Studies on the central effects of the H1-antagonist, loratadine

Loratadine: A Potent, Nonsedating, and Long-Acting H1 Antagonist

Loratadine, a nonclassical selective, peripheral H1-receptor antagonist has undergone extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials in over 6,000 patients. In the treatment of allergic rhinitis, loratadine has efficacy equivalent to clemastine, terfenadine, astemizole, and mequitazine. Its duration of action is 18–24 hours making once daily dosing practical. Loratadine is virtually devoid of sedating or other CNS effects.

Central nervous system effects of the second-generation antihistamines marketed in Japan--review of inter-drug differences using the proportional impairment ratio (PIR)-

Background

Second-generation antihistamines (AHs) have, in general, fewer sedative effects than the first-generation. However, important inter-drug differences remain in the degree of cognitive and/or psychomotor impairment. The extent to which a particular compound causes disruption can be conveniently compared, to all other AHs, using the Proportional Impairment Ratio (PIR). Although the PIR can differentiate the relative impairment caused by individual drugs, there is no indication of the reliability of the ratios obtained.

Objective

To calculate the PIRs –together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as an index of reliability– and compare AHs currently, or soon to be, available in Japan, with respect to their intrinsic capacity to cause impairment.

Methods

Results from studies of cetirizine, desloratadine, ebastine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine, loratadine, mequitazine, and olopatadine were included in the PIR calculations. All data utilised came from crossover studies in healthy volunteers which were randomised and placebo and positive-internal controlled. Existing databases from studies reporting the sedative effects of AHs on objective (speed, accuracy, memory) and subjective (feeling) psychometrics were augmented, via results from suitable studies published after the previous reviews. The null value for a PIR was one.

Results

A total of 45 studies were finally included for this review. Of the AHs assessed, fexofenadine, ebastine, and levocetirizine showed a PIR for objective tests of 0. However, only fexofenadine (PIR = 0.49) had an upper limit of the 95% CI of less than 1. Fexofenadine, levocetirizine, desloratadine, olopatadine, loratadine, and mequitazine all had a PIR for subjective ratings of 0, but the upper limits of the 95% CIs were all in excess of 1, although fexofenadine (PIR = 2.57) was the lowest.

Conclusions

The results show that there are differences between second-generation AHs in the extent of sedation produced. However, subjective ratings indicate that patients may not necessarily be aware of this.

Antihistamine therapy in allergic rhinitis

Antihistamines have long been a mainstay in the therapy for allergic rhinitis. Many different oral antihistamines are available for use, and they are classified as first generation or second generation based on their pharmacologic properties and side-effect profiles. The recent introduction of intranasal antihistamines has further expanded the role of antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Certain patient populations, such as children and pregnant or lactating women, require special consideration regarding antihistamine choice and dosing as part of rhinitis therapy.

Rupatadine does not potentiate the CNS depressant effects of lorazepam: randomized, double-blind, crossover, repeated dose, placebo-controlled study

AIM

The main objective was to assess whether benzodiazepine intake when rupatadine plasma concentrations were at steady-state would increase the CNS depressant effects. Rupatadine is a new H(1)-antihistamine which also inhibits platelet activating factor (PAF) release and has been shown to be clinically effective at doses of 10 mg.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy young volunteers took part in a crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial comprising two experimental periods (repeated administration for 7 days of rupatadine 10 mg or placebo as single oral daily doses, separated by a washout of 14 days). On days 5 and 7, according to a fully balanced design, a single oral dose of lorazepam 2 mg or placebo was added. CNS effects were evaluated on these days by seven objective tests of psychomotor performance and eight subjective visual analogue scales (VAS) at pre-dose and several times after drug intake. Four treatment conditions were evaluated: placebo, rupatadine 10 mg, lorazepam 2 mg and rupatadine 10 mg + lorazepam 2 mg.

RESULTS

Significant CNS effects, either impairment of psychomotor performance or subjective sedation, were observed when lorazepam was administered, either alone or in combination with steady state concentrations of rupatadine. No significant differences were found between these two conditions. In addition, rupatadine was not different from placebo. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Repeated doses of rupatadine (10 mg orally) did not enhance the CNS depressant effects of lorazepam (2 mg orally, single dose) either in objective psychomotor tasks or in subjective evaluations.

Cognitive domains affected by histamine H(1)-antagonism in humans: a literature review

The neurotransmitter histamine has been suggested to be involved in cognitive functioning. Generally, studies in animals have shown a decrease in performance after decreasing histamine neurotransmission and improved performance after increasing histamine neurotransmission. It is unclear, however, what role histamine plays in cognition in humans. Up until now, most data are derived from studies and reviews that aimed to assess the sedative potential of H(1)-antagonists and not the effects on cognition in particular. The objective of this paper is specifically to review which cognitive domains are affected by H(1)-antagonists. Taken together, 90 experimental studies on the performance effects of sedative H(1)-antagonists published between 1973 and 2009 were reviewed. Results showed that psychomotor skills and attention are most frequently impaired and memory the least. Tasks assessing memory that were affected usually required rapid responses. It was concluded that both the complexity of the task as well as the demand for information processing speed determines the sensitivity to the effects of central H(1)-antagonism. The importance of the sensitive cognitive domains to histaminergic dysfunction, as well as the relation between histamine related decrease in arousal and task performance deserve further research.

Fexofenadine: biochemical, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and its unique role in allergic disorders

BACKGROUND

Fexofenadine is one of several second-generation H(1)-antihistamines approved for the treatment of various allergic disorders; however, it shows numerous unique properties that make it an optimal choice for many patients.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of fexofenadine and the attributes differentiating it from other H(1)-antihistamines.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 - March 2009) using the keywords fexofenadine, antihistamine, allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. We also reviewed data provided by the manufacturer in addition to reports from various governmental agencies.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Fexofenadine is devoid of sedative and anticholinergic effects and may offer equivalent or greater efficacy in treating allergic disorders compared with other currently available second-generation H(1)-antihistamines. In addition, fexofenadine may offer cost savings over other selected H(1)-antihistamines owing to its recent availability in generic form in the US.

