Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of terfenadine and chlorpheniramine in the elderly

Overview of premedication prescription and intake in an oncology day hospital: What do we need to change to improve patient management?

BACKGROUND

Premedication of cancer therapy against nausea and vomiting (NV) and hypersensitivity reaction (HS) is essential for good patient management. However, this prescription is not always optimal. Today, as a large part of cancer therapies are administered in day hospitals (DH), premedication taken on the day of the cancer treatment is injected as a 30-min infusion.

OBJECTIVE

To assess compliance with recommendations for premedication prescription and intake; to analyse patient attitude about switching to exclusively oral forms taken at home.

METHOD

The study is conducted in the medical oncology DH of a French Hospital from 17 January to 25 February 2022. The data collection is carried out as an individual interview, associated with the distribution of two questionnaires. Data are coupled with the premedication set up on our software and the last medical report. Intakes are considered optimal when recommendations, tolerance, background, and adherence of the patient are taken into account.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were included for interviews. Regarding software prescriptions, our configuration was consistent with recommendations in 100% of cases for HS and 37% for NV. Intakes were compliant in 51.4% of cases, non-compliant in 17.1% and debatable in 31.5%. Disparities between the practices of different physicians were identified. Regarding the feasibility of oral substitution, it could concern 63.5% of patients.

CONCLUSION

This work makes it possible to improve the management of all patients and to make the operation of the care unit more fluid.

Diphenhydramine: Time to Move on?

Diphenhydramine is one of the most widely available, longest-used antihistamine medications but has many side effects including sedation and risk of toxicity in overdose including cardiac toxicity. It is frequently inappropriately used when newer, more favorable antihistamine medications are available. Second-generation antihistamines are also widely available and affordable, with many of the same desired effects as diphenhydramine and fewer, if any, of the undesirable side effects. Because of the negative side effects and wide availability of alternative antihistamine medications, it is definitively time to move on from diphenhydramine.

A randomized double-blind feasibility study comparing cetirizine and diphenhydramine in the prevention of paclitaxel-associated infusion-related reactions: the PREMED-F1 study

Purpose

Cetirizine is a less sedative alternative to diphenhydramine for the prevention of infusion-related reactions (IRR) to paclitaxel. However, its use remains controversial. In this study, we assessed feasibility for a future definitive non-inferiority trial comparing cetirizine to diphenhydramine as premedication to prevent paclitaxel-related IRR.

Methods

This was a single-center randomized prospective feasibility study. Participants were paclitaxel-naive cancer patients scheduled to start paclitaxel chemotherapy. They were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous diphenhydramine 50 mg + oral placebo (control) or intravenous placebo + oral cetirizine 10 mg (intervention) for their first two paclitaxel treatments. The percentage of eligible patients completing a first paclitaxel treatment and the recruitment rate were assessed (feasibility outcomes). Drowsiness was measured at baseline and at selected time points using the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS) (safety outcome). IRR events were also documented (efficacy outcome).

Results

Among 37 eligible patients, 27 were recruited and randomized (control 13; intervention 14) and 25 completed the study. The recruitment rate was 4.8 participants/month, meeting the primary feasibility target. Drowsiness was the main adverse effect associated with the premedication. The increase in drowsiness compared to baseline (ΔSSS) was greater in the diphenhydramine group compared to the cetirizine group (median ΔSSS 2 (IQR 3.25) vs median ΔSSS 0 (IQR 1), p < 0.01) when measured one hour after the premedication administration. One participant had an IRR and no unexpected serious adverse event occurred.

Conclusion

The trial methods were feasible in terms of recruitment, retention, and safety. Cetirizine was significantly less sedating than diphenhydramine. IRR were infrequent and a larger trial is warranted to confirm non-inferiority for IRR prevention.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04237090 (22.01.2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06734-4.

Structural and clinical impact of anti-allergy agents: An overview

Allergic disorders are markedly rising in industrialized countries. The identification of compounds that trigger the immunoglobulin E (IgE)-dependent allergic reaction remain the means to improve the quality of life by limiting patient's exposure to critical allergens. Information concerning the treatment and onset of allergic disorders including atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and bronchial asthma has been provided by the research over the past decade. Recent studies also indicated that allergic inflammation is associated closely with their exacerbation and progression and indeed is the basic pathophysiology of allergic diseases. As a result of immunological and molecular biological studies our understanding of the mechanism of allergic inflammation with regard to therapeutic agents has improved. While much effort has been paid to developing a new anti-allergic agent, the allergic disease has yet to be completely conquered. The more extensive research will allow the development of new therapeutics to combat allergic diseases. Currently, with respect to mechanism of action anti-allergy drugs are classified into five types including histamine H₁ antagonists, leukotriene antagonists, Th₂ cytokine inhibitors, thromboxane A₂ inhibitors and mediator-release inhibitors. The use of two or more anti-allergy agents together is not acknowledged at present, but this will be the subject of research in the future because with different mechanisms of action anti-allergy agents used at the same time will theoretically increase their effects. This review article focuses on anti-allergy agents highlighting their applications, clinical trials and recent advancement on drugs.

CSACI position statement: Newer generation H1-antihistamines are safer than first-generation H1-antihistamines and should be the first-line antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria

Oral H₁-antihistamines (AHs) are the most commonly used therapy to treat allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. Older, first-generation AHs (e.g. diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine) have significant and common side effects including sedation, impairment with decreased cognitive function, poor sleep quality, dry mouth, dizziness, and orthostatic hypotension. These drugs have also been found to result in death from accidents, intentional or unintentional overdoses, and sudden cardiac death. The unfavourable risk–benefit profile of first-generation AHs led to the development of newer, less-sedating second- and third-generation AHs, which first became available in Canada in the 1980s. High-quality trials have proven that newer generation AHs are superior in safety compared to older first-generation AHs. On average, they have improved potency and efficacy. Second- and third-generation AHs are the recommended first-line treatment for mild allergic rhinitis and acute and chronic urticaria. Despite this evidence, older first-generation AHs continue to be over-utilized because of their over-the-counter (OTC) status and long history of use. The Canadian Society of Allergy Clinical Immunology (CSACI) recommends that newer generation AHs should be preferred over first-generation AHs for the treatment of allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and urticaria. To promote this recommendation, education of health professionals and the public is necessary. Further, given the dangers of older first-generation AHs, we believe they should be used only as a last resort with eventual consideration given to having them only available behind the counter in pharmacies.

