Loratadine administered concomitantly with erythromycin: pharmacokinetic and electrocardiographic evaluations

Improving antibacterial prescribing safety in the management of COPD exacerbations: systematic review of observational and clinical studies on potential drug interactions associated with frequently prescribed antibacterials among COPD patients

Background

Guidelines advise the use of antibacterials (ABs) in the management of COPD exacerbations. COPD patients often have multiple comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus and cardiac diseases, leading to polypharmacy. Consequently, drug–drug interactions (DDIs) may frequently occur, and may cause serious adverse events and treatment failure.

Objectives

(i) To review DDIs related to frequently prescribed ABs among COPD patients from observational and clinical studies. (ii) To improve AB prescribing safety in clinical practice by structuring DDIs according to comorbidities of COPD.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed and Embase up to 8 February 2018 for clinical trials, cohort and case–control studies reporting DDIs of ABs used for COPD. Study design, subjects, sample size, pharmacological mechanism of DDI and effect of interaction were extracted. We evaluated levels of DDIs and quality of evidence according to established criteria and structured the data by possible comorbidities.

Results

In all, 318 articles were eligible for review, describing a wide range of drugs used for comorbidities and their potential DDIs with ABs. DDIs between ABs and co-administered drugs could be subdivided into: (i) co-administered drugs altering the pharmacokinetics of ABs; and (ii) ABs interfering with the pharmacokinetics of co-administered drugs. The DDIs could lead to therapeutic failures or toxicities.

Conclusions

DDIs related to ABs with clinical significance may involve a wide range of indicated drugs to treat comorbidities in COPD. The evidence presented can support (computer-supported) decision-making by health practitioners when prescribing ABs during COPD exacerbations in the case of co-medication.

Progress in the Consideration of Possible Sex Differences in Drug Interaction Studies

Background:

Anecdotal evidence suggests that there may be sex differences in Drug-drug Interactions (DDI) involving specific drugs. Regulators have provided general guidance for the inclusion of females in clinical studies. Some clinical studies have reported sex differences in the Pharmacokinetics (PK) of CYP3A4 substrates, suggesting that DDI involving CYP3A4 substrates could potentially show sex differences.

Objective:

The aim of this review was to investigate whether recent prospective DDI studies have included both sexes and whether there was evidence for the presence or absence of sex differences with the DDIs.

Methods:

The relevant details from 156 drug interaction studies within 124 papers were extracted and evaluated.

Results:

Only eight studies (five papers) compared the outcome of the DDI between males and females. The majority of the studies had only male volunteers. Five studies had females only while 60 had males only, with 7.7% of the studies having an equal proportion of both sexes. Surprisingly, four studies did not specify the sex of the subjects.

:

Based on the limited number of studies comparing males and females, no specific trends or conclusions were evident. Sex differences in the interaction were reported between ketoconazole and midazolam as well as clarithromycin and midazolam. However, no sex difference was observed with the interaction between clarithromycin and triazolam or erythromycin and triazolam. No sex-related PK differences were observed with the interaction between ketoconazole and domperidone, although sex-related differences in QT prolongation were observed.

Conclusion:

This review has shown that only limited progress had been made with the inclusion of both sexes in DDI studies.

Drug-drug interactions and QT prolongation as a commonly assessed cardiac effect - comprehensive overview of clinical trials

Background

Proarrhythmia assessment is one of the major concerns for regulatory bodies and pharmaceutical industry. ICH guidelines recommending preclinical tests have been established in attempt to eliminate the risk of drug-induced arrhythmias. However, in the clinic, arrhythmia occurrence is determined not only by the inherent property of a drug to block ion currents and disturb electrophysiological activity of cardiac myocytes, but also by many other factors modifying individual risk of QT prolongation and subsequent proarrhythmia propensity. One of those is drug-drug interactions. Since polypharmacy is a common practice in clinical settings, it can be anticipated that there is a relatively high risk that the patient will receive at least two drugs mutually modifying their proarrhythmic potential and resulting either in triggering the occurrence or mitigating the clinical symptoms. The mechanism can be observed either directly at the pharmacodynamic level by competing for the molecular targets, or indirectly by modifying the physiological parameters, or at the pharmacokinetic level by alteration of the active concentration of the victim drug.