Circadian Time‐Dependent Differences in Murine Tolerance to the Antihistaminic Agent Loratadine

Loratadine is a second-generation histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist used in the treatment of allergic diseases. The aim of the study was to assess whether lethal toxicity and motor incoordination (neurotoxicity) of loratadine is circadian rhythm-dependent. A total of 210 male Swiss mice, aged 10 wk, were synchronized for 3 wk to 12 h light (rest span)/12 h dark (activity span). The drug was administered per os. The choice of the sublethal (TD(50) = 82 mg/kg body weight) and the lethal (LD(50) = 4 g/kg body weight) dosage was based on preliminary studies. Each of these two doses was administered to comparable groups of animals at six different circadian time points (1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21 Hours After Light Onset [HALO]). The survival duration was dosing time-dependent (chi(2) = 16.96; p < 0.001). Drug dosing at 17 HALO resulted in best (67%) survival rate; whereas, dosing at 9 HALO resulted in poorest (21%) survival rate. Cosinor analyses (with a trial period tau = 24 h) validated a statistically significant circadian rhythm in survival rate (p < 0.04) with an acrophase (peak time Ø of best tolerance to loratadine) being at 17.5 HALO +/- 4.65 h. Troughs of motor incoordination were located at the administration times of 5 and 17 HALO (60% and 32% of animals affected, respectively), whereas peaks were located at 9 and 21 HALO (87% and 68% of animals affected, respectively). The 24 h mean of the motor incoordination was 61%, the mean proportion of animals affected by the treatment for the six different circadian times studies. The extent of this neurotoxic effect varied as a function of loratadine dosing time (p < 0.001). A statistically significant ultradian component rhythm (p < 0.01) with a trial period tau = 12 h was also validated. The obtained results show that the dosing time of loratadine at the mid-activity (dark) span seems to be optimal, since it corresponds to the longest (21 vs. 12 days) survival span and to least neurotoxicity.

Effects of desloratadine and alcohol coadministration on psychomotor performance

OBJECTIVE

This study was set up to evaluate the effects of desloratadine 7.5 mg daily, with and without alcohol, on sedation and psychomotor performance.

RESEARCH METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover trial, 25 adult patients were randomized to desloratadine 7.5 mg, desloratadine 7.5 mg plus alcohol, placebo, or placebo plus alcohol. Alcohol was weight adjusted to an average blood alcohol concentration of 0.1%. Assessments included the modified Romberg test, Stanford Sleepiness Scale, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Serial Add Subtract Reaction Time Test, and the Psychomotor Vigilance Test. The primary variable was the mean score of each of the five tests averaged over the treatment period, expressed as the mean percent change from baseline.

RESULTS

Across these assessments, differences between desloratadine alone or with alcohol versus placebo alone or without alcohol, were not significant, whereas most differences between desloratadine and placebo alone versus desloratadine and placebo with alcohol were significant (p < 0.01). Thus, with or without alcohol, desloratadine 7.5 mg does not increase sedation or impair psychomotor performance. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild-to-moderate in severity, with the most frequently reported individual AEs being headache, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and dry mouth. The study does have potential limitations. The measures used are restricted to a particular profile of the known effects of alcohol only, and the relatively high doses of alcohol used alone demonstrate effects on psychomotor function and attention.

CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of desloratadine does not potentiate alcohol-mediated CNS impairment. Desloratadine alone or in combination with alcohol was safe and well tolerated.

Suppression of the histamine-induced wheal and flare response by fexofenadine HCl 60 mg twice daily, loratadine 10 mg once daily and placebo in healthy Japanese volunteers

BACKGROUND

The effects of the selective H1-receptor antagonist fexofenadine have been widely demonstrated in Western populations; however, to date, limited data comparing the effects of fexofenadine with other antihistamines have been reported in Japanese subjects.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of fexofenadine and loratadine on the histamine-induced cutaneous wheal and flare response in healthy Japanese volunteers.

METHODS

Eighteen healthy male and female Japanese volunteers aged 20-53 years were randomized to receive fexofenadine HCl 60 mg twice daily, loratadine 10 mg once daily or placebo in a 1-day, three-period, double-blind, crossover study. For each treatment, the wheal and flare response to 100 mg/mL histamine was assessed at baseline and at 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 8, 12 and 24 hours post-dose. Blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis.

RESULTS

Fexofenadine produced significantly greater percentage suppression of the overall wheal response compared with placebo and loratadine (43.1% versus 10.0% and 15.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). Similarly, fexofenadine significantly suppressed the overall flare response compared with placebo and loratadine (43.0% versus 3.5% and -8.9%, respectively; p < 0.01). Loratadine was statistically no different from placebo in terms of both overall wheal and flare suppression. Area under the curve analysis for wheal and flare reduction (0-12 hours post-dose) confirmed these findings. For wheal inhibition, fexofenadine had a significantly faster onset of action (defined as time to > or = 35% inhibition) compared with placebo (p < 0.001) and loratadine (p < 0.01); for flare, fexofenadine had a significantly faster onset of action than loratadine (p < 0.01). Mean maximum inhibition (the mean of the greatest inhibition achieved from baseline for each treatment) for wheal was achieved significantly faster with fexofenadine than loratadine (p < 0.01), and fexofenadine had a significantly longer duration of effect on suppressing wheal and flare compared with placebo and loratadine (p < 0.05 for all). The antihistamine effects of fexofenadine correlated significantly with its Cmax, while loratadine activity did not correlate significantly with its plasma levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Fexofenadine is a potent suppressor of the histamine-induced wheal and flare response in healthy Japanese volunteers. These results support findings in Caucasian subjects, and confirm that fexofenadine has greater antihistaminergic activity than loratadine in this human model.

[Circadian rhythms in the toxic effects of the histamine antagonist cetirizine in mice]

Cetirizine is a second generation histamine H(1) receptor antagonist used to provide symptomatic relief of allergic signs caused by histamine release. The aim of the study was to learn whether the survival and the motor incoordination (ataxia) side effect of cetirizine administration is dosing time-dependent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 240 male Swiss mice, 10 weeks of age were synchronized for 3 weeks by 12 h light (rest span)/12 h dark (activity span). Different doses of cetirizine were administered orally at fixed times during the day to determine both the sublethal (TD(50)) and lethal (LD(50)) doses, which were, respectively, 55 +/- 0.35 and 750 +/- 0.40 mg/kg. In the chronotoxicologic study a single dose of cetirizine (DL(50)) was administered to comparable groups of animals at six different circadian stages [1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21 h after light onset (HALO)].

RESULTS

The survival was statistically significant dosing time-dependent (chi(2) = 16.73; P < 0.001). Drug dosing at 17 HALO resulted in 83.3% survival rate whereas drug dosing at 5 HALO was only 23.25%. Cosinor analysis revealed a statistically significant circadian (period approximately 24 h) rhythmic component in survival. Lowest (20%) and highest (88%) ataxia occurred when cetirizine was administered, respectively, at 17 and 5 HALO. Cosinor analysis revealed a statistically significant circadian (period approximately 24 h) rhythmic component in ataxia.

CONCLUSION

Our results reveal that the best safety is shown when cetirizine is administered in the middle of the dark (activity) span of the mice, since it produces some side effects: ataxia and hyperthermia. Taking into account of the hour administration of cetirizine, improves treatment efficacy and permit the best control of allergic diseases.