Inhibitory effect of Phlai capsules on skin test responses among allergic rhinitis patients: a randomized, three-way crossover study

BACKGROUND

Zingiber cassumunar Roxb., commonly known as Phlai in Thai, has been used as a traditional medicine in Thailand for the treatment of various diseases, including inflammation and chronic airway disease.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the antihistaminic effect of Phlai on skin testing.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION

This was a randomized, open-label, three-way crossover study. Twenty allergic rhinitis (AR) patients were enrolled. In randomized sequence, patients received a single dose of Phlai capsules (100 or 200 mg) or loratadine (10 mg) with a washout period of 1 week between each treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Skin prick testing for histamine and common aeroallergen (house dust mite) were performed before treatment and after 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 hours of treatment. The main treatment outcomes were the mean wheal and flare responses to the skin prick test after treatment.

RESULTS

Both 100 mg and 200 mg Phlai doses suppressed wheal and flare responses to house dust mite allergen, but only 200 mg of Phlai capsules significantly suppressed wheal and flare responses to histamine. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed that loratadine caused more wheal and flare suppression than Phlai capsules in responses to the histamine skin prick test. However, there were no significant differences among the effects of 100 mg Phlai capsules, 200 mg Phlai capsules and loratadine in suppression of wheal and flare induced by the mite skin prick test. Both doses of Phlai were well-tolerated with no adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Both 100 mg (compound D 4 mg) and 200 mg (compound D 8 mg) Phlai capsules, when taken as a single therapeutic dose, inhibited skin reactivity to histamine and mite skin prick tests in AR patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Thai clinical trial registry (TCTR20160510001).

Effects of histamine H1 receptor signaling on glucocorticoid receptor activity. Role of canonical and non-canonical pathways

Histamine H1 receptor (H1R) antagonists and glucocorticoid receptor (GR) agonists are used to treat inflammatory conditions such as allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis and asthma. Consistent with the high morbidity levels of such inflammatory conditions, these receptors are the targets of a vast number of approved drugs, and in many situations their ligands are co-administered. However, this drug association has no clear rationale and has arisen from clinical practice. We hypothesized that H1R signaling could affect GR-mediated activity, impacting on its transcriptional outcome. Indeed, our results show a dual regulation of GR activity by the H1R: a potentiation mediated by G-protein βγ subunits and a parallel inhibitory effect mediated by Gαq-PLC pathway. Activation of the H1R by its full agonists resulted in a composite potentiating effect. Intriguingly, inactivation of the Gαq-PLC pathway by H1R inverse agonists resulted also in a potentiation of GR activity. Moreover, histamine and clinically relevant antihistamines synergized with the GR agonist dexamethasone to induce gene transactivation and transrepression in a gene-specific manner. Our work provides a delineation of molecular mechanisms underlying the widespread clinical association of antihistamines and GR agonists, which may contribute to future dosage optimization and reduction of well-described side effects associated with glucocorticoid administration.

Double-Blind, Crossover Comparison of Olopatadine and CetirizineversusPlacebo: Suppressive Effects on Skin Response to Histamine Iontophoresis

Olopathadine, a newly developed histamine H1-receptor antagonist, was compared with cetirizine in its suppressive effects on histamine-induced wheal and flare reaction using an iontophoresis technique in a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled fashion. As a result, olopathadine was found to have effects comparable to cetirizine. This finding may predict the efficacy of this new H1-antagonist in treating pruritic skin diseases.

Comparison of on-site and photographic evaluations of the suppressive effects of cetirizine, loratadine, and fexofenadine on skin response to histamine lontophoresis: A double-blind, crossover study in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

The standard method used to determine the potency of antihistaminesis to assess the degree of suppression of skin response to histamine challenge.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of 3 antihistaminesusing a histamine challenge test and the usefulness of on-site evaluation with that of photographic evaluation of skin-test reactions.

METHODS

In this prospective, double-blind, crossover study, healthy volunteerswere given cetirizine 5 mg (CTZ-5) and 10 mg (CTZ-10), loratadine 10 mg (LOR), fexofenadine 60 mg BID (FEX), and placebo (PLC), in a randomly assigned order, with an interval of at least 1 week between treatments. Before and 0.5 to 24 hours after administration, the areas of flare and wheal induced by histamine iontophoresis were measured directly (on site) by 1 evaluator and by another evaluator using photographic images on a computer monitor.

RESULTS

Ten healthy volunteers (6 men, 4 women; mean age, 28.2 years[range, 20-39 years]; mean weight, 60.7 kg [range, 41-81 kg]) were enrolled. The data from 9 subjects were analyzed; the data from 1 subject were omitted because the subject used an over-the-counter cold medication containing diphenhydramine several times during the study. By both methods, all antihistamines were shown to suppress flare significantly from 4 to 24 hours after administration. CTZ was most potent in suppressing both flare and wheal. For flare, the areas as measured using on-site evaluation were larger overall than those measured using photographic evaluation, but the shapes of the time-course graphs were similar for both. Overall, the flare area measurements started to decrease significantly from baseline values 4 hours after drug administration, reached a nadir at 10.5 hours, and remained significantly lower compared with baseline values at 24 hours. Comparisons between antihistamines showed significant differences in mean flare areas between the 2 doses of CTZ and LOR from 8 to 12 hours after administration in both evaluation methods. The wheal areas were significantly reduced from baseline values by most of the antihistamines 4 to 12 hours after drug administration, reached their lowest values at 10.5 hours, and returned to near-baseline values at 24 hours. Comparisons with PLC values at each time point, however, showed significant differences only for CTZ-5 and CTZ-10 from 4 to 12 hours after administration. Comparison between antihistamines showed significant differences in mean flare areas between the 2 doses of CTZ and LOR from 8 to 12 hours after administration in both evaluation methods. Although the flare areas measured by both methods correlated linearly (r = 0.90; P < 0.001), the correlation for wheal areas was weaker (r = 0.76; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study in healthy volunteers, single doses of CTZ 5 mg and CTZ 10 mg were more potent compared with single-dose LOR 10 mg and FEX 60 mg BID in suppressing skin response. Although linear correlations were found between skin-response areas, as measured by on-site and photographic evaluation, it was difficult to differentiate between wheal and flare by photographic evaluation, especially when a typical wheal was suppressed to slightly edematous erythema by antihistamines.