Methods

This publication provides an overview of published clinical studies on pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic drug-drug interactions in humans and their electrophysiological consequences (QT interval modification). Databases of PubMed and Scopus were searched and combinations of the following keywords were used for Title, Abstract and Keywords fields: interaction, coadministration, combination, DDI and electrocardiographic, QTc interval, ECG. Only human studies were included. Over 4500 publications were retrieved and underwent preliminary assessment to identify papers accordant with the topic of this review. 76 papers reporting results for 96 drug combinations were found and analyzed.

Results

The results show the tremendous variability of drug-drug interaction effects, which makes one aware of complexity of the problem, and suggests the need for assessment of an additional risk factors and careful ECG monitoring before administration of drugs with anticipated QT prolongation.

Conclusions

DDIs can play significant roles in drugs’ cardiac safety, as evidenced by the provided examples. Assessment of the pharmacodynamic effects of the drug interactions is more challenging as compared to the pharmacokinetic due to the significant diversity in the endpoints which should be analyzed specifically for various clinical effects. Nevertheless, PD components of DDIs should be accounted for as PK changes alone do not allow to fully explain the electrophysiological effects in clinic situations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40360-016-0053-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pharmacokinetic drug interactions of antimicrobial drugs: a systematic review on oxazolidinones, rifamycines, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and Beta-lactams

Like any other drug, antimicrobial drugs are prone to pharmacokinetic drug interactions. These drug interactions are a major concern in clinical practice as they may have an effect on efficacy and toxicity. This article provides an overview of all published pharmacokinetic studies on drug interactions of the commonly prescribed antimicrobial drugs oxazolidinones, rifamycines, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and beta-lactams, focusing on systematic research. We describe drug-food and drug-drug interaction studies in humans, affecting antimicrobial drugs as well as concomitantly administered drugs. Since knowledge about mechanisms is of paramount importance for adequate management of drug interactions, the most plausible underlying mechanism of the drug interaction is provided when available. This overview can be used in daily practice to support the management of pharmacokinetic drug interactions of antimicrobial drugs.

PREDICTION OF TIME-DEPENDENT CYP3A4 DRUG-DRUG INTERACTIONS: IMPACT OF ENZYME DEGRADATION, PARALLEL ELIMINATION PATHWAYS, AND INTESTINAL INHIBITION

Time-dependent inhibition of CYP3A4 often results in clinically significant drug-drug interactions. In the current study, 37 in vivo cases of irreversible inhibition were collated, focusing on macrolides (erythromycin, clarithromycin, and azithromycin) and diltiazem as inhibitors. The interactions included 17 different CYP3A substrates showing up to a 7-fold increase in AUC (13.5% of studies were in the range of potent inhibition). A systematic analysis of the impact of CYP3A4 degradation half-life (mean t1/2deg = 3 days, ranging from 1 to 6 days) on the prediction of the extent of interaction for compounds with a differential contribution from CYP3A4 to the overall elimination (defined by fmCYP3A4) was performed. Although the prediction accuracy was very sensitive to the CYP3A4 degradation rate for substrates mainly eliminated by this enzyme fm(CYP3A4 >or= 0.9), minimal effects are observed when CYP3A4 contributes less than 50% to the overall elimination in cases when the parallel elimination pathway is not subject to inhibition. Use of the mean CYP3A4 t1/2deg (3 days), average unbound systemic plasma concentration of the inhibitor, and the corresponding fm(CYP3A4) resulted in 89% of studies predicted within 2-fold of the in vivo value. The impact of the interaction in the gut wall was assessed by assuming maximal intestinal inhibition of CYP3A4. Although a reduced number of false-negative predictions was observed, there was an increased number of overpredictions, and generally, a loss of prediction accuracy was observed. The impact of the possible interplay between CYP3A4 and efflux transporters on the intestinal interaction requires further evaluation.

Evaluation of the optimal oral antihistamine for patients with allergic rhinitis

Because of its bothersome symptoms, allergic rhinitis (AR) is 1 of the top 10 reasons for patient visits to primary care physicians. This highly prevalent disease also results in loss of productivity, both at work and in school. Oral antihistamines are one of the most frequently prescribed medications for the management of AR and, with several agents available, it is important to discern the specific benefits and detriments of each. To assess the differences in efficacy and safety factors among antihistamines, the Individual therapeutic window of each agent can be used as a comparative reference tool because it defines the dose range over which an antihistamine is efficacious and free of adverse effects. As such, the therapeutic window includes both undesired effects, such as sedation, and desired properties, such as rapid onset of action, long duration of efficacy, broad age range of applicability, and potential to Improve quality of life. Therefore, agents with broad therapeutic windows, based on both efficacy and safety, are expected to be more favorable; this therapeutic window should be understood by the primary care physician when prescribing a medication.