Central effects of fexofenadine and cetirizine: measurement of psychomotor performance, subjective sleepiness, and brain histamine H1-receptor occupancy using 11C-doxepin positron emission tomography

Histamine H1-receptor (H1R) antagonists, or antihistamines, often induce sedative side effects when used for the treatment of allergic disorders. This study compared the sedative profiles of the second-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine and cetirizine, using 3 different criteria: subjective sleepiness evaluated by the Stanford Sleepiness Scale, objective psychomotor tests (simple and choice reaction time tests and visual discrimination tests at 4 different exposure durations), and measurement of histamine H1-receptor occupancy (H1RO) in the brain. Subjective sleepiness and psychomotor performance were measured in 20 healthy Japanese volunteers at baseline and 90 min after administration of fexofenadine 120 mg or cetirizine 20 mg in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. Hydroxyzine 30 mg was included as a positive control. H1RO was measured using positron emission tomography (PET) with (11)C-doxepin in 12 of the 20 subjects, and a further 11 volunteers were recruited to act as controls. In psychomotor tests, fexofenadine was not significantly different from placebo and significantly less impairing than cetirizine on some tasks, as well as significantly less impairing than hydroxyzine on all tasks. For subjective sleepiness, fexofenadine was not significantly different from placebo, whereas cetirizine showed a trend toward increased sleepiness compared with fexofenadine and placebo. H1RO was negligible with fexofenadine (-0.1%) but moderately high with cetirizine (26.0%). In conclusion, fexofenadine 120 mg is distinguishable from cetirizine 20 mg, as assessed by H1RO and psychomotor testing.

Second-Generation Antihistamines

Antihistamines are useful medications for the treatment of a variety of allergic disorders. Second-generation antihistamines avidly and selectively bind to peripheral histamine H1 receptors and, consequently, provide gratifying relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a majority of atopic patients. This tight receptor specificity additionally leads to few effects on other neuronal or hormonal systems, with the result that adverse effects associated with these medications, with the exception of noticeable sedation in about 10% of cetirizine-treated patients, resemble those of placebo overall. Similarly, serious adverse drug reactions and interactions are uncommon with these medicines. Therapeutic interchange to one of the available second-generation antihistamines is a reasonable approach to limiting an institutional formulary, and adoption of such a policy has proven capable of creating substantial cost savings. Differences in overall efficacy and safety between available second-generation antihistamines, when administered in equivalent dosages, are not large. However, among the antihistamines presently available, fexofenadine may offer the best overall balance of effectiveness and safety, and this agent is an appropriate selection for initial or switch therapy for most patients with mild or moderate allergic symptoms. Cetirizine is the most potent antihistamine available and has been subjected to more clinical study than any other. This agent is appropriate for patients proven unresponsive to other antihistamines and for those with the most severe symptoms who might benefit from antihistamine treatment of the highest potency that can be dose-titrated up to maximal intensity.

The economic burden of allergic rhinitis: a critical evaluation of the literature

Although a large number of economic analyses of allergic rhinitis have been published, there are relatively few empirically based studies, particularly outside the US. The majority of these analyses can be classified as burden-of-illness studies. Most estimates of the annual cost of allergic rhinitis range from dollars US 2-5 billion (2003 values). The wide range of estimates can be attributed to differences in identifying patients with allergic rhinitis, differences in cost assignment, limitations associated with available data and difficulties in assigning indirect costs (associated with reduced productivity) of allergic rhinitis. Approximately one-third of burden-of-illness studies include direct and indirect costs of allergic rhinitis, about one-third focus on direct costs only, and the remaining one-third focus exclusively on indirect costs due to reduced productivity. Indirect costs attributable to allergic rhinitis were higher in studies only estimating indirect costs (dollars US 5.5-9.7 billion) than in those estimating both direct and indirect costs (dollars US 1.7-4.3 billion). Although there are many economic evaluations of allergic rhinitis treatments in the published medical literature, very few represent formal cost-effectiveness evaluations that compare the incremental costs and benefits of alternative treatment strategies. Those that are incremental cost-effectiveness analyses have several limitations, including small samples, short study periods and the lack of a standardized measure of effectiveness. To date, the medical literature is lacking a comprehensive economic evaluation of general treatment strategies for allergic rhinitis. In undertaking such an analysis, serious consideration must be given to the study population of interest, the choice of appropriate comparators, the perspective from which the analysis is conducted, the target audience, the changing healthcare marketplace and the selection of a measure of effectiveness that incorporates both positive and negative aspects of treatments for allergic rhinitis. Future work would benefit from the development of a consensus on a summary measure of effectiveness that could be used in cost-effectiveness analyses of therapies for allergic rhinitis as well as additional empirical work to measure the association between severity of disease and its impact on worker productivity.

A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover investigation of the effects of fexofenadine hydrochloride 180 mg alone and with alcohol, with hydroxyzine hydrochloride 50 mg as a positive internal control, on aspects of cognitive and psychomotor function related to driving a car

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines (H(1)-receptor antagonists) are the mainstay of symptomatic therapy for allergic disorders. Antihistamines are needed that cause no disruptive effects on cognitive and psychomotor function. It is essential that antihistamines maintain the integrity of the cognitive system, not only in ambulatory patients at increased risk of drug-induced traffic- or work-related accidents, but also in students and others whose cognitive or intellectual impairment may adversely affect their performance.Objective; The goal of this study was to investigate the acute effects of fexofenadine hydrochloride 180 mg, alone and with a "social" dose of alcohol, on subjective feelings of sedation and on a battery of objective measures related to driving a car. These measures included information processing, psychomotor speed, and reaction time in an on-the-road car-driving task. Hydroxyzine hydrochloride 50 mg was included in the study as a positive internal control to validate the sensitivity of the psychometri tests to nonspecific impairment.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, 6-way, crossover study conducted at the Human Psychopharmacology Research Unit, Medical Research Centre (University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom), 18 healthy volunteers received fexofenadine 180 mg, hydroxyzine 50 mg, and placebo alone and with alcohol (0.3 g/kg body weight or approximately 0.43-0.50 g/L blood-alcohol concentration). Treatment periods were separated by a washout period of at least 6 days. Subjects performed tests of cognitive and psychomotor performance at 1, 3, and 5 and hours after dosing. The test battery included subjective ratings of sedation, critical flicker fusion (CFF), choice reaction time (including recognition reaction time [RRT], motor reaction time [MRT], total reaction time [TRT], and brake reaction time [BRT].

RESULTS

Eighteen healthy male volunteers (median age, 30.5 years [range, 23-44 years]) were entered into the study. Fexofenadine alone and with alcohol had no significant effect on performance compared with placebo and was not distinguishable from placebo in any of the objective or subjective tests at any point. However, impairment was evident following the administration of hydroxyzine. Hydroxyzine caused significant impairment in CFF (P < 0.05), RRT (P < 0.001), and TRT (P < 0.001) compared with placebo. Hydroxyzine with alcohol significantly disrupted performance on all of the above measures with respect to both placebo and fexofenadine (P < 0.05) as well as MRT (P < 0.001). No significant treatment effects on BRT were found.