Bivalent transition metal complexes of cetirizine: spectroscopic, equilibrium studies and biological activity

Metal complexes of cetirizine·2HCl (CTZ=2-[2-[4-[(4-chlorophenyl)phenyl methyl]piperazine-1-yl]-ethoxy]acetic acid, dihydrochloride have been prepared and characterized by elemental analyses, IR, solid reflectance, magnetic moment, molar conductance, and UV-Vis spectra. The analytical data of the complexes show the formation of 1:2 [M:L] ratio, where M represents Ni(II), Co(II) and Cu(II) ions, while L represents the deprotonated CTZ ligand. IR spectra show that CTZ is coordinated to the metal ions in a monodentate manner through carboxylate-O atom. Protonation equilibria of CTZ and its metal complexation by some divalent metal ions were determined in aqueous solution at constant ionic strength (0.1 M NaCl) using an automatic potentiometric technique. Thermodynamic parameters for the protonation equilibria of CTZ were calculated and discussed. The stability order of M(II)-CTZ complexes were found to obey Mn(2+)<Co(2+)<Ni(2+)<Cu(2+), in accordance with the Irving-Williams order. The concentration distribution of the complexes in solution is evaluated as a function of pH. The CTZ ligand and its metal complexes were screened for their biological activity against bacterial species (Bacillus subtillis RCMB 010067, Staphylococcus aureus RCMB 010028, Pseudomonas aeuroginosa RCMB 010043, and Escherichia coli RCMB 010052) and fungi as (Aspergillus flavus RCMB 02568, Pencicillium italicum RCMB 03924, Candida albicans RCMB 05031 and Geotricum candidum RCMB 05097). The activity data show that the metal complexes have antibacterial and antifungal activity more than the parent CTZ ligand against one or more bacterial or fungi species. MIC was evaluated for the isolated complexes.

Comparison of effects of 5 and 10 mg oral desloratadine and levocetirizine on histamine-induced wheal and flare response in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Levocetirizine and desloratadine are mostly used as H1-antihistamines in the treatment of allergic disease in 5 and 10 mg doses.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the efficacy of single oral dosages of 5 and 10 mg desloratadine and levocetirizine were compared by using histamine-induced wheal and flare reactions.

METHODS

Eighty healthy volunteers were randomized for four double-blinded treatment with desloratadine 5 and 10 mg and levocetirizine 5 and 10 mg. Wheal and flare responses were produced by histamine. Measurements were performed just before the ingestion of antihistamines (baseline) and afterward at 30, 60, 240 min and 24 h. The values obtained for each antihistamine were compared with baseline values.

RESULTS

It was found that except the flare reactions at 30th min, levocetirizine 5 and 10 mg suppressed histamine-induced wheal and flare reactions more than desloratadine 5 and 10 mg did. There were not any significant differences between desloratadine 5 and 10 mg in all periods. Levocetirizine 10 mg suppressed wheal and flare reactions significantly more than levocetirizine 5 mg only at 24th h.

CONCLUSION

In this study, it was observed that levocetirizine 5 and 10 mg had a higher activity than desloratadine 5 and 10 mg.

Development of biomarkers to optimize pediatric patient management: what makes children different?

Despite the frequent utilization of biomarkers in medical practice, there is a relative paucity of information regarding validated pediatric biomarkers. Frequently, biomarkers found to be efficacious in adults are extrapolated to the pediatric clinical setting without considering that the pathogenesis of many diseases is distinctly different in children, and ontogeny directly influences disease evolution and therapeutic response in children. New and innovative approaches are necessary to provide reliable, validated biomarkers that can be used to improve and advance pediatric medical care.

Effects of single therapeutic doses of promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine on psychomotor function and histamine-induced wheal- and flare-responses: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study in healthy volunteers

Since most first-generation antihistamines have undesirable sedative effects on the central nervous systems (CNS), newer (second-generation) antihistamines have been developed to improve patients’ quality of life. However, there are few reports that directly compare the antihistaminic efficacy and impairment of psychomotor functions. We designed a double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study to concurrently compare the clinical effectiveness of promethazine, a first-generation antihistamine, and fexofenadine and olopatadine, second-generation antihistamines, by measuring their potency as peripheral inhibitors of histamine-induced wheal and flare. Further, we investigated their sedative effects on the CNS using a battery of psychomotor tests. When single therapeutic doses of fexofenadine (60 mg), olopatadine (5 mg) and promethazine (25 mg) were given in a double-blind manner to 24 healthy volunteers, all antihistamines produced a significant reduction in the wheal and flare responses induced by histamine. In the comparison among antihistamines, olopatadine showed a rapid inhibitory effect compared with fexofenadine and promethazine, and had a potent effect compared with promethazine. In a battery of psychomotor assessments using critical flicker fusion, choice reaction time, compensatory tracking, rapid visual information processing and a line analogue rating scale as a subjective assessment of sedation, promethazine significantly impaired psychomotor function. Fexofenadine and olopatadine had no significant effect in any of the psychomotor tests. Promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine did not affect behavioral activity, as measured by wrist actigraphy. These results suggest that olopatadine at a therapeutic dose has greater antihistaminergic activity than promethazine, and olopatadine and fexofenadine did not cause cognitive or psychomotor impairment.

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of the antihistaminic (H1) effect of bilastine

OBJECTIVE

To model the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationship of bilastine, a new histamine H(1) receptor antagonist, from single- and multiple-dose studies in healthy adult subjects.