Therapeutic advantages of third generation antihistamines

A third generation of antihistamines is emerging for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. First generation antihistamines are among the most widely used drugs in the world, and provide symptomatic relief from allergies and the common cold to millions of patients, mainly in OTC combination preparations. Their full potential is limited by the sedation caused by their effects on histamine receptors in the brain. Second generation antihistamines (terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine and cetirizine), which block peripheral H1 receptors without penetrating the blood-brain barrier, were developed and introduced from 1981 onwards to provide comparable therapeutic benefit without the CNS side-effects. Although largely successful in this goal, terfenadine and astemizole were found to cause potentially serious arrhythmias when plasma concentrations became elevated subsequent to impaired metabolism. It was established that the cardiac toxicity was mainly due to the parent drugs. As active metabolites could account for most of the clinical benefit, the goal for the third generation of antihistamines became to develop therapeutically active metabolites that were devoid of cardiac toxicity. The first of these drugs, fexofenadine (the active metabolite of terfenadine), was approved in July 1996, after an unusually rapid development programme. Its introduction set a new standard of safety that led the FDA to request the withdrawal of terfenadine in 1997 on the grounds that a safer version of an equivalent drug was now available. Norastemizole and descarboethoxy loratadine, the metabolites of astemizole and loratadine, respectively, are also in clinical development. These offer comparable or superior clinical benefits.

EFFECT OFCYP2D6*10ALLELE ON THE PHARMACOKINETICS OF LORATADINE IN CHINESE SUBJECTS

Loratadine is known to be a substrate for both CYP3A4 and CYP2D6 based on a previous in vitro study. In view of the large interindividual variability in loratadine pharmacokinetics and the greater genetically determined variability of CYP2D6 activity than of CYP3A4 in vivo, we hypothesized that CYP2D6 polymorphisms may contribute to the pharmacokinetic variability of loratadine. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of CYP2D6 genotype (specifically the CYP2D6*10 allele) on the pharmacokinetics of loratadine in Chinese subjects. Three groups of healthy male Chinese subjects were enrolled: group I, homozygous CYP2D6*1 (*1/*1, n=4); group II, heterozygous CYP2D6*10 (*1/*10 or *2/*10, n=6); and group III, homozygous CYP2D6*10 (*10/*10, n=7) carriers. Each subject received a single oral dose of 20 mg of loratadine under fasting conditions. Multiple blood samples were collected over 48 h, and the plasma concentrations of loratadine and its metabolite desloratadine were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. In comparing homozygous CYP2D6*10 (group III) to heterozygous CYP2D6*10 (group II) to homozygous CYP2D6*1 (group I) subjects, loratadine oral clearance values were 7.17+/- 2.54 versus 11.06+/-1.70 versus 14.59+/-2.43 l/h/kg, respectively [one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), p<0.01], and the corresponding metabolic ratios [area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC)(desloratadine)/AUC(loratadine)] were 1.55+/-0.73 versus 2.47+/- 0.46 versus 3.32+/- 0.49, respectively (one-way ANOVA, p<0.05), indicating a gene-dose effect. The results demonstrated that CYP2D6 polymorphism prevalent in the Chinese population significantly affected loratadine pharmacokinetics.

Co-prescription of cytochrome P450 2D6/3A4 inhibitor-substrate pairs in clinical practice. A retrospective analysis of data from Norwegian primary pharmacies

OBJECTIVE

Inhibition of cytochrome P (P450) (CYP) enzymes, in particular CYP3A4 and CYP2D6, is an important drug-interacting mechanism. The objective of our study was to assess how frequently CYP3A4 and CYP2D6 inhibitors are co-prescribed with substrates of the respective enzymes.

METHODS

Included inhibitors were clarithromycin, erythromycin, fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole and nefazodone (CYP3A4 inhibitors) and bupropion, fluoxetine, paroxetine and terbinafine (CYP2D6 inhibitors). The inhibitors were combined with substrates shown to be pharmacokinetically sensitive towards inhibition (190 drug pairs in total). Lists of patients receiving inhibitors and substrates were drawn from prescription databases (approximately 43,500 patients) of three Norwegian primary pharmacies during a 6-month period (July 2002 to January 2003). The lists were matched on name and date of birth to identify patients using drug pairs. Concurrent use was made probable from dates of purchase and drug profiles.