CONCLUSION

Fexofenadine 180 mg did not have disruptive effects on objective measures related to driving a car and aspects of psychomotor and cognitive function, even when combined with a dose of alcohol equivalent to 0.3 g/kg body weight, in a study in which the psychometric assessments were shown to be sensitive to impairment.

The effects of acute doses of fexofenadine, promethazine, and placebo on cognitive and psychomotor function in healthy Japanese volunteers

BACKGROUND

Genetic variations in cross-cultural metabolic capability may attenuate the lack of central nervous system effects of fexofenadine.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the pharmacodynamics of fexofenadine and promethazine versus placebo in Japanese volunteers.

METHODS

In this randomized, crossover, double-blind study, 24 subjects received single doses of fexofenadine 60 mg and 120 mg, promethazine 25 mg, and placebo, with a 6-day washout period between treatments. Objective measures included critical flicker fusion, choice reaction time, and a compensatory tracking task. A line analog rating scale evaluated self-rated sedation. A rapid visual information-processing task evaluated vigilance at baseline and at 2 hours.

RESULTS

Fexofenadine was not significantly different from placebo on any test at any timepoint. In contrast, promethazine impaired critical flicker fusion thresholds (F[3,63] = 5.37, P = 0.0023); increased recognition reaction time (F[3,63] = 13.63, P < 0.0001) and total reaction time (F[3,63] = 12.23, P < 0.0001) components of the choice reaction time test; reduced tracking accuracy (F[3,63] = 14.25, P < 0.0001) and increased reaction times to peripheral stimuli (F[3,63] = 9.29, P < 0.0001) in the compensatory tracking task; reduced the number of valid responses (F[3,63] = 14.86, P < 0.0001) and impaired reaction times (F[3,63] = 12.02, P < 0.0001) in the rapid visual information-processing task test; and impaired subjective ratings of sedation (F[3,63] = 7.55, P = 0.0002), compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

A battery of tests sensitive to impairment by promethazine failed to show any negative cognitive or psychomotor effects with fexofenadine 60 and 120 mg. Fexofenadine is an intrinsically non-impairing antihistamine in Japanese subjects.

Prevalence of allergy symptoms and associated medication use in a sample of college seniors

The authors surveyed a random sample of college seniors at a university in Boston to determine the prevalence of allergy symptoms and the students' use of medications to relieve symptoms. Of the 400 individuals queries, 58.2% reported some symptoms during the previous year, and 63.0% of that group said their symptoms were moderate to severe. Just over 93.8% of the student respondents used medications to treat symptoms; 91.1% used over-the-counter (OTC) medications, and 55.5% used prescription medications. More than one third had used OTC antihistamines before taking an examination during the previous year. Allergy-like symptoms and associated medication use are common among college-aged students. The authors call for further research to determine whether these OTC and prescription medications affect academic performance.

An evaluation of the effects of high-dose fexofenadine on the central nervous system: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

As regards central nervous system (CNS) effects there are three types of antihistamines. Those that cross the blood-brain barrier and cause widespread impairment of cognitive and psychomotor function; those that cross into the brain and, although without much impairment at low clinical doses, have a dose-related relationship to impairment; and those that do not cross into the brain and therefore possess no intrinsic potential for impairing CNS function.

OBJECTIVE

[corrected] To investigate the acute effects of fexofenadine (360 mg) on various aspects of cognitive and psychomotor function in comparison to placebo and promethazine (positive internal control), an antihistamine known to produce psychomotor and cognitive impairment.

METHODS

Fifteen healthy volunteers received fexofenadine 360 mg, promethazine 30 mg and placebo in a 3-way cross-over, double-blind study. For each treatment condition, subjects were required to perform a series of tests of cognitive function and psychomotor performance at baseline and 1, 3, 5 and 7 h post-dose. The test battery consisted of critical flicker fusion (CFF), choice reaction time (CRT), compensatory tracking task (CTT) and a subjective assessment of sedation (LARS).

RESULTS

Fexofenadine was not distinguishable from placebo in any of the objective and subjective tests for up to seven hours following drug administration. However, all measures were significantly impaired following the administration of promethazine, which confirms the sensitivity of the test battery for sedation. The effects of fexofenadine and placebo were not significantly different from one another, whereas promethazine caused an overall reduction in CFF thresholds when compared to placebo (P < 0.05). There was an overall significant increase (impairment) in recognition, motor and total reaction time (P < 0.05), and both the tracking accuracy and reaction time aspects of CTT were significantly impaired (P < 0.05) following the administration of promethazine. In contrast, the effects of fexofenadine could not be distinguished from the placebo condition. Subjective ratings of sedation were significantly higher with promethazine when compared to placebo (P < 0.05) and fexofenadine (P< 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Fexofenadine at a dose of 360mg is demonstrably free from disruptive effects on aspects of psychomotor and cognitive function in a study where the psychometric assessments have been shown to be sensitive to impairment, as evidenced by the effects of the verum control promethazine 30 mg. The identification of an antihistamine (fexofenadine) devoid of central effects even at supraclinical doses separates it from currently available first and second generation drugs with no objective evidence of CNS side-effects on cognition and psychomotor function, and highlights the need for the introduction of a third generation of non-sedative antihistamines.

The acute and sub-chronic effects of levocetirizine, cetirizine, loratadine, promethazine and placebo on cognitive function, psychomotor performance, and weal and flare

AIM

To compare the central and peripheral H1 inhibitory effects of acute and sub-chronic doses of levocetirizine (L-CTZ), cetirizine (CTZ), loratadine (LOR) and promethazine (PRM) versus placebo, using a battery of psychomotor and cognitive tests together with measures of the weal and flare reaction. PRM was included in the study as a positive internal control to validate the sensitivity of the psychometric test battery to the CNS effects of the various treatments.

METHODS

Twenty healthy volunteers (18-50 years) received L-CTZ 5mg, CTZ 10 mg, LOR 10 mg, PRM 30 mg and placebo once daily for four days in a five-way, double-blind, crossover study. For each treatment condition, subjects were assessed using a psychometric test system and a pinprick weal and flare response to 100 mg/ml histamine solution at baseline and at 1, 2, 3 ,4, 6, 8, 10 and 122 hours post-dose on days 1 and 4. The psychometrics comprised critical flicker fusion (CFF), choice reaction time (CRT), a continuous tracking task (CTT) and subjective rating scales for sedation (LARS). On days 2 and 3, subjects took their medication at pre-designated times while out of the unit.