METHODS

The pharmacokinetic model was developed from different single-dose and multiple-dose studies. In the single-dose studies, a total of 183 subjects received oral doses of bilastine 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 120, 160, 200 and 220 mg. In the multiple-dose studies, 127 healthy subjects received bilastine 10, 20, 40, 50, 80, 100, 140 or 200 mg/day as multiple doses during a 4-, 7- or 14-day period. The pharmacokinetic profile of bilastine was investigated using a simultaneous analysis of all concentration-time data by means of nonlinear mixed-effects modelling population pharmacokinetic software NONMEM version 6.1. Plasma concentrations were modelled according to a two-compartment open model with first-order absorption and elimination. For the pharmacodynamic analysis, the inhibitory effect of bilastine (inhibition of histamine-induced wheal and flare) was assessed on a preselected time schedule, and the predicted typical pharmacokinetic profile (based on the pharmacokinetic model previously developed) was used. An indirect response model was developed to describe the pharmacodynamic relationships between flare or wheal areas and bilastine plasma concentrations. Finally, once values of the concentration that produced 50% inhibition (IC(50)) had been estimated for wheal and flare effects, simulations were carried out to predict plasma concentrations for the doses of bilastine 5, 10 and 20 mg at steady state (72-96 hours).

RESULTS

A non-compartmental analysis resulted in linear kinetics of bilastine in the dose range studied. Bilastine was characterized by two-compartmental kinetics with a rapid-absorption phase (first-order absorption rate constant = 1.50 h(-1)), plasma peak concentrations were observed at 1 hour following administration and the maximal response was observed at approximately 4 hours or later. Concerning the selected pharmacodynamic model to fit the data (type I indirect response model), this selection is attributable to the presence of inhibitory bilastine plasma concentrations that decrease the input response function, i.e. the production of the skin reaction. This model resulted in the best fit of wheal and flare data. The estimates (with relative standard errors expressed in percentages in parentheses) of the apparent zero-order rate constant for flare or wheal spontaneous appearance (k(in)), the first-order rate constant for flare or wheal disappearance (k(out)) and bilastine IC(50) values were 0.44 ng/mL/h (14.60%), 1.09 h(-1) (15.14%) and 5.15 ng/mL (16.16%), respectively, for wheal inhibition, and 11.10 ng/mL/h (8.48%), 1.03 h(-1) (8.35%) and 1.25 ng/mL (14.56%), respectively, for flare inhibition. The simulation results revealed that bilastine plasma concentrations do not remain over the IC(50) value throughout the inter-dose period for doses of 5 and 10 mg. However, with a dose of 20 mg of bilastine administered every 24 hours, plasma concentrations remained over the IC(50) value during the considered period for the flare effect, and up to 20 hours for the wheal effect.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationships of bilastine were reliably described with the use of an indirect response pharmacodynamic model; this led to an accurate prediction of the pharmacodynamic activity of bilastine.

Treating rhinitis in the older population: special considerations

Rhinitis in the elderly is a common but often neglected condition. Structural changes in the nose associated with aging, predisposes the elderly to rhinitis. There are a number of specific factors that affect medical treatment of the elderly including polypharmacy, cognitive dysfunction, changes in body composition, impairment of liver and renal function and the cost of medications in the face of limited resources. Rhinitis in the elderly can be placed in several categories and treatment should be appropriate for each condition. The most important aim is to moisten the nasal mucosa since the nose of the elderly is so dry. Great caution should be used in treatment with first generation antihistamines and decongestants. Medications generally well tolerated by the elderly are second generation antihistamines, intra-nasal anti-inflammatory agents, leukotriene modifiers and iprapropium nasal spray.

Effect of azelastine nasal spray on histamine-and allergen-induced skin wheal response in patients with allergic rhinitis

Effect of azelastine nasal spray on histamine-and allergen-induced skin test response in patients suffering with allergic rhinitis was evaluated. Baseline cutaneous response to histamine and 18 common allergen extracts were recorded by skin prick tests on 10 patients. The patients were then advised to take azelastine nasal spray (1 spray per nostril, twice daily; 0.28 mg/dose). This pediatric dose is reported to be effective also in adults (age > or = 12 years) with improved tolerability as compared with usually recommended adult dose of 2 sprays per nostril twice daily. Skin tests were repeated 2 and 6 hours after single dose, as well as after 6 days of continuous treatment. We did not find any significant difference in skin wheal response with single dose and 6 days' treatment of azelastine nasal spray (p > 0.05). It is concluded that diagnostic allergen skin tests may be performed on patients undergoing azelastine nasal spray treatment (0.28 mg/dose, twice a day) during their symptomatic period.

Time-dependent inhibition of histamine-induced cutaneous responses by oral and intramuscular diphenhydramine and oral fexofenadine

BACKGROUND

Diphenhydramine is often the treatment of choice for acute urticarial or allergic reactions despite its adverse effects of sedation and impairment. Second- and third-generation histamine1-antihistamines are generally devoid of these adverse effects but are typically not used because of a perceived slower onset of action.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the time-dependent effects of oral fexofenadine and oral and intramuscular diphenhydramine to reduce histamine-induced wheal-and-flare responses.

METHODS

Eighteen healthy patients were included in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-way, randomized, crossover study with oral fexofenadine (180 mg) and oral and intramuscular diphenhydramine (50 mg). Histamine-induced skin tests were performed before and more than 6 hours subsequent to dosing. The primary end point was time to induce a 50% reduction in histamine-induced flare. Secondary end points included change from baseline at each time point in wheal-and-flare responses and area under the curve at more than 6 hours for flare.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in the 50% inhibitory responses of histamine-induced flares among the 3 groups (P = .09). No significant differences were found among the 3 groups in change from baseline at each time point except for 30 minutes during which fexofenadine had no inhibitory effect. Area under the curve analyses for wheal-and-flare responses revealed no differences among treatments at more than 6 hours.

CONCLUSION

Diphenhydramine tended to work more rapidly than fexofenadine, but the differences were not statistically significant. Given the adverse effect profile of diphenhydramine, but only marginal onset of action advantage, the risk-to-benefit ratio may be more favorable for oral fexofenadine when treating an acute urticarial or allergic reaction.