RESULTS

Inhibitors were prescribed to 2,062 patients. Altogether, 369 events of substrate co-prescription were registered. The highest frequencies of co-prescribed substrates were found for paroxetine (101 events per 267 patients, 38%), fluoxetine (36 events per 110 patients, 33%) and clarithromycin (59 events per 242 patients, 24%). The drugs most often detected in combination with inhibitors were codeine (116 events) and metoprolol (38 events) for CYP2D6 and zopiclone (45 events) and simvastatin (26 events) for CYP3A4.

CONCLUSION

Several commonly used CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 inhibitors are frequently co-prescribed with substrates in Norwegian clinical practice. Alertness when inhibitors are prescribed would aid physicians and pharmacists to detect many drug combinations with potential interaction risk.

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.

Emerging safety issues regarding long-term usage of H(1)receptor antagonists

The second generation histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists are important therapeutic tools in the treatment of atopic disease and may also have a place as an adjunct therapy for those patients whose allergic asthma coexists with allergic rhinitis. They are amongst the most widely prescribed and safest drugs in the world. However, as second generation H(1)-receptor antagonists are used to treat non-life threatening conditions, the risk of adverse effects is of vital importance. For many, the potential for sedation by some of the newer antihistamines still remains an issue, while there have recently been widespread concerns regarding the potential for cardiotoxicity and the impact of drug-drug interactions associated with some second generation H(1)-receptor antagonists. Consequently, progress with this class of drugs should involve not only increased efficacy but also improvements in their safety and specificity. Moreover, there is a trend towards using second generation H(1)-receptor antagonists as long-term therapy rather than confining their use to treating the short-term manifestations of allergic disease. To this end, a number of novel, potent and safe antihistamines have been developed which are either metabolites of active drugs or enantiomers. This review will examine some of the safety issues associated with established and newer second generation drugs particularly in relation to their long-term usage in adults and children.

Next generation antihistamines: therapeutic rationale, accomplishments and advances

Antihistamines, among the most commonly prescribed drugs in the world, have evolved considerably since the first generation was introduced >50 years ago. The first generation antihistamines (e.g., chlorpheniramine, diphenhydramine, promethazine and hydroxyzine) are still widely available and in use today. These drugs have considerable sedative effects caused by their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. The next generation of antihistamines to emerge in the market were devoid of these sedative effects; however, two (terfenadine and astemizole) have shown rare but lethal cardiotoxic side effects. The third generation antihistamines, metabolites of the earlier drugs, have demonstrated no cardiac effects of the parent drugs and are at least as potent. Many have exhibited superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacological profiles, including an improved onset of action and duration of effect. The clinical benefit of these newer oral antihistamines will clearly help improve the quality of life of patients with chronic allergies.

Second-generation antihistamines: the OTC debate

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate that the safety profiles of second-generation antihistamines (SGAs) meet the criteria set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for switching these products to over-the-counter (OTC) status.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE search of articles published from 1970 through 2000.

SUMMARY

Most patients with allergic rhinitis treat their symptoms with first-generation antihistamines (FGAs), which are available over-the-counter (OTC). Yet FGAs are generally considered less safe than the newer drugs. FGAs cause central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects and may increase users' risk for work-related injuries and motor vehicle accidents and, in children, for learning impairment. SGAs cause fewer CNS effects, do not appear to affect learning in children, and do not have significant drug interactions. Several other countries have made SGAs available OTC. Blue Cross of California petitioned FDA in July 1998 to make this class of drugs available OTC in the United States. This petition will finally be heard in May 2001. The 1951 Durham-Humphrey amendment to the original Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 requires that "a drug be made available without a prescription if, by following the labeling, consumers can use it safely and effectively without professional guidance." If judged according to this and other criteria promulgated by FDA, SGAs should be strongly considered for being switched to OTC status.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of SGAs have been adequately established. Consumers should have the option of self-treating mild allergic rhinitis symptoms with these products.

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.