RESULTS

The verum (PRM) established the sensitivity of the test battery: a significant overall reduction in CFF thresholds on both days 1 and 4 (p < 0.05); an overall significant increase (impairment) in recognition, motor and total reaction times on day 1 (p < 0.05); a significant impairment of both the tracking accuracy and reaction time aspects of the CTT task on day 1 (p < 0.005) and significantly higher ratings of subjective sedation on day 1 (p < 0.05). L-CTZ, CTZ and LOR were not distinguishable from placebo in any of the objective and subjective tests at any time point on either day 1 or day 4. With regards to the peripheral inhibitory effects, L-CTZ inhibited both the weal and flare reaction, with maximum inhibition (almost 100%) occurring within two hours of drug ingestion. CTZ also showed evidence of potent peripheral inhibition of histamine, whereas PRM, and especially LOR, showed only a weak weal and flare reaction which had completely attenuated at day 4.

CONCLUSIONS

In a study where the psychometric assessments were shown to be sensitive to impairment, L-CTZ 5 mg was found following both initial and repeated doses, but also to be demonstrably free from disruptive and sedative effects on objective measures of psychomotor and cognitive function. Similarly, CTZ showed evidence of pronounced antihistaminic activity and significantly reduced weal and flare scores after both acute and repeated doses, again without evidence of cognitive or psychomotor impairment. LOR also was non-sedative but the antihistaminic reaction was demonstrably weak.

Sedation and antihistamines: a review of inter-drug differences using proportional impairment ratios

The use of antihistamines (AHs) has until recently been associated with a number of undesirable side effects, the most troublesome of which is sedation. There are two aspects to sedation. The first, an objectively determined measure based on the results of psychometric tests from controlled trials, and the second, the subject's response to the administration of a drug. Since AHs are largely used in ambulant patients, a complete evaluation of sedation should be performed through standardised objective and subjective tests, shown to be sensitive to the central effects of AHs.An extensive review of the literature identified 76 studies of H(1) receptor antagonists in healthy volunteers, in which assessment of sedation was the primary objective. Results from studies published in peer-reviewed journals which employed a placebo condition as well as a positive internal control using a crossover design were analysed to determine the extent to which a particular antihistamine produced impairments on a battery of psychometric tests. The impairment index for each antihistamine was calculated and subsequently compared with the impairment index obtained for all other AHs.The calculation of this proportional impairment ratio enabled the sedative potential of an individual antihistamine to be identified relative to all other AHs and thus allowed the ranking of AHs with respect to their ability to cause impairments of cognitive and psychomotor function.Findings from this review clearly demonstrate that there are distinct classes of AHs with respect to their ability to impair cognitive function and psychomotor performance. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Loratadine versus cetirizine: assessment of somnolence and motivation during the workday

OBJECTIVE

This parallel-group, double-blind study compared the somnolence and motivation profiles of 2 second-generation antihistamines, loratadine and cetirizine, in patients with allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND

Second-generation antihistamines were developed to provide symptomatic relief from allergic disorders without the unwanted side effects of first-generation antihistamines, including somnolence. Recent research has indicated that not all second-generation antihistamines are comparable with respect to somnolence and other cognitive processes.

METHODS

Patients aged > or = 12 years and actively exhibiting symptoms of allergic rhinitis were randomized to 2 treatment groups to receive 10 mg loratadine or 10 mg cetirizine daily at 8:00 AM for 1 week. After patients took the medication, their somnolence and degree of motivation to perform activities were recorded in an electronic diary using a visual analog scale 4 times during the workday (8:00 AM, 10:00 AM, noon, and 3:00 PM).

RESULTS

Sixty patients (31 men, 29 women) were randomized to treatment. Somnolence scores were similar for both groups at baseline and at the time of dosing (8:00 AM). However, there was a statistically significant difference in somnolence scores between the loratadine and cetirizine groups at 10:00 AM (P = 0.008), noon (P = 0.001), and 3:00 PM (P < 0.001), with the cetirizine group showing a greater degree of somnolence. The scores on motivation to perform activities were similar for both groups at the baseline and 8:00-AM measurements. In parallel with the somnolence scores, there were statistically significant differences in motivation scores between the loratadine and cetirizine groups at 10:00 AM (P = 0.014), noon (P = 0.001), and 3:00 PM (P < 0.001), indicating that patients taking loratadine were relatively more motivated during the workday.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that in patients aged > or = 12 years who had allergic rhinitis, cetirizine use promoted somnolence and decreased motivation to perform activities during the workday compared with loratadine.

Design, synthesis and antihistaminic (H(1)) activity of some condensed 3-aminopyrimidin-4(3H)-ones

Anovel series of condensed 3-amino-2-(substituted)methylpyrimidin-4(3H)-ones is reported with potential H(1) receptor antagonistic activity. The IC(50) values for 23 compounds were found to be in the micromolar range. Five lead compounds (10c, e, g, r and t), when evaluated by the in vivo method were found to protect guinea-pigs from the histamine induced asphyxia and antagonized histamine in a competitive and reversible manner. With a pA(2) value of 8.7 and protection time of 9.5 min (in vivo test), compound 10g was the most active amongst these five compounds. The isosteric replacement of the side chain -NH- in series 1, by oxygen and -NHSO(2)- functions, was undertaken to investigate the role of two amino functions in the receptor binding. This isosteric replacement with -O- does not affect the antihistaminic activity and the sedative potential of the series. Preliminary molecular modelling studies indicate that the compounds with -NHSO(2)- in the side chain exhibit a closer fit with temelastine than their -O- isosteres.

Antihistamines: models to assess sedative properties, assessment of sedation, safety and other side-effects

Behavioural changes are produced by any drug that enters the central nervous system. These psychoactive effects include changes in alertness, concentration, attention, memory, cognition, psychomotor accuracy, skilled performance and affect. Changes in psychological performance may affect the safety of both the individuals taking the drug and of those people coming into contact with them. The aims of psychopharmacological performance tests are to describe the nature, extent and severity of these changes and identify drugs without deleterious effects upon performance. Use of traditional antihistamines has until recently been associated with a number of undesirable side-effects, the most troublesome of which is sedation. There are two aspects to sedation. Firstly, an objectively determined one based on the results of psychometric tests from controlled trials and secondly, the subjects response to the administration of a drug. Although the second generation of antihistamines have a much more favourable therapeutic index, use of these agents has also been reported to cause varying degrees of sedation. As antihistamines are largely used by ambulant patients, a complete evaluation of sedation should be performed through standardized objective tests, shown to be sensitive to the central effects of antihistamines as well as reliable ratings of subjective experiences. An extensive review of the literature has identified a number of tests which appear to be sensitive to the central effects of antihistamines. These include tests of psychomotor performance, sensori-motor co-ordination speed, information processing, sensory skills as well as physiological measures and subjective rating scales. Using this battery of cognitive and psychomotor tests, it is evident that only a very limited number of antihistamines can claim to be virtually free of both objective and subjective sedative effects, although the second generation of antihistamines are generally less impairing than the original ones; when prescribed at their recommended doses.