Some pharmacokinetic aspects of the lipophilic terfenadine and zwitterionic fexofenadine in humans

Fexofenadine, an active metabolite of the second-generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist (antihistamine) terfenadine, does not have the disadvantage of QT prolongation. In addition, unlike first-generation antihistamines, it is associated with few CNS adverse effects. Chemically, fexofenadine has a zwitterionic structure that makes it an interesting molecule for use as an oral drug. Fexo-fenadine has negligible hepatic metabolism in humans, and is recovered mainly in the faeces in an unchanged form after oral administration. The absolute oral bioavailability of fexofenadine in humans is not known because of a lack of studies of intravenous administration of this agent. Its apparent elimination half-life (t1/2) ranges from 3 to 17 hours and is highly dependent on study design, i.e. the length of blood sampling. This large discrepancy might be associated with a 'flip-flop' phenomenon caused by slow absorption of the zwitterionic molecule. This review summarises the available literature related to the absorption, elimination and excretion of fexofenadine and terfenadine. Based on these data, the volume of distribution, t1/2 and oral bioavailability of fexofenadine in humans are estimated. Understanding these pharmacokinetic aspects of this drug might be very useful for medicinal chemists utilising fexofenadine/terfenadine as an example for designing zwitterionic compounds to combat cardiotoxicity and other issues related to basic and lipophilic molecules.

Inhibition of the histamine-induced weal and flare response: a valid surrogate measure for antihistamine clinical efficacy?

Histamine plays a central role in allergic responses. Inhibition of the weal and flare response to histamine is a traditional pharmacodynamic tool to measure the activity of H(1)-receptor antagonists. The time course and duration of cutaneous weal and flare inhibition are often used as surrogate measures of clinical efficacy. Pharmacodynamic differences among antihistamines are often interpreted to indicate differences in clinical efficacy. A systematic review of literature from 1980 to 2006 regarding the histamine induced weal and flare was undertaken. Search terms included 'histamine', 'skin test', 'weal', 'flare', and 'antihistamine'; retrieved articles were searched for relevant studies not identified initially. Data from human studies on the inhibition of the weal and flare by second-generation antihistamines were extracted and assessed. A literature search from 1980 to 2006 was undertaken for comparative studies of second-generation antihistamines in the clinical settings of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria; data extracted from these studies underwent systematic review. Differences were noted among second-generation antihistamines in terms of their ability to inhibit the histamine-induced weal and flare. Corresponding differences in terms of clinical efficacy in AR and chronic urticaria were not identified following a systematic review. The reasons for the disconnect between pharmacodynamic effects and clinical efficacy may include differences between the route and concentration of histamine, the involvement of mediators other than histamine in the allergic response, and the short time course of pharmacodynamic studies. The histamine-induced weal and flare response is a pharmacodynamic test that should not be used to compare the clinical efficacy of different antihistamines, and is not an adequate alternative to clinical end-point assessments in AR or chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Pediatric Allergic Rhinitis: Factors Affecting Treatment Choice

Allergic rhinitis is the most prevalent chronic allergic disease in children. Although it is not life-threatening, it can have a significantly detrimental effect on a child's quality of life, and it may exacerbate a number of common comorbidities, including asthma and sinusitis. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines, an evidence-based algorithm for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, advocate the use of antihistamines for the treatment of the broad spectrum of the disease. However, first-generation antihistamines are associated with a number of adverse events, including central nervous system impairment and anticholinergic and cardiovascular effects. Moreover, these agents have not been rigorously tested in the pediatric population. Nevertheless, first-generation antihistamines remain the most frequently prescribed agents in this class of drugs. This is despite the fact that the second-generation antihistamines are largely free of the undesirable side effects associated with their predecessors and the fact that they have been shown to be effective in relieving allergic rhinitis symptoms in children in a number of large-scale clinical trials. Therefore, when selecting an antihistamine for a child, it would be prudent to consider the full range of antihistamines and to base the selection of a particular drug on its efficacy, onset and duration of action, and safety profile.

Similar rapid onset of action and magnitude of effect of fexofenadine and cetirizine as assessed by inhibition of histamine-induced wheal-and-flare reaction

BACKGROUND

Histamine-induced wheal-and-flare studies are useful, objective tests for determining differences in the peripheral H1-receptor blockade activities of antihistamines.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the time of occurrence of 95% inhibition of histamine-induced wheal and flare after administration of fexofenadine hydrochloride, 180 mg, or cetirizine, 10 mg.

METHODS

Forty-two volunteers (aged 18-60 years) were included in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Skin prick tests were undertaken using histamine (100 mg/mL) before treatment and 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 hours after treatment. Wheal and flare areas were evaluated, and the time to occurrence of 95% inhibition and the frequency of subjects exhibiting 95% inhibition before median time to 95% inhibition were calculated.

RESULTS

Mean +/- SD time to 95% wheal inhibition was 2.46 +/- 0.71 hours with fexofenadine and 2.55 +/- 0.57 hours with cetirizine. The estimated mean difference between fexofenadine and cetirizine (-7 minutes in favor of fexofenadine; 2-sided 95% confidence interval, -21 to +7 minutes) was not statistically significant (P = .34). For wheal, 29% of subjects receiving fexofenadine and 24% receiving cetirizine achieved 95% inhibition before the median time of inhibition (2.5 hours). An exact permutation test yielded a P = .37. For flare, 26% of subjects receiving fexofenadine and 10% receiving cetirizine achieved 95% inhibition before the median time of inhibition (3 hours; P = .12 by exact permutation test).

CONCLUSIONS

Fexofenadine and cetirizine have comparable onset of action times and similar frequencies of inhibition, as evaluated by the occurrence of 95% inhibition of histamine-induced wheal and flare.