Safety of antihistamines in children

The histamine H1 receptor antagonists (antihistamines) are an important class of medications used for the relief of common symptoms associated with hyperhistaminic conditions occurring in children and adults. This group of drugs may be subdivided into 3 classes, or generations, based upon their propensity to induce sedation and cardiotoxicity. The first generation (classical) antihistamines are highly effective in treating hyperhistaminic conditions. However, they frequently induce sedation and may adversely affect a child's learning ability. First generation antihistamine-induced sedation has been described to occur in more than 50% of patients receiving therapeutic dosages. Serious adverse events are unusual following overdoses of first generation antihistamines although life-threatening adverse events have been described. When the so-called 'second generation' antihistamines terfenadine and astemizole were introduced they were widely embraced and quickly used by clinicians of all specialities, including paediatricians, as nonsedating alternatives to the first generation compounds. These new agents were found to be equally or more effective than first generation antihistamines in relieving symptoms associated with hyperhistaminic conditions without the soporific effects of the first generation agents. Unfortunately, after approximately 10 years of widespread clinical use, disturbing reports of potentially life-threatening dysrhythmias, specifically torsades de pointes, were described. Both terfenadine and astemizole have been shown in vitro to inhibit several ion channels, and in particular the delayed outward rectifier potassium channel in the myocardium, predisposing the heart to dysrhythmias. The potential life-threatening cardiotoxicities of the second generation antihistamines led to the search for noncardiotoxic and nonsedating agents. Loratadine, fexofenadine, mizolastine, ebastine, azelastine and cetirizine are the first of the new third generation antihistamines. These drugs have been shown to be efficacious with few adverse events including no clinically relevant cytochrome P450 mediated metabolic-based drug-drug interactions or QT interval prolongation/cardiac dysrhythmias. Appropriate treatment of an antihistamine overdose depends upon which class of compound has been ingested. There is no specific antidote for antihistamine overdose and treatment is supportive particularly for ingestions of first generation compounds. Ingestion of excessive doses of terfenadine or astemizole requires immediate medical attention. Children who accidentally ingest excessive doses of a third generation compound may usually be adequately managed at home. However, patients ingesting large amounts (approximately >3 to 4 times the normal therapeutic daily dose) should receive medical attention. These patients should be monitored for 2 to 3 hours after the ingestion and patients ingesting cetirizine should be advised about the potential for sedation. The availability of newer generation antihistamine compounds has clearly added to the clinical effectiveness and patient tolerance of a widely prescribed class of drugs. These advances have also been accompanied by improved safety profiles, particularly in the case of third generation antihistamine overdose.

Impact of allergic rhinitis treatment on quality of life

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the nasal passages. It affects approximately 20% of the population, is a significant health and economic burden, and severely impairs quality of life. Two main instruments, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form health survey (SF-36) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) have been used to assess quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis. Antihistamines, corticosteroids, anticholinergic agents, decongestants, cromoglycates, and immunotherapy are used to treat patients with allergic rhinitis. Of these, antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are the most efficacious and frequently utilised medications. Studies have demonstrated improvements in quality of life with both of these medications in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and electrocardiographic pharmacodynamics of loratadine with concomitant administration of ketoconazole or cimetidine

AIMS

To evaluate whether ketoconazole or cimetidine alter the pharmacokinetics of loratadine, or its major metabolite, desloratadine (DCL), or alter the effects of loratadine or DCL on electrocardiographic repolarization in healthy adult volunteers.

METHODS

Two randomized, evaluator-blind, multiple-dose, three-way crossover drug interaction studies were performed. In each study, subjects received three 10 day treatments in random sequence, separated by a 14 day washout period. The treatments were loratadine alone, cimetidine or ketoconazole alone, or loratadine plus cimetidine or ketoconazole. The primary study endpoint was the difference in mean QTc intervals from baseline to day 10. In addition, plasma concentrations of loratadine, DCL, and ketoconazole or cimetidine were obtained on day 10.

RESULTS

Concomitant administration of loratadine and ketoconazole significantly increased the loratadine plasma concentrations (307%; 90% CI 205-428%) and DCL concentrations (73%; 62-85%) compared with administration of loratadine alone. Concomitant administration of loratadine and cimetidine significantly increased the loratadine plasma concentrations (103% increase; 70-142%) but not DCL concentrations (6% increase; 1-11%) compared with administration of loratadine alone. Cimetidine or ketoconazole plasma concentrations were unaffected by coadministration with loratadine. Despite increased concentrations of loratadine and DCL, there were no statistically significant differences for the primary electrocardiographic repolarization parameter (QTc) among any of the treatment groups. No other clinically relevant changes in the safety profile of loratadine were observed as assessed by electrocardiographic parameters (mean (90% CI) QTc changes: loratadine vs loratadine + ketoconazole = 3.6 ms (-2.2, 9.4); loratadine vs loratadine + cimetidine = 3.2 ms (-1.6, 7.9)), clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Loratadine 10 mg daily was devoid of any effects on electrocardiographic parameters when coadministered for 10 days with therapeutic doses of ketoconazole or cimetidine in healthy volunteers. It is concluded that, although there was a significant pharmacokinetic drug interaction between ketoconazole or cimetidine and loratadine, this effect was not accompanied by a change in the QTc interval in healthy adult volunteers.