Lack of behavioural toxicity of mizolastine: a review of the clinical pharmacology studies

First-generation H1 antihistamines were associated with major sedative side-effects which were heavily disruptive to young active and aged patients when performing everyday activities. Mizolastine is a potent and selective H1-receptor antagonist which slowly penetrates into the brain and thus lacks the sedative effects of earlier antihistamines. In this paper we present an overview of five clinical pharmacology studies which were carried out with a view to assessing mizolastine effects on psychomotor and skilled performances, and on cognitive functions in young and aged subjects. The studies were all randomized, double-blind, placebo and (with the exception of one) active-drug controlled, cross-over studies. A total of 76 young and 15 aged subjects were enrolled. Two studies evaluated mizolastine over a range of doses (5-45 mg), and three involved a single or multiple administrations of the therapeutic dose (10 mg/day). Comparators were first generation (clemastine, tripolidine) and second generation (terfenadine, cetirizine) antihistamines. Drug effects were evaluated through standardized psychometric and memory tests, and subjective self-ratings (visual analogue scales). In two studies, driving performance was assessed using an actual driving test. Two studies investigated drug interaction with depressants of the central nervous system such as alcohol and lorazepam. The results of the five reported studies were consistent in that mizolastine showed to be free from sedative effects when administered at the therapeutic dose. As with other newly developed antihistamines, some changes occurred at higher dose levels. At the therapeutic dose mizolastine did not alter driving performance and did not potentiate the depressant effects of alcohol and lorazepam. Mizolastine was shown to be free from sedative effects that could affect the safe performance of everyday life activities in young and aged patients when administered at the therapeutic dose.

Milestones in the biology and pharmacology of H1-receptor antagonists

Daniele Bovet's pioneering discovery that a series of compounds possessing anti-histamine activity reduced the symptoms of anaphylaxis provided the proof that histamine plays a pivotal role as a mediator of allergic reactions. Basophils and mast cells are the major sources of histamine in man and they are thus one of the primary effector cells of allergic inflammation. Some H1-receptor antagonists possess a variety of antiinflammatory activity to H1 antagonism in vitro and in vivo. This promising area should be explored further and much remains to be done in the evaluation of the immunomodulatory effects of anti-histamines.

Highlights in cardiovascular effects of histamine and H1-receptor antagonists

Despite numerous studies, the cardiac actions of histamine are still obscure. Yet, histamine could probably be clinically relevant. It is stored in large amounts in human cardiac tissue, where it is contained in the cytoplasmatic granules of mast cells. Mast cells are present in normal human heart tissue; they are more abundant in diseased human heart tissue where they lie in close proximity to blood vessels and between myocytes. The histamine content of human heart mast cells is comparable to the histamine content of lung parenchymal and skin mast cells. Ultrastructural studies confirmed the presence of mast cells around vessels and between myocytes. Consequently, these cells are easily accessible to circulating antigens, drugs and stimuli that activate the cells to release vasoactive mediators which in turn can exert significant cardiovascular effects. Histamine possesses arrhythmogenic effects and once locally released, may enhance automaticity and induce triggering activity resulting in severe tachyarrhythmias. The major arrhythmogenic effects of histamine consist in increasing sinus rate and ventricular automaticity, and in slowing atrioventricular conduction. In addition, histamine may interfere with depolarization and repolarization through its effects on calcium and potassium currents. These effects are mediated by H2-receptor. Therefore direct activation of histamine receptor can induce cardiac arrhythmias. Consequently, the interference of these histaminergic effects may explain, at least in part, the arrhythmogenic effects described for some second-generation antihistamines, such as terfenadine and astemizole. In this brief review we will discuss the cardiac effects of histamine in experimental animal models and in man, and will review data on the safety of the new second-generation antihistamines, focusing on their cardiotoxic effects.

The eternal triangle: benefit, risk, and cost of therapeutic agents

Some people can undoubtedly tolerate a first-generation H1-receptor antagonist without sedation or other CNS adverse effects, but others cannot. There is no rapid, reliable way of differentiating these two populations. A history of presence or absence of subjective somnolence from one H1-receptor antagonist is not necessarily reliable and has no consistently useful predictive value for subsequent experience with other H1-receptor antagonists. As H1-receptor antagonists are used primarily to treat non-life-threatening disorders, safety should be a prime consideration in selecting one for use, and is surely as important a concern as efficacy and low cost. If your pilot is not permitted to take these medications before going to work, why should your taxi driver, your child's school bus driver, your dentist, your nurse, or your office assistant, to name a few examples, be allowed to do so? When the broad issue of safety is considered, first-generation H1-receptor antagonists may not be as cost-effective as they appear to be. The inherent benefit of any medication is inextricably linked with the inherent risk. It is incumbent on those promulgating the use of the older H1-receptor antagonists to define these benefits and risk further. Lowering the cost of the second-generation, relatively nonsedating H1-receptor antagonists so they are no longer the most expensive medications used in treatment of allergic rhinitis would also help solve the problem of the eternal triangle as it pertains to therapeutic use of H1-receptor antagonists.

Lack of interaction between a new antihistamine, mizolastine, and lorazepam on psychomotor performance and memory in healthy volunteers

1. The possible interaction between a new H1 antihistamine, mizolastine, and lorazepam was assessed in a randomised, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled study involving 16 healthy young male volunteers who received mizolastine 10 mg or placebo once daily for 8 days with a 1 week wash-out interval. The interaction of mizolastine, at steady-state, with a single oral dose of lorazepam or placebo was assessed on days 6 or 8 of each treatment period. 2. Psychomotor performance and cognitive function were evaluated using objective tests (critical flicker fusion threshold, choice reaction time, tapping, arithmetic calculation, body sway) and self-ratings (visual analogue scale, ARCI) before and at 2, 4, 6 and 8 h after dosing. Short-term memory (Sternberg memory scanning immediate free recall of a word list) and long-term memory (delayed free recall and recognition of words and pictures) were assessed before and at 3 h after dosing. Pharmacodynamic interactions were evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA in a 2 x 2 factorial interaction model. 3. Mizolastine, 10 mg once daily, at steady-state, was devoid of sedation and detrimental effect on skilled performance and memory. 4. In contrast, a single 2 mg dose of lorazepam produced marked impairment of psychomotor performance, cognitive functions (significant reduction in flicker fusion threshold, tapping and arithmetic calculation and increase in reaction times and body sway) and subjective sedation from 2 to 8 h after dosing. In addition, lorazepam induced an anterograde amnesia, characterised by a decrease in delayed free recall and recognition, and a deficit in short term memory.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Loratadine. A reappraisal of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in allergic disorders

