difference to a small percentage of people. On a side note, doesn't this kind of thing really piss you off? Every drug for every illness I was prescribed as a teenager has now been withdrawn for being really dangerous, and now I find that even the drugs I buy that haven't been withdrawn yet don't work (on me at least). Please can an expert review this section. Forkhandles (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did the best I could. BTW, I know a lot of people whom loratadine doesn't help, and most of them are happy with cetirizine. I also know lots of people who fall asleep when taking cetirizine and get along perfectly with loratadine. The one-pill-fits-all isn't invented yet. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothyroidism

[edit]

There's some chatter on the Internet about how long-term use of loratadine can cause hypothyroidism. This does not seem to be a verifiable claim, but nevertheless people seem to believe it so it should probably be addressed. I'm not sure of the Wikipedia-approved method to address what is essentially a rumor with little in the way of documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.161.98 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarinase

[edit]

I suggest that we merge Clarinase into Loratadine. The article on Clarinase is, at the moment, little more than a product leaflet information, so I cannot really justify its existence. I'd rather make Clarinase redirect to Loratadine, as the combination product with pseudoephedrine (Claritin-D or Clarinase) is already mentioned in the foreword anyway. — Luchesar • T/C 06:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move to Loratadine/pseudoephedrine per WP:MOSMED and move all content pertaining specifically to one of the components to the respective articles. (Most of it is already covered there anyway.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up article. No complaints for over a month, so I removed the merge template. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Source ISBN number does not exist

[edit]

The source number 4 ISBN code (^ a b c d e f Jasek, W, ed (2007) (in German). Austria-Codex. 1 (2007/2008 ed.). Vienna: Österreichischer Apothekerverlag. pp. 1768–71. ISBN 3-85200-181-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.") does not appear to exist, same on the other articles where this source is mentioned too. I have however managed to find online that the book does exist and it's author too (full name dr. Wolfgang Jasek). So could anyone write the true ISBN code of it? I can't really find it 93.138.197.28 (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. This is exactly the ISBN given in the books (each of the four volumes). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peak effectiveness

[edit]

This article states:

Loratadine's peak effect occurs in 1–2 hours, and its biological half-life is on average 8 hours (range 3–20 hours) with desloratadine's half-life being 28 hours (range 9–92 hours), accounting for its long-lasting effect.

There is no footnote on this sentence. There is a footnote at the end of this paragraph, but the footnote was added more than a year after the sentence was put in this article and is attached to a different sentence. Therefore, I have added a "citation needed" tag to this specific sentence.

Back when Claritin required a prescription, it came with a detailed insert listing all the medical data. This insert claimed that its peak effectiveness occurred between 4 and 12 hours after taking it. It also described the build-up after several days of use as being significant. I don't have this insert anymore, and so I don't want to edit the article based on my memory of this; nor should I edit the article based on my personal experience (which matches both of these claims, by the way). Can anyone confirm this? It would be great if someone could distinguish between undisputed facts and facts supported by one study and not by others. — Lawrence King (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured by Pfizer?

[edit]

According to Pfizer it is manufactured by it, but I don't see it in the ref provided. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

[edit]

It is fair to say they do have structural similarities, however nowhere in the attached source (3) does it state the two drugs are "distantly related". This, along with the other bunk source (detailed at the bottom of this talk page) makes me think a review of all the pages sources is in order. It takes me back to my college days where I'd write an essay and then try and goggle some citations later. 82.15.67.160 (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)11:07 28/11/2015[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loratadine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comprehensive list of brand names

[edit]

Hopefully it won't be controversial, but I just wanted to call out my recent edit removing an extremely long list, which appeared to be an exhaustive list of all the names under which loratadine is marketed worldwide. It seemed like it went well beyond content appropriate for an encyclopedia, and is best covered elsewhere. I retained an overview of the various other drugs it is sold in combination with, and thus the link to the source for the list. Fogster (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It got added back in this edit, but inside a folding container, which seems like a good compromise. Fogster (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing it again. It adds no value; other articles do not do this (take a look at Diphenhydramine, a drug which is sold under dozens of names by single companies due to combination drug preparations, and the widespread manufacture of it due to its age, etc). Moreover, per WP:DRUGLIKE, Brand names of the medication and manufacturer, if notable (emphasis mine); if someone wants to claim one or a few of these are notable so be it, but otherwise they don't belong here. Kimen8 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of smell after Loratidine ingestion