H1-receptor antagonists: safety issues

Histamine is an important neurotransmitter. Old (first-generation) H1-receptor antagonists such as chlorpheniramine, diphenhydramine, or triprolidine produce histamine blockade at H1-receptors in the central nervous system (CNS) and frequently cause somnolence or other CNS adverse effects. New (second generation) H1-antagonists such as cetirizine, fexofenadine, and loratadine represent an advance in therapeutics; in manufacturers' recommended doses, they enter the CNS in smaller amounts, produce relatively little somnolence or other CNS adverse effects, and do not exacerbate the adverse CNS effects of alcohol or other CNS-active chemicals. Two H1-antagonists, astemizole and terfenadine, have been found to prolong the QTc interval and, rarely, to cause cardiac dysrhythmias after overdose or under other specific conditions. This has led to withdrawal of regulatory approval for them. An H1-antagonist absolutely free from adverse effects under all circumstances is not yet available for use.

The metabolism of antihistamines and drug interactions: the role of cytochrome P450 enzymes

The non-sedating antihistamines show a diversity of fates in the body and the parent drugs and metabolites may differ in their biological properties. Clinically significant interactions with inhibitors of cytochrome P450 have been reported primarily for terfenadine, which has the potential for cardiac toxicity, and is metabolized to fexofenadine, an antihistamine without cardiac effects. Astemizole shares many of these characteristics and important safety-related interactions are likely. Loratadine undergoes extensive metabolism so that pharmacokinetic interactions could occur, but they would be of little clinical importance because of the lack of cardiac activity of the parent drug and its metabolites. Ebastine also undergoes pharmacokinetic interactions, the significance of which is dependent on clarification of the extent of any relevant cardiotoxicity of both ebastine and its metabolite. Interactions would not be clinically important for cetirizine and fexofenadine which do not show cardiac effects and are eliminated with little metabolism.

Cardiovascular profile of loratadine

The extremely low reporting rate of cardiovascular adverse events for loratadine, the possible preferential use of loratadine in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disorders, and the impressive lack of cardiovascular effects at extremely high concentrations in clinical and preclinical studies demonstrate the very safe cardiovascular profile of loratadine.

Arrhythmogenic mechanisms of non-sedating antihistamines

Antihistamines (H1-receptor antagonists) are amongst the most frequently prescribed drugs worldwide for the treatment of allergic conditions. Recently, there have been reports that certain non-sedating antihistamines, mainly terfenadine and astemizole, might be associated with the risk of rare but severe arrhythmias, namely torsades de pointes, particularly in overdosage, concomitant ingestion of imidazole or macrolide antibiotics and in patients with underlying cardiac or liver diseases. It has now been shown that the molecular target in human ventricle for the potassium channel blockade of antihistamine is HERG gene located in chromosome 7 that expresses the delayed rectifier IKr and appears to be involved in the congenital long QT syndrome. Mechanistic studies showed that blockade of IKr channels by these drugs leads to prolongation of the monophasic action potential (QT interval on surface electrocardiogram) which may then induce the development of early after-depolarization and dispersion of repolarisation leading to torsades de pointes through re-entry mechanism. There are still many questions that need to be answered such as the roles of other potassium channels (IKs, Ito, and Iped) and the relative expression of various potassium channels in different individuals which may be important in the pathogenesis of torsades de pointes with non-sedating antihistamines. There is also a lack of information on the cardiac actions of newer non-sedating antihistamines. It is hoped that with a better understanding of the arrhythmogenic mechanism of non-sedating antihistamines, one will be able to identify those at risk patients and prevent any cardiac toxicity associated with antihistamines and ultimately death.