Loratadine is a long-acting antihistamine agent, exhibiting partial selectivity for peripheral histamine H1-receptors. To date, loratadine has been evaluated in allergic rhinitis, urticaria and, to a limited extent, in asthma. In several large controlled comparative clinical studies, loratadine was superior to placebo, faster acting than astemizole and as effective as azatadine, cetirizine, chlorpheniramine (chlorphenamine), clemastine, hydroxyzine, mequitazine and terfenadine in patients with allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. The clinical effectiveness of loratadine in asthma is at present unclear. Loratadine is well tolerated. At dosages of 10 mg daily, commonly reported adverse events were somnolence, fatigue and headache. Sedation occurred less frequently with loratadine than with azatadine, cetirizine, chlorpheniramine, clemastine and mequitazine. Serious ventricular arrhythmias, as reported with some other second generation histamine H1-receptor antagonists, have not been observed with loratadine to date. Thus, loratadine, with its attributes of once daily administration, fast onset of action and essentially nonsedating properties, would appear to be an appropriate first-line agent for the treatment of allergic rhinitis or urticaria.

The pharmacology and use of H1-receptor-antagonist drugs

The second-generation H1-antagonist drugs are supplanting their predecessors in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria. Their use can be justified mainly on the basis of a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, because they are less toxic to the central nervous system. Future research into H1 antagonists should include additional dose-response studies in patients with allergic disorders, especially children and the elderly; objective studies of adverse effects; studies of topical mucosal application of H1 antagonists; and studies of H1-antagonist enantiomers and active metabolites. With the cloning of the gene encoding the H1 receptor and increased understanding of the precise structural requirements for H1-receptor activity, H1 antagonists with an even more favorable therapeutic index may be developed.

Acute and subchronic effects of the H1-histamine receptor antagonist ebastine in 10, 20 and 30 mg dose, and triprolidine 10 mg on car driving performance

1. The effects of a new antihistamine, ebastine (10, 20 and 30 mg), on several parameters of driving performance in actual traffic were studied in 15 healthy male volunteers. Subjects were treated for 5 days, and their driving performance tested on day 1 and day 5. The study was double-blind, placebo controlled and included the antihistamine triprolidine (10 mg sustained release) as an active drug control. 2. General tolerability was good except in one case following the reference compound triprolidine. No significant changes in driving performance were found with the new antihistamine ebastine at any dosage, on day 1 or day 5. Triprolidine (10 mg) significantly increased both the amount of weaving and the delay in following speed manoeuvres of a leading car, compared with placebo. 3. The results suggest that ebastine in doses up to 30 mg may be relatively safe for use by those who drive motor vehicles while under medication. The results do not warrant such a conclusion for triprolidine 10 mg.

Sedation and histamine H1-receptor antagonism: studies in man with the enantiomers of chlorpheniramine and dimethindene

1. The effects of 10 mg (+)- and (-)-chlorpheniramine and 5 mg (+)- and (-)-dimethindene on daytime sleep latencies, digit symbol substitution and subjective assessments of mood and well-being were studied in 6 healthy young adult humans. Each subject also took 5 mg triprolidine hydrochloride as an active control and two placebos. 2. Daytime sleep latencies were reduced with triprolidine, (+)-chlorpheniramine and (-)-dimethindene, and subjects also reported that they felt more sleepy after (+)-chlorpheniramine and (-)-dimethindene. Performance on digit symbol substitution was impaired with (+)-chlorpheniramine. 3. Changes in measures with (-)-chlorpheniramine and (+)-dimethindene were not different from changes with placebo. 4. In the present study, changes in measures of drowsiness and performance were limited to the enantiomers with high affinity for the histamine H1-receptor. These findings strongly suggest that sedation can arise from H1-receptor antagonism alone, and provide further support for the belief that the histaminergic system is concerned with the regulation of alertness in man.

Selective inhibition of peripheral histamine responses by loratadine and terfenadine

To determine the selectivity of the non-sedating antihistamines loratadine and terfenadine and the sedating antihistamine diphenhydramine for peripheral and central histamine H1-receptors, these compounds were examined against intravenous (i.v.) and intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) histamine-induced bronchoconstriction in anesthetized, spontaneously breathing guinea pigs. Animals were prepared with i.c.v. or i.v. cannulas and instrumented for the measurement of airway resistance (RAW) and dynamic lung compliance (CDyN). Loratadine, terfenadine or diphenhydramine were administered orally 2 h before either i.v. or i.c.v. injection of histamine. Each antihistamine blocked the i.v. histamine bronchospasm with the order of potency loratadine (ED40 = 0.08 mg/kg) greater than terfenadine (ED40 = 0.44 mg/kg) greater than diphenhydramine (ED40 = 5 mg/kg). These drugs also blocked i.c.v. histamine-induced bronchoconstrictions, but loratadine and terfenadine were approximately 10 times less potent against i.c.v. histamine bronchoconstriction than they were against i.v. histamine. In contrast, diphenhydramine was equipotent against i.c.v. and i.v. histamine bronchoconstriction. These results demonstrate that the non-sedating antihistamines loratadine and terfenadine, unlike diphenhydramine, are more effective against peripheral than central H1-receptors, probably because of poor penetration of the blood-brain barrier.

Medication and skilled work

There is increasing interest in the way in which drugs impair performance. This has arisen because some may impair day-to-day skills of those whose occupations demand vigilance and motor skill, and of those who are involved in decision making or where interpersonal relations are crucial. For many years the position was adopted, at least in certain occupations where impaired performance could be a danger to others, that the use of any drug should preclude employment. However, recent advances in therapeutics and a greater understanding of drug action in man has made this rather uncomplicated view of life less tenable, and there is now an increasing desire that advances in therapy should, if at all possible, be available to occupational groups, such as airline pilots. In this way the adverse effect which a drug may have on performance has become an important aspect of its clinical profile. Hypnotics appropriate for transient insomnia, which may arise from the irregularity of rest inherent in many occupations, need to be free of residual effects, antihistamines that are sedative must be avoided, and drugs used in the management of mild hypertension, often during the important years of middle life, must be as free as possible from central effects. And it must be emphasized that these drugs are often used by active, healthy or near healthy individuals. The issues involved in the safe use of a particular drug by a particular individual are complex, and as with all aspects of therapeutics it is sometimes necessary to balance efficacy and adverse effects.