Effects of bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine on histamine-induced wheal-and flare-response, sedation, and psychomotor performance

Although many antihistamines are now in clinical use, few studies directly compare their pharmacodynamic and sedative activities in humans in vivo. We designed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study to compare the inhibitory effects of bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine on histamine-induced flare-and-wheal response. Systemic sedative effects and impaired psychomotor activities by these drugs were also evaluated. Bepotastine (10 mg twice a day), cetirizine (10 mg once a day), fexofenadine (60 mg twice a day), and olopatadine (5 mg twice a day) or placebo was given in a double-blind manner to seven healthy volunteers before histamine challenge by iontophoresis. At 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h following the oral administration of these drugs, histamine iontophoresis-induced wheal-and-flare response was measured. Sedative effects by the drugs were also evaluated by a visual analogue scale for subjective sedation, and by word processor test for psychomotor activity. Each volunteer was tested with all of the drugs (including placebo), administered in a random order with a washout period of at least 1 week. Histamine iontophoresis induced marked wheal-and-flare response in all participants. Bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine yielded significant reduction of histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response compared to placebo (P < 0.01). Among the drugs, olopatadine and cetirizine suppressed most markedly and persistently histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response, while bepotastine and fexofenadine produced a significant, but less persistent suppression. Olopatadine, fexofenadine, and cetirizine showed a significant systemic sedative effect in this order with bepotastine showing the least sedative effect. Moreover, olopatadine affected psychomotor performance most markedly, which was followed by fexofenadine and cetirizine. These results indicate that bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine inhibit histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response of humans in vivo and induce a variable systemic sedative effect and impaired psychomotor activity. Although olopatadine and cetirizine showed the strongest and most persistent suppression of histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response, olopatadine showed a considerable sedative effect with impaired psychomotor performance.

Comparative activity of cetirizine and desloratadine on histamine-induced wheal-and-flare responses during 24 hours

BACKGROUND

Cetirizine and desloratadine are antihistamines active in the treatment of symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the antihistamine activity of desloratadine, the active metabolite of loratadine, with that of cetirizine in the skin wheal-and-flare responses during 24 hours.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single oral dose, crossover study. Skin reaction to histamine (100 mg/mL), administered by prick tests, was measured by the wheal and flare surface areas for 24 hours (before treatment and at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 hours). Eighteen healthy volunteers (mean age, 33.9 years; 13 women) participated in this study. The areas under the curves of the wheal-and-flare responses as a function of time (primary efficacy variables) were compared using analysis of variance.

RESULTS

A highly significant overall treatment effect (P < .001) was detected for wheal and flare inhibition, with the activity of cetirizine and desloratadine significantly superior to that of placebo (P < .001). In addition, the activity of cetirizine was significantly superior to that of desloratadine (P < .001). With desloratadine, only 3 of the 18 subjects achieved a wheal inhibition of at least 70%, occurring between 2 and 4 hours, whereas all subjects using cetirizine reached a wheal inhibition of at least 70% between 0.5 and 3 hours (median time, 1.7 hours). The difference between the 2 active drugs was highly significant (P < .001). The median duration of wheal inhibition of at least 70% was zero with placebo and desloratadine and was 21.9 hours with cetirizine (P < .001). No serious adverse events were reported, and no subject withdrew from the study due to an adverse event.

CONCLUSION

Cetirizine was associated with significantly greater suppression of skin reactivity to histamine compared with desloratadine during 24 hours after a single dose, with a consistent duration of action for cetirizine, as previously reported.

Histamine skin test reactivity following single and multiple doses of azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether azelastine nasal spray suppresses the dermal response to epicutaneous histamine in allergic patients and the duration of suppression after azelastine use is discontinued.

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were entered into this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Patients received either azelastine nasal spray (2 sprays per nostril twice daily) or placebo nasal spray for 14 days. Skin tests were performed 5 hours after the first dose of study drugs to determine the effect of a single dose of azelastine nasal spray on the wheal-and-flare response to histamine. At the end of the 14-day treatment period, skin tests were performed 5 hours after the last dose of study drugs and at 24-hour intervals thereafter, until each patient's wheal-and-flare response to histamine (1.0 and 5.0 mg/mL) returned to within 20% of baseline values.

RESULTS

A single dose of azelastine nasal spray did not significantly alter the wheal-and-flare response to histamine. The wheal response was within 20% of the baseline value in 82% and 88% (1.0 and 5.0 mg/mL of histamine, respectively) of the patients 5 hours after discontinuing 14 days of treatment with azelastine nasal spray. Wheal responses were within 20% of baseline values 48 hours after treatment was discontinued, whereas flare responses returned to within 20% of baseline within 48 hours in 92% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Azelastine nasal spray should be discontinued for at least 48 hours before beginning allergy skin test procedures.

Twenty-four-hour activity and consistency of activity of levocetirizine and desloratadine in the skin

AIM

Levocetirizine, the active enantiomer of cetirizine, and desloratadine, the active metabolite of loratadine, are two recently introduced anti-H1 agents. We set out to compare their antihistaminic activity in the skin for 24 h in a double-blind, randomized cross-over trial.

METHODS

The skin reaction to histamine administered by prick tests (100 mg ml(-1)) was measured by the surface areas of weals and flares for 24 h [before treatment, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 24 h after a single dose of levocetirizine (5 mg), desloratadine (5 mg) or placebo] in 18 healthy volunteers (34.8 +/- 9.4 years; 14 women). The areas under the curves (AUC) of the weal and flare areas as a function of time were compared by ANOVA.

RESULTS

A highly significant overall treatment effect (P < 0.0001) was observed and both weals and flares were inhibited. The pairwise comparisons showed that the activity of levocetirizine and desloratadine was significantly superior to that of placebo (P < 0.0001), and the activity of levocetirizine was significantly superior to that of desloratadine (P < 0.0001). 'Total' weal inhibition (> or = 95%) occurred only with levocetirizine. Median values of maximal weal inhibition were 44.2% with placebo, 55.0% with desloratadine and 100% with levocetirizine. The time to maximal weal inhibition was 4 h (median value) for all three study drugs, but scattered over a wider range for desloratadine (3-24 h) than levocetirizine (2-4 h). With desloratadine, five of 18 (28%) subjects reached weal inhibition of at least 70% at between 3 and 10 h, whereas with levocetirizine all subjects [18/18 (100%)] reached this level of weal inhibition at between 1 and 3 h. The median duration of 70% weal inhibition was zero with placebo and desloratadine, and was 21.4 h with levocetirizine (P < 0.0001 between the three study drugs, and P < 0.0001 between the two active drugs). No uncommon adverse events were reported, and no subject withdrew from the study due to an adverse event.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the activity of levocetirizine in suppressing skin reactivity to histamine was clearly superior to that of desloratadine for 24 h after a single dose. In addition, its activity was more consistent and lasted longer.