Pros and cons of the use of antihistamines in managing allergic rhinitis

Histamine H1 -receptor antagonists are generally considered first-line therapy for the management of allergic rhinitis. Other than histamine antagonism, several of the second-generation antihistamines have also shown inhibitory effects on chemical mediators of inflammation such as leukotrienes, prostaglandins, and kinins. This article reviews the pharmacology, clinical use, and side effect profiles of the commonly used H1 -receptor antagonists.

Second-generation antihistamines: the risk of ventricular arrhythmias

Some second-generation antihistamines, notably terfenadine and astemizole, have been associated with prolongation of the QT interval and the development of torsades de pointes, a potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmia. This rare adverse event has been associated with greatly elevated blood levels of these agents, resulting from drug overdose, hepatic insufficiency (dysfunction), or interactions with other drugs that inhibit their metabolism. This paper reviews the data concerning the effects of selected second-generation antihistamines on cardiac conduction, particularly the QT interval, to evaluate whether ventricular arrhythmias are a class effect of these agents. Electrocardiographic studies indicate that terfenadine and astemizole, but not loratadine or cetirizine, prolong the QT interval in laboratory animals. In vitro studies demonstrate that terfenadine and astemizole block the cardiac K+ channels, leading to delayed ventricular repolarization and QT-interval prolongation; in contrast, neither loratadine nor its metabolite, desloratadine, significantly inhibits cardiac K+ channels at clinically achievable blood levels. Studies in human volunteers confirm the absence of electrocardiographic effects of azelastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and loratadine administered at several times the recommended dose or concomitantly with agents that inhibit their metabolism and elimination. In conclusion, the data indicate that the potential to cause ventricular arrhythmias is not a class effect of second-generation antihistamines and that loratadine, cetirizine, azelastine, and fexofenadine are not associated with torsades de pointes or other ventricular arrhythmias.

Molecular basis for the lack of HERG K+ channel block-related cardiotoxicity by the H1 receptor blocker cetirizine compared with other second-generation antihistamines

In the current study, the potential blocking ability of K+ channels encoded by the human ether-a-go-go related gene (HERG) by the piperazine H1 receptor antagonist cetirizine has been examined and compared with that of other second-generation antihistamines (astemizole, terfenadine, and loratadine). Cetirizine was completely devoid of any inhibitory action on HERG K+ channels heterologously expressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes in concentrations up to 30 microM. On the other hand, terfenadine and astemizole effectively blocked HERG K+ channels with nanomolar affinities (the estimated IC50 values were 330 and 480 nM, respectively), whereas loratadine was approximately 300-fold less potent (IC50 approximately 100 microM). In addition, in contrast to terfenadine, cetirizine did not show use-dependent blockade. In SH-SY5Y cells, a human neuroblastoma clone that constitutively expresses K+ currents carried by HERG channels (IHERG), as well as in human embryonic kidney 293 cells stably transfected with HERG cDNA, extracellular perfusion with 3 microM cetirizine did not exert any inhibitory action on IHERG. Astemizole (3 microM), on the other hand, was highly effective. Terfenadine (3 microM) caused a marked (approximately 80%) inhibition of IHERG in SH-SY5Y cells, whereas loratadine, at the same concentration, caused a 40% blockade. Furthermore, the application of cetirizine (3 microM) on the intracellular side of the membrane of HERG-transfected human embryonic kidney 293 cells did not affect IHERG, whereas the same intracellular concentration of astemizole caused a complete block. The results of the current study suggest that second-generation antihistamines display marked differences in their ability to block HERG K+ channels. Cetirizine in particular, which possesses more polar and smaller substituent groups attached to the tertiary amine compared with other antihistamines, lacks HERG-blocking properties, possibly explaining the absence of torsade de pointes ventricular arrhythmias associated with its therapeutical use.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics and electrocardiographic pharmacodynamics of clarithromycin and loratadine after individual or concomitant administration

To evaluate the potential for an interaction between clarithromycin and loratadine, healthy male volunteers (n = 24) received each of the following regimens according to a randomized crossover design: 500 mg of clarithromycin orally every 12 h (q12h) for 10 days, 10 mg of loratadine orally q24h for 10 days, and the combination of clarithromycin and loratadine. A washout interval of 14 days separated regimens. The addition of loratadine did not statistically significantly affect the steady-state pharmacokinetics of clarithromycin or its active metabolite, 14(R)-hydroxy-clarithromycin. However, the addition of clarithromycin statistically significantly altered the steady-state maximum observed plasma concentration and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve over a dosing interval for loratadine (+36 and +76%, respectively) and for descarboethoxyloratadine (DCL), the active metabolite of loratadine (+69 and +49%, respectively). Clarithromycin probably inhibits the oxidative metabolism of loratadine and DCL by the cytochrome P-450 3A subfamily. Electrocardiograms (n = 12) were obtained over 24-h periods at baseline and steady state (day 10). The mean maximum QTc interval and area under the QTc interval-time curve on day 10 were modestly increased (<3%) from baseline for all three regimens, but no QTc interval exceeded 439 ms for any subject. Elevated steady-state concentrations of loratadine and DCL do not appear to be associated with adverse cardiovascular effects related to prolongation of the QTc interval. Loratadine and clarithromycin were well tolerated, alone and in combination.

Evaluation of the potential cardiotoxicity of the antihistamines terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine, and cetirizine in atopic children

BACKGROUND

Adverse cardiac effects have been related to the use of H1-receptor antagonists terfenadine and astemizole.

OBJECTIVE

We have investigated the cardiac effects of the H1-receptor antagonists terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine and cetirizine, used in recommended doses, concomitantly or not with the antibiotic erythromycin.

METHODS

A group of 80 children aged 5 to 12 years was studied. All children had been diagnosed with perennial allergic rhinitis based on symptoms, clinical signs and a positive immediate skin test to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. The children had no personal history of cardiac disease or hepatic dysfunction, and they had a normal electrocardiogram (ECG) at the beginning of the study. Forty children had allergic rhinitis and sinusitis, and were assigned to subgroups of ten children who received terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine, or cetirizine, concomitantly with erythromycin, for 14 days. Erythromycin was started to treat presumed bacterial infection in children with complete radiologic opacification of the maxillary sinus(es). The remaining 40 children had no sinusitis, and were assigned to subgroups of 10 children who received terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine, or cetirizine for 14 days.

RESULTS

No significant changes in the QT interval and QTc (QT corrected by Bazzett's equation) were observed among children who received astemizole, loratadine or cetirizine, with or without erythromycin. Children who have received terfenadine and erythromycin showed significantly prolonged QT interval (mean pretreatment and posttreatment values 0.32s and 0.34s, respectively). Analysis of the QTc interval, however, showed no significant differences in the group treated with terfenadine and erythromycin (mean values 0.39s and 0.39s, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that H1-receptor antagonists terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine and cetirizine, administered with or without erythromycin, to atopic children in recommended doses, do not induce adverse cardiac effects. Although the association between terfenadine and erythromycin has caused a statistically significant increase in QT interval measurements, the magnitude of these changes was below levels considered cardiotoxic or clinically relevant.

Drug-drug interactions involving antidepressants: focus on venlafaxine

Selection of an antidepressant is influenced by many factors, including the patient's current drug regimen and the drug's potential for drug-drug interactions. Many psychotropic agents are known to be involved in drug-drug interactions because they are metabolized by various cytochrome pigment 450 (CYP) isoenzymes. In vitro testing with human hepatic microsomal preparations and monoclonal antibody techniques has allowed for the identification and investigation of many of these isoenzymes. Also, screening of substrates (both drug and probe) at the level of the various enzymes expressed in the human liver has allowed for the development of models that predict the risk for drug-drug interactions in vivo. Antidepressants are metabolized by and are competitive inhibitors of several isoenzymes: CYP1A2, CYP2D6, CYP3A3/4, CYP2C8/9, CYP2C19, and others. Of these, CYP2D6 has been the most thoroughly investigated and is the most extensively characterized, whereas CYP3A3/4 are more abundant and play a major role in the metabolism of many commonly used drugs. CYP2D6, but not CYP3A3/4, is subject to genetic polymorphism, which has been identified through the administration of a probe drug (sparteine, debrisoquin, or dextromethorphan). This analysis allows for the determination of an individual's "metabolizer status." This article discusses the CYP isoenzyme system in general terms and presents selected in vitro information that has been used to determine the likelihood of in vivo drug-drug interactions with various antidepressants. Of the marketed antidepressants, venlafaxine seems to have one of the most favorable drug-interaction profiles, and data specific to it are highlighted. In vitro and in vivo data indicate that venlafaxine either does not significantly inhibit or weakly inhibits the activity of isoenzymes CYP2C9, CYP2D6, CYP1A2, or CYP3A3/4.