Pharmacokinetics of loratadine in patients with renal insufficiency

The disposition of loratadine, a new orally active histamine H1 receptor antagonist and its primary metabolite descarboethoxyloratadine were characterized in adult volunteers with normal renal function (group I), patients with chronic renal failure, i.e., creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min (group II), as well as chronic hemodialysis patients (group III). The effect of hemodialysis on the disposition of loratadine and descarboethoxyloratadine was also assessed. Subjects in groups I and II were given a single oral 40 mg dose of loratadine while the patients in Group III received two single 40 mg doses of loratadine (during an interdialytic period and just prior to hemodialysis). Loratadine was rapidly absorbed and the decline of plasma concentrations after attainment of the Cmax was biexponential in all subjects. No significant differences in t1/2 beta were observed between the three groups (8.7 +/- 5.9, 7.6 +/- 6.9, 8.6 +/- 1.6 hrs: in groups I, II, and III, respectively). The apparent total body clearance and apparent volume of distribution of loratadine also did not differ significantly among the three groups. No significant differences in the Cmax or tmax of the metabolite were observed. The metabolite AUC infinity 0 however was significantly greater in group II subjects: (212.4 +/- 37.8, 469.5 +/- 95.4, 325.2 +/- 114.6 ng.hr/mL; groups I, II, and III, respectively). No significant relationship was observed between the terminal elimination half-life of loratadine or descarboethoxyloratadine and creatinine clearance. Hemodialysis augmented endogenous clearance by less than 1%. The disposition of loratadine is not significantly altered in patients with severe renal insufficiency nor is hemodialysis an effective means of removing loratadine or descarboethoxyloratadine from the body.

Treatment of hay fever with loratadine--a new non-sedating antihistamine

The efficacy and safety of loratadine, a new orally active specific H1-receptor blocking antihistamine with poor penetration into the CNS, was evaluated in a double blind comparative study. One hundred and seven hay fever patients, sensitive to birch pollen, were randomized into three parallel groups receiving loratadine 40 mg once daily, clemastine 1 mg twice daily, or placebo during the birch pollen season. Both active treatments showed reduction of symptoms in comparison with placebo, but the results were more pronounced with loratadine treatment, which significantly reduced the overall allergic condition as well as all separate allergic rhino-conjunctivitis symptoms except nasal stuffiness. Compared with placebo the sedation rate was significantly higher with clemastine treatment (P less than 0.05) but not with loratadine. Loratadine was thus concluded to be efficacious in hay fever treatment with a sedation rate not differing from placebo.

SCH 434: a new antihistamine/decongestant for seasonal allergic rhinitis

In a double-blind, multicenter study, we compared the effects of SCH 434 (Claritin-D; Schering Corp., Kenilworth, N.J.), a new sustained-release, combination antihistamine/decongestant medication, with the effects of its individual components and placebo in 435 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. SCH 434 contains 5 mg of loratadine, a nonsedating antihistamine, and 120 mg of pseudoephedrine as the decongestant component. Administered twice daily in this study, SCH 434 effected a 50% decrease in total symptom scores at day 4 and was significantly (p less than or equal to 0.03) more effective than the components alone or the placebo. Loratadine or pseudoephedrine alone, with 43% and 33% decline in symptom scores, respectively, also was more effective than placebo (p less than 0.05). As expected, pseudoephedrine alone was more effective than loratadine (p less than 0.01) in relieving nasal stuffiness; SCH 434 was more effective (p less than or equal to 0.01) than placebo and loratadine in relieving nasal stuffiness. All treatments were safe and well tolerated, although insomnia and dry mouth were noted in a significant number of patients who received either SCH 434 or pseudoephedrine. No serious side effects were noted. The incidence of sedation did not differ significantly among the four treatment groups. We conclude that SCH 434 is a safe and effective treatment for symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. The combination drug (SCH 434) was better than its components for some, but not all, symptoms.

Loratadine: a nonsedating antihistamine with once-daily dosing

Loratadine is an addition to the class of nonsedating antihistamines which includes terfenadine, astemizole, and acrivastine. Loratadine is chemically related to the tricyclic antidepressants. Animal data have shown that insignificant amounts of loratadine enter the brain, and it has a threefold greater affinity for peripheral as compared with central histamine 1-receptors. Loratadine has one main metabolite, descarbethoxyloratadine, which is four times more active than the parent drug. Loratadine reaches peak plasma concentration in 1-2 hours; the metabolite does so in 3-4 hours. Their respective elimination half-lives are about 10 and 20 hours. Onset of action is within 1 hour and duration is at least 24 hours. Once-daily dosing is recommended. Generally, loratadine is as efficacious as existing antihistamines in relieving symptoms of allergic rhinitis, urticaria, and in suppressing wheal formation. Reports of sedation and other adverse reactions are no more frequent than found with placebo. Tachyphylaxis has not been noted in humans, and there is minimal potential for drug interactions based on animal data. Loratadine and terfenadine have comparable therapeutic applications. Both have shown minimal adverse effects, but loratadine has a quicker onset and longer duration of action. These two agents are useful for acute allergic reactions. In contrast, astemizole has an onset of action of several days and is most useful for prophylactic treatment of seasonal allergies.

Effects of nonsedating histamine H1-antagonists on EEG activity and behavior in the cat

The central effects of the newly-developed antihistamines (H1-receptor antagonists) loratadine, astemizole, mequitazine and terfenadine were evaluated by studying brain electrical activity (EEG), sleep-waking patterns and behavior in the cat. The different stages of the sleep-waking cycle, i.e., wakefulness (W), spindle sleep (SS), slow wave sleep (SWS) and REM sleep (REM) were evaluated. The power spectrum analysis of the EEG was obtained by a computerized technique. For comparison, the sedating agent diphenhydramine was examined. Given at 3 mg/kg orally, a dose slightly above that effective therapeutically, diphenhydramine markedly affected behavior and all sleep stages. In particular, it depressed REM and increased SS (drowsiness). The EEG showed occasional spikes typical of subconvulsive states. Loratadine did not modify either sleep patterns or behavior over the 3-30 mg/kg dose range orally, which is far above that used clinically. The EEG, evaluated either visually or by spectral power analysis, was unaffected. Astemizole at 10 and 30 mg/kg PO reduced REM, markedly altered behavior at 30 mg/kg, but did not modify EEG activity. Mequitazine, at low doses (1-10 mg/kg PO), enhanced SS and decreased SWS and REM. Like diphenhydramine, mequitazine induced EEG changes typical of subconvulsive states and affected EEG power over the frequency range of 0.1-15.0 Hz. Terfenadine did not change sleep patterns and slightly affected behavior only at the high dose of 30 mg/kg orally; EEG activity was not influenced. These data show that: a) diphenhydramine and mequitazine appear to produce CNS effects by altering basic processes within the brain; b) astemizole and terfenadine seem to cross the blood-brain barrier at high doses only; c) loratadine has the lowest liability to produce central side effects. Of the sleep features examined, REM appeared to be the most sensitive stage to blockade of central H1-receptor pathways.