[edit]

I experienced complete loss of smell after several days of taking Loratidine against hay fever. This side effect was not described on the packet, but I did find it discussed in a US doctor's blog with his patients. That doctor also wrote that the sense of smell will return after a few weeks' desisting from Loratidine, and thank goodness it did return in my case. Since then, I have never used more than half a pill of Loratidine, and only in extremis on a single-day basis. Can someone with access to medical literature please check whether this side effect has been published anywhere and can be cited in Wikipedia? Thank you. 31.4.156.0 (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loratadine is reported to affect taste, but not smell in this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095881118300234 --Onco p53 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antimuscarinic effect

[edit]

Presently, the article states:

Other side effects include headache and antimuscarinic effects, such as urinary retention, dry mouth, blurred vision, and gastrointestinal problems.

I am unable to access the references given for verification, but the claim is contradicted by the following sources:

  • Interestingly, most of the second-generation antihistamines are hydrophilic and of larger molecular size and therefore are less capable of penetrating the endothelial lining of the capillaries of the CNS. In addition, these newer H1 receptors antagonists generally have much less affinity for muscarinic cholinergic, α-adrenoceptors and serotonin receptors than the first-generation antihistamines. [3]
    — Pharmacology and clinical efficacy of desloratadine as an anti-allergic and anti-inflammatory drug, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1517/13543784.10.3.547
  • The second-generation antihistamines include acrivastine, astemizole, azelastine, carebastine, cetirizine, ebastine, loratadine, mizolastine, and terfenadine. They are used orally and some of them can be given by local application to the nose and eyes [2,17]. They are relatively free from anticholinergic, antiserotonergic, and alpha-adrenergic activity.
    — Meyler's Side Effects of Drugs: The International Encyclopedia of Adverse Drug Reactions and Interactions, https://www.sciencedirect.com/referencework/9780444537164/meylers-side-effects-of-drugs

How strongly is the claim of antimuscarinic effects supported by the current references? Is anybody able to shed some light?

Spidermario (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also contradicted by the AHFS Drug Information Book, citing e.g.:
Loratadine […] is an orally active antihistamine devoid of significant central and autonomic nervous system effects, such as sedation and anti-cholinergic adverse effects.
— The pharmacokinetics of loratadine in normal geriatric volunteers, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2965043/
These components of loratadine's structure preclude significant CNS penetration and subsequent sedation and anticholinergic effects.2
— Loratadine: A Nonsedating Antihistamine with Once-Daily Dosing, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2525847/
The drug displays little activity at acetylcholine or α1-adrenergic receptors, and is inactive in animal models of assessing anticholinergic effects. Loratadine penetrates poorly into the CNS. […] in these studies loratadine did not appear to cause a significant increase in adverse effects compared with placebo, was not associated with an increased frequency of anticholinergic effects and did not induce any clinically significant changes in laboratory test indices.
— Loratadine. A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic properties and therapeutic efficacy, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2523301/
As demonstrated in preclinical studies, loratadine, a new selective peripheral histamine H1-receptor antagonist, has no central nervous system activity2 and, thus, is essentially free of sedation and anticholinergic side effects. […] The incidence of dry mouth, a common anticholinergic effect of classic antihistamines, was low and comparable among the three treatment groups: 4% of loratadine-treated patients, 3% of terfenadine-treated patients, and 4% of placebo-treated patients.
— Efficacy and safety of loratadine (10 mg once daily), terfenadine (60 mg twice daily), and placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2572617/
Spidermario (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now received a copy of one of the two references (Austria-Codex 2007/2008) and it completely fails to support the claim of antimuscarinic side effects. Instead of holding my breath that the other reference might support it any better, I’m going to go ahead and remove the claim.
Spidermario (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loratadine&oldid=1223946262"