Levocetirizine is effective for symptom relief including nasal congestion in adolescent and adult (PAR) sensitized to house dust mites

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines are the most commonly prescribed class of medication for perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). The primary objective of this study was to determine whether levocetirizine (Xyzal(R)), the active enantiomer of cetirizine, could achieve at least a 50% improvement in PAR symptoms compared to the placebo over the first week of treatment.

METHODS

A total of 294 patients with PAR due to house dust mites were randomized in this 8-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial to receive either levocetirizine 5 mg/day or placebo. Mean Total Four-Symptom Scores (T4SS) (nasal pruritus, ocular pruritus, rhinorrhoea and sneezing) were compared between treatment groups over weeks 1, 4 and 6. All individual symptom scores, including nasal congestion, were also studied.

RESULTS

Levocetirizine showed an 86% improvement in T4SS over the first week of treatment and a 47% improvement over the entire treatment period compared with placebo. Absolute changes from baseline were 3.64 and 2.47 for levocetirizine and placebo, respectively. Individual symptom scores showed statistically significant (P < or = 0.01) differences in favour of levocetirizine for all study time-points. Nasal congestion was unexpectedly significantly improved (P < 0.001). The incidence of reported adverse events was comparable between treatment and placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Levocetirizine 5 mg/day is an effective and well-tolerated treatment of PAR. In addition, levocetirizine is effective for the relief of nasal congestion.

Relative potency of fexofenadine HCl 180 mg, loratadine 10 mg, and placebo using a skin test model of wheal-and-flare suppression

BACKGROUND

H1-receptor antagonists differ in their ability to produce peripheral H1-blockade. Suppression of histamine-induced flares and wheals is a useful objective test for measuring these differences.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative potency of fexofenadine HCI 180 mg, loratadine 10 mg, and placebo (PBO) in suppressing histamine-induced flares and wheals and compare the onset, duration, and maximum suppression of histamine achieved with each agent.

METHODS

Thirty healthy volunteers were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study. Flares and wheals induced by skin-prick testing with histamine 1.8 mg/mL were measured before treatment, every 20 minutes during the first hour after dosing, and thereafter hourly between 2 and 12 hours and between 23 and 25 hours postdose.

RESULTS

Fexofenadine was significantly more effective than loratadine in suppressing the histamine-induced flare response at hours 2 through 7 and 10 through 12 and produced greater flare suppression than did PBO at hours 2 through 25. Onset of flare suppression occurred 2 hours after dosing with fexofenadine and 4 hours after dosing with loratadine. Likewise, fexofenadine was superior to loratadine in suppressing the wheal response from hours 1 through 12 and was more effective than PBO at hours 1 through 12, 24, and 25. Throughout the 25-hour measurement interval, the magnitude of difference in both wheal and flare suppression consistently favored fexofenadine over loratadine.

CONCLUSIONS

In a skin test model of wheal-and-flare suppression, fexofenadine showed rapid distribution into the skin compartment with faster onset of action and greater potency vs loratadine.

Herbal supplements and skin testing: the lack of effect of commonly used herbal supplements on histamine skin prick testing

BACKGROUND

The use of herbal supplements is common, yet little is known about their pharmacologic properties. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of 23 commonly used herbal supplements on histamine skin prick testing (SPT).

METHODS

Fifteen healthy volunteers participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose, crossover study. Wheal and flare responses to SPT with histamine phosphate (1 mg/ml) were measured before and 4 h after administration of each of the 23 popular herbal supplements, fexofenadine (60 mg) and placebo. Wheal and flare areas were recorded with tracings performed 10 min after the prick test and measured with a PC-digitizer using stereometric software.

RESULTS

Fexofenadine significantly suppressed the wheal (P < 0.001) and flare (P = 0.02) areas compared with placebo. None of the herbal supplements caused significant suppression of the wheal and flare areas compared with placebo (P > 0.10).

CONCLUSION

When taken in single-doses, the popular herbal supplements tested did not significantly affect the histamine skin response. Therefore, it seems unnecessary for clinicians to ask patients to discontinue these herbal supplements prior to allergy skin testing.

Efficacy of ebastine, cetirizine, and loratadine in histamine cutaneous challenges

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared the antihistaminic effect of ebastine at 20 mg/day (maximal recommended daily dose) with the effect found for other antihistamines in human pharmacologic models.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the inhibition of the histamine-induced skin reaction produced by ebastine (20 mg/day) with that produced by cetirizine (10 mg/day), loratadine (10 mg/day), or placebo in a double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

METHODS

Twenty volunteers (10 men and 10 women) received the four treatments once daily for 7 days, with a mean 7-day washout period between treatments. Three intradermal histamine challenges (0.05 mL of a 100 microg/mL histamine solution at 4, 8, and 24 hours after drug administration) were performed at baseline, day 1 (single dose), and day 7 (multiple doses). Wheal and flare areas were measured after 15 minutes.

RESULTS

All treatments yielded significant reductions of histamine-induced wheal in comparison to placebo (P < 0.001). Analysis of covariance revealed significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). Ebastine had a significantly greater antihistaminic effect than did cetirizine or loratadine, except at 4 hours after a single dose versus cetirizine. Further, the effect of cetirizine was similar with single or multiple doses after both 4 and 24 hours, whereas the effect of ebastine showed significant increases in wheal reduction with multiple doses (P < 0.05). No serious adverse events or withdrawals occurred during the study.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that ebastine in a 20-mg dose is an effective once-daily antihistamine. Superior efficacy was found in comparison to cetirizine (10 mg) or loratadine (10 mg) on the overall skin wheal response after single and multiple doses.

Does potency predict clinical efficacy? Illustration through an antihistamine model

OBJECTIVE

The concepts of potency and efficacy are often confused and used interchangeably within the scientific and pharmaceutical industry. It is important that the distinction between the two is understood, and that the terms are defined within their correct context. After reading this article, readers should have an understanding of the relationships between receptor potency and clinical efficacy.

DATA SOURCES

Following a comprehensive review of the literature using MEDLINE, the author observed a lack of relevant references that relate measurements of potency to clinical efficacy. Therefore, the author reviewed the basic pharmacologic principles of potency using examples from the recent antihistamine literature.

RESULTS

Potency is an expression of the activity of a drug in terms of the concentration or amount of the drug required to produce a defined effect, whereas clinical efficacy judges the therapeutic effectiveness of the drug in humans. The differing methods of evaluating the activity of antihistamines in vitro and in vivo can lead to inconsistent results, which complicate the use of potency to predict clinical efficacy. Further, as therapeutic behavior is modulated by pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters and by further interactions at sites other than the target receptor, it does not necessarily follow that more potent drugs have greater clinical efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Although potency can be a good preclinical marker of the therapeutic potential of a drug, clinical efficacy should only be evaluated within the patient population using appropriate outcome measures.

Comparison of five new antihistamines (H1-receptor antagonists) in patients with allergic rhinitis using nasal provocation studies and skin tests

BACKGROUND

It was the aim of the authors to compare all of the latest second-generation antihistamines and to see if there were significant differences in their efficacy. It is important for ENT specialists to know if these differences exist, as it is for general practitioners trying to choose between these drugs.

METHODS

In 12 confirmed grass pollen allergic patients the authors performed nasal smears to asses eosinophilia, histamine/grass pollen skin tests, and grass pollen nasal provocation tests. All tests were performed before and after administration of one of five different antihistamines (cetirizine, loratadine, ebastine, fexofenadine, mizolastine) or placebo. The order of administration of antihistamines and placebo was randomised, and patients were not aware of which drug they were given. A decrease in nasal eosinophilia (nasal smear), or nasal or skin reactivity (provocation tests) was looked for.

RESULTS

A significant decrease in nasal eosinophilia was observed for all antihistamines but not for placebo. For the grass pollen nasal provocation tests, the decrease was significant for nasal blockage and sneezing; for rhinorrhea there was an insignificant decrease that was true for all antihistamines. A significant reduction in histamine/grass pollen skin test reactivity was also observed for all antihistamines, during an 8 h observation period. A significant difference in efficacy between the different antihistamines could not be found with any of the tests performed.

CONCLUSIONS

For the newer nonsedating H1-antagonists there appears to be no clinically relevant differences in activities--at least not in our study. Preference of the patient may be the most important factor in making a choice between these drugs.

Comparative activity of cetirizine and mizolastine on histamine-induced skin wheal and flare responses at 24 h

AIMS

The aim of our study was to compare the activity of cetirizine 10 mg with that of mizolastine 10 mg vs placebo at 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled, three-way cross-over study with a wash-out period of 7 +/- 2 days between each period. The study included 36 healthy volunteers (18--50 years, mean age = 32 years; 9 males). The objective measurement was the cutaneous reactivity to increasing concentrations of histamine (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 mg ml(-1)) administered by prick tests. The reactivity was evaluated by the wheal and flare areas (mm2). The AUC (area under curves) values of the wheal and flare areas as a function of the log2 transformed histamine concentration were calculated for each subject and treatment, and compared.

RESULTS

A highly significant treatment effect was evidenced both for wheal and flare responses (P = 0.0001). This indicates the good activity of both cetirizine 10 mg and mizolastine 10 mg in inhibiting skin wheal and flare reactions to histamine. In addition, the mean AUC values significantly differed between cetirizine and mizolastine (64.8 and 117.8 log2 (mg ml(-1)) x mm2 for wheal, and 939.4 and 2340.8 for flare, respectively; P = 0.0001), with a superior activity of cetirizine than mizolastine at 24 h after intake both on wheal and flare responses. The tolerance of cetirizine and mizolastine was good. The severity of the adverse events was never more than 'moderate', 'fatigue' being the most frequent reported symptom [cetirizine (6 subjects), placebo (3), mizolastine (5)], followed by 'somnolence' [cetirizine (0), placebo (1), mizolastine (3)]. There was no serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that cetirizine (10 mg) suppresses skin reactivity to histamine more effectively than mizolastine (10 mg) 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers.

A double-blind, randomized, single-dose, crossover comparison of levocetirizine with ebastine, fexofenadine, loratadine, mizolastine, and placebo: suppression of histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response during 24 hours in healthy male subjects

BACKGROUND

Levocetirizine is the active enantiomer of cetirizine, a potent drug with little metabolism widely used for allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the potency, consistency, onset, and duration of action of levocetirizine with other popular antihistamines.

METHODS

Levocetirizine 5 mg, ebastine 10 mg, fexofenadine 180 mg, loratadine 10 mg, mizolastine 10 mg, or placebo in single doses were given to 18 healthy male volunteers in a double-blind, crossover, randomized fashion. Wheal-and-flare responses to epicutaneous histamine dihydrochloride (100 mg/mL) challenge were measured at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 hours after each dose.

RESULTS

The overall effect of each drug was evaluated by the area under the curve (0 to 24 hours). Levocetirizine was the most potent and consistently effective drug for inhibiting the histamine-induced wheal-and-flare surface areas. Ebastine, fexofenadine, and mizolastine ranked next and had almost identical effects for inhibiting the wheal. Loratadine was the least potent drug. Levocetirizine, fexofenadine, and mizolastine inhibited the wheal-and-flare response after 1 hour and reached their peak for inhibition after 4 hours. Ebastine and loratadine could be distinguished from placebo only after 4 hours. After treatment with levocetirizine, all 18 subjects had >95% inhibition of the wheal response at one timepoint. Fexofenadine, mizolastine, and ebastine were inhibitory in declining order. All treatments were considered safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Levocetirizine, the active enantiomer of cetirizine, is more potent and consistent than other popular H1 antihistamines for blocking the cutaneous response to histamine. These findings may predict the efficacy of this drug in treating allergic disorders.

Treatment of urticaria. An evidence-based evaluation of antihistamines

Urticaria is a cutaneous syndrome characterized by dermal edema (wheal) and erythema (flare) that blanches with pressure. The lesions typically last less than 24 hours and are usually pruritic. In 1983, Christensen and Maibach summarized the theory behind the use of histamine H1 receptor antagonists (antihistamines) in clinical dermatology. These agents remain the mainstay of treatment for urticaria. This article reviews the medical literature on the effectiveness of antihistamines in urticarial syndromes, including acute, chronic idiopathic and the physical urticarias. Older antihistamines, such as chlorpheniramine and hydroxyzine, are effective in the treatment of urticarias, but they also have marked sedative and anticholinergic effects. Newer nonsