Dose-response relationship of the H1-histamine antagonist, ebastine, against histamine and methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma

Targeting Histamine Receptors in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Critical Appraisal

Irritable bowel syndrome is a group of functional gastrointestinal disorders with not yet fully clarified etiology. Recent evidence suggesting that mast cells may play a central role in the pathogenesis of irritable bowel syndrome paves the way for agents targeting histamine receptors as a potential therapeutic option in clinical treatment. In this review, the role of histamine and histamine receptors is debated. Moreover, the clinical evidence of anti-histamine therapeutics in irritable bowel syndrome is discussed.

Ebastine in allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria

Histamine is a key mediator in the development of allergy symptoms, and oral H(1)-antihistamines are among the most widely used treatments for symptomatic relief in conditions such as allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. Ebastine is a second-generation antihistamine which has been shown to be an effective treatment for both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. In controlled clinical trials in adult and adolescent patients with allergic rhinitis, ebastine 10 mg once-daily improved symptoms to a significantly greater extent than placebo and to a similar extent as loratadine 10 mg and cetirizine 10 mg (both once-daily), while ebastine 20 mg proved to be more effective than these two comparator antihistamines. In addition, ebastine was significantly more effective than placebo at relieving the symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria. Ebastine provides efficacy throughout the 24-h dosing interval with once-daily administration and clinical benefit is seen from the first day of treatment. Small studies have found beneficial effects for ebastine in patients with other disorders, including cold urticaria, dermographic urticaria, atopic asthma, mosquito bites and (in combination with pseudoephedrine) the common cold. In addition to the regular ebastine tablet, a fast-dissolving tablet (FDT) formulation, which disintegrates in the mouth without the aid of a drink, is also available. It has been shown to be bioequivalent to the regular tablet, and to be significantly more effective than desloratadine at reducing histamine-induced cutaneous wheals. A number of patient surveys demonstrated that the majority of individuals who tried the fast-dissolving formulation reported it to be convenient for use, fast-acting and preferred it to their previous antihistamine medication. Perhaps most importantly, a large proportion of patients indicated that they would prefer to use this new formulation in the future. Ebastine has a rapid onset of action and it can be administered once-daily, with or without food. Dose modifications are not needed in elderly patients, or in those with renal or mild to moderate hepatic impairment. Ebastine is generally well-tolerated, and clinical studies showed that at usual therapeutic doses of 10 and 20 mg once-daily, it had no clinically relevant adverse effects on cognitive function and psychomotor performance or on cardiovascular function. In conclusion, ebastine is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. In addition to the regular tablet formulation, ebastine is available as a FDT, providing a treatment option that is particularly convenient for patients.

A review of the second-generation antihistamine ebastine for the treatment of allergic disorders

Ebastine is a once-daily, non-sedating, selective, long-acting, second-generation antihistamine. The use of ebastine is indicated in patients suffering from intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. Ebastine 10 mg/day, appears as effective as other second-generation antihistamines, such as cetirizine and loratadine. Ebastine 20 mg/day is indicated in patients with moderate and severe allergic symptoms. No cardiovascular effects of ebastine are described, although there is a pharmacokinetic interaction when ketoconazole or macrolides are co-administered. Ebastine has no relevant effects on the psychomotor performance. Even with ebastine 20 mg/day skilled performance does not appear to be impaired. Furthermore, ebastine 5-10 and 2.5 mg, appears to be efficient and can be used safely in children 6-11 and 2-5 years of age, respectively. Ebastine appears to be a safe, effective and well-tolerated second-generation antihistamine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Second-generation antihistamines in asthma therapy: is there a protective effect?

Second-generation histamine H(1) receptor antagonists are recognized as being highly effective treatments for allergic-based disease and are among the most frequently prescribed drugs in the world. The newer antihistamines represent a heterogeneous group of compounds with markedly different chemical structures, a spectrum of antihistaminic properties, adverse effects, half-life, tissue distribution, metabolism and varying degrees of anti-inflammatory effects. Histamine is an important mast cell- and basophil-derived mediator that has been implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma, resulting in smooth muscle contraction, mucus hypersecretion, and increased vascular permeability leading to mucosal edema. Antihistamines should never be used as monotherapy for asthma but there is evidence that these drugs give a measure of protection in histamine-induced bronchoconstriction. Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated that the use of second-generation antihistamines, as adjunct therapy, may benefit those patients whose allergic asthma co-exists with allergic rhinitis. Indeed, many patients present with both allergic rhinitis and asthma. The link between the upper and lower respiratory airways is now well established and there is increasing evidence that allergic rhinitis is a risk factor for the development of asthma. More recently, a number of novel antihistamines have been developed which are either metabolites of active drugs or enantiomers and there is emerging evidence that at least one of these drugs, desloratadine, may give significant symptomatic benefit in some types of asthma. It is of interest to note that cetirizine provides a primary pharmacological intervention strategy to prevent the development of asthma in specifically-sensitized high risk groups of infants. Moreover, the documented anti-inflammatory activities of antihistamines may provide a novel mechanism of action for the therapeutic control of virus-induced asthma exacerbations by inhibiting the expression of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) by airway epithelial cells. Finally, several well-conducted studies suggest that combination therapy with antihistamines and antileukotrienes may be as effective as corticosteroid use in patients with allergic asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis.

New insights into the second generation antihistamines

Second generation antihistamines are recognised as being highly effective treatments for allergy-based disease and are among the most frequently prescribed and safest drugs in the world. However, consideration of the therapeutic index or the benefit/risk ratio of the H1 receptor antagonists is of paramount importance when prescribing this class of compounds as they are used to treat non-life threatening conditions. There are many second generation antihistamines available and at first examination these appear to be comparable in terms of safety and efficacy. However, the newer antihistamines in fact represent a heterogeneous group of compounds, having markedly differing chemical structures, adverse effects, half-life, tissue distribution and metabolism, spectrum of antihistaminic properties, and varying degrees of anti-inflammatory effects. With regard to the latter, there is growing awareness that some of these compounds might represent useful adjunct medications in asthma therapy. In terms of safety issues, the current second generation grouping includes compounds with proven cardiotoxic effects and others with the potential for adverse drug interactions. Moreover, some of the second generation H1 antagonists have given cause for concern regarding their potential to cause a degree of somnolence in some individuals. It can be argued, therefore, that the present second generation grouping is too large and indistinct since this was based primarily on the concept of separating the first generation sedating compounds from nonsedating H1 antagonists. Although it is too early to talk about a third generation grouping of antihistamines, future membership of such a classification could be based on a low volume of distribution coupled with a lack of sedating effects, drug interactions and cardiotoxicity.

Ebastine: an update of its use in allergic disorders

Ebastine is a second-generation antihistamine which undergoes transformation to its active metabolite, carebastine. Its antihistaminic and antiallergic effects have been demonstrated in in vitro and in vivo studies, in addition to data obtained from clinical trials. Patients with allergic rhinitis or chronic idiopathic urticaria experienced significant improvement in their symptoms with ebastine 10 or 20 mg once daily. Some studies in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) have indicated trends towards greater efficacy with the 20 mg than the 10 mg dose, although only 1 study has shown statistically significant benefits. In comparative trials in patients with SAR, ebastine 10 mg was as effective as most other second-generation antihistamines, including astemizole, azelastine, cetirizine, loratadine and terfenadine. Ebastine 20 mg/day was significantly superior to loratadine 10 mg/day in patients with SAR according to effects on secondary efficacy variables in comparative studies; 1 study found significantly greater changes from baseline in mean total symptom score with ebastine 20 mg (-43 vs -36% with loratadine, p = 0.045). In patients with perennial allergic rhinitis, ebastine 10 or 20 mg daily was significantly more effective than loratadine in reducing total symptom scores from baseline 1 comparative study. There have been no reports of serious adverse cardiac effects during ebastine therapy. Increases in corrected QT interval have been observed during clinical trials; however, these have not been considered clinically significant and were generally of similar magnitude to those seen with loratadine. The normal diurnal variation in QTc interval and the problems associated in correcting for changes in heart rate also complicate assessment of this issue. The incidence of adverse events during ebastine treatment is not significantly greater than that observed with placebo or other second-generation antihistamines.

CONCLUSIONS

Ebastine 10 mg daily is a well tolerated and effective treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. At this dosage, it is as effective as the other second-generation antihistamines against which it has been compared. Ebastine 20 mg has similar tolerability to the 10 mg dose, and trends towards greater efficacy with the higher dose have been shown in some studies. Ebastine does not appear to be associated with any significant cardiac adverse events. Ebastine is a useful treatment option for patients with allergic rhinitis or chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Ebastine. a review of its pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy in the treatment of allergic disorders

Ebastine is a long-acting nonsedating second generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist which binds preferentially to peripheral H1 receptors in vivo. It has shown antihistamine and antiallergic activity in healthy volunteers and patients with allergies, and protected against histamine-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma. Significant symptom improvement is observed in patients with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis or chronic idiopathic urticaria following administration of ebastine 10 mg/day, or 20 mg/day in severe rhinitis. In clinical trials, the efficacy of ebastine 10 or 20 mg/day was generally similar to standard dosages of terfenadine, cetirizine, astemizole and loratadine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis, astemizole, terfenadine and ketotifen in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria, and ketotifen, terfenadine, chlorpheniramine and mequitazine in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. The most frequent adverse events reported during ebastine therapy are drowsiness, headache and dry mouth, the incidence being similar to that reported in placebo recipients. Serious adverse cardiac events, observed on rare occasions with some other histamine H1 receptor antagonists, have not been reported with ebastine, and there has been no evidence of QTc interval prolongation related to ebastine therapy. Thus, once-daily ebastine offers an effective and well-tolerated alternative to other second generation antihistamines in current use for the first-line treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the histamine H1-receptor antagonist ebastine in dogs

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ebastine at single oral doses of 10 and 20 mg were studied in six healthy beagle dogs. Plasma concentrations of the active metabolite of ebastine were measured at predetermined times after the dose. At these times an intradermal injection of 0.01 mL of a 0.2 mg mL-1 histamine diphosphate solution was given, and wheal areas were computed. The plasma elimination half-life of ebastine was 4.38 +/- 1.01 h after 10 mg ebastine and 4.09 +/- 0.74 h after 20 mg ebastine; the distribution volume was 3.99 +/- 0.88 and 3.65 +/- 0.75 L kg-1 after 10 and 20 mg of ebastine, respectively; the clearance after the 10 mg dose of ebastine was 0.67 +/- 0.24 L h-1 kg-1 and after 20 mg ebastine was 0.63 +/- 0.17 L h-1 kg-1. The mean histamine-induced wheal areas were significantly suppressed from 1 to 25 h after the 10 mg dose ebastine and from 1 to 32 h after the 20 mg dose ebastine, compared with the mean predose wheal areas (P < 0.001). Maximum suppression of the wheals was 75 and 82% from 10 and 20 mg ebastine, respectively. A combined pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model was used to analyse the relationship between inhibition of wheal skin reaction and changes in the active metabolite of plasma concentration after ebastine administration. A significant delay of 3-4 h was present between the maximum effect and the peak plasma concentration. Calculated from mean data, the rate constant for equilibration of the drug between plasma and effect site was 0.17 and 0.22 h-1 after 10 and 20 mg ebastine with a half-life of 4.13 and 3.56 h, respectively, and the steady-state plasma concentration resulting in 50% of maximal effect was 18.9 +/- 4.8 ng mL-1 after 10 mg and 18.2 +/- 5.7 ng mL-1 after 20 mg ebastine.

Cimetidine does not influence the metabolism of the H1-receptor antagonist ebastine to its active metabolite carebastine

Ebastine is an H1-receptor antagonist with a relative lack of sedating properties. It is almost completely converted to carebastine, and it is this metabolite which is responsible for the antihistaminic effect. Twelve healthy subjects received a single 20 mg dose of ebastine on day 2 of a multiple oral dosing regimen of either cimetidine (400 mg three times daily and 800 mg in the evening on the day preceding ebastine administration and 400 mg four times daily on the 2 following days) or placebo in a randomised cross-over design. Significant plasma concentrations of ebastine were not detected after either treatment. The AUC of carebastine was not affected by cimetidine coadministration (4049 +/- 985 ng ml-1 h after cimetidine vs 3795 +/- 959 ng ml-1 h after placebo; 95% confidence interval of the difference: -412 to 919). Cimetidine coadministration did not induce any effect of ebastine on blood pressure and heart rate or cause sedation.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ebastine in children

Ebastine is a new piperidine-containing, relatively nonsedating second-generation H1-receptor antagonist. In a double-blind, parallel-group study of a single 5 mg or 10 mg dose of ebastine syrup used to treat allergic rhinitis in 20 children aged 6 to 12 years, we tested the hypothesis that the medication would have a duration of action of at least 24 hours. We measured plasma concentrations of carebastine, the pharmacologically active metabolite of ebastine, and the wheals and flares produced by epicutaneous tests with histamine phosphate, 1.0 mg/ml. Ebastine was absorbed well; peak carebastine concentrations occurred approximately 3 hours after dosing. Mean plasma elimination half-life values of carebastine ranged from 10 to 14 hours. The pharmacokinetics of carebastine were linear and dose independent in the dosage range studied. After the 5 or 10 mg dose, there were no significant differences between mean plasma elimination half-life values, mean oral clearance values, or mean apparent volumes of distribution. Mean peak plasma carebastine concentrations and mean areas under the plasma carebastine concentration-time curve after the 10 mg dose were 1.93 and 1.76 times, respectively, the values obtained after the 5 mg dose. Both doses significantly reduced the histamine-induced wheal-and-flare areas for up to 28 hours compared with predose values. The differences in effect between the doses generally were not statistically or clinically significant. No adverse effects were noted. We conclude that ebastine, an effective H1-receptor antagonist with a prompt onset of action and a long duration of action, is suitable for once-daily administration to children.

Diazepam effects on the performance of healthy subjects are not enhanced by treatment with the antihistamine ebastine

1. We have given 12 healthy subjects the H1-antihistamine ebastine (20 mg) or placebo in a randomized double-blind and crossover study for 1 week each. The subjects were tested for drug effects on day 6 of each period, and for interactions of ebastine with oral 15 mg diazepam (DZ) on day 7. On both days, the testing runs were at baseline and 1.5, 3, 4.5 and 6 h after intake. 2. The performance was evaluated both objectively (digit symbol substitution, flicker fusion, Maddox wing, simulated driving, body balance) and subjectively (visual analogue scales, questionnaires). Venous blood was sampled daily during the maintenance and during each testing round for the assay of plasma carebastine (the active metabolite of ebastine) by high pressure liquid chromatography and plasma diazepam by radioreceptor assay. Three-way ANOVA, paired t-test, Wilcoxon rank sign test and Fisher's fourfold table test were used for data analysis. 3. Plasma carebastine reached steady levels from day 3 onwards. The mean concentrations in the morning were 82 micrograms l-1 on day 6 and 85 micrograms l-1 on day 7. The rise (+ 150%) in plasma carebastine after an extra 20 mg ebastine was not modified by DZ. Ebastine did not affect performance objectively or subjectively, yet borderline drowsiness was recorded during the first 3 h. On day 7, plasma DZ concentrations peaked (mean 480 micrograms l-1) at 1.5 h after the intake. DZ produced impaired performance in various objective tests, and drowsiness, weakness, clumsiness, mental slowness and poor performance were reported on visual analogue scales.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Lack of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions of the antihistamine ebastine with ethanol in healthy subjects

We have given 12 healthy subjects the H1-antihistamine ebastine (20 mg) or placebo in a double-blind, crossover study for one week each. The subjects were tested for drug effects on Day 6 of each period, and for interactions of ebastine with ethanol (0.8 g.kg-1) on Day 7. On both days, the testing runs were done at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 h after the drug. Performance was evaluated both objectively (digit symbol substitution, flicker fusion, Madox wing, nystagmus, simulated driving, body balance) and subjectively (visual analogue scales) and with questionnaires. Venous blood samples were taken daily during maintenance and during each test run for assay of plasma carebastine. Blood ethanol concentrations were assayed with an Alcolmeter in the breath and directly in the blood. Plasma carebastine concentration reached a steady-state from Day 3 on; the mean concentrations in the morning were 92 micrograms.l-1 on Day 6 and 104 micrograms.l-1 on Day 7. The rise in plasma carebastine after an extra 20 mg of ebastine was accelerated but not increased by ethanol. Ebastine did not impair performance objectively or subjectively. It slightly improved body balance and reduced errors during simple tracking at 4 h. Blood ethanol concentrations peaked (mean 0.76 g.l-1) at 1.5 h after ethanol intake. Ethanol impaired performance in most objective tests and produced clumsiness, muzziness, and mental slowness, but little drowsiness. Ebastine neither modified the blood ethanol concentrations nor increased the effects of ethanol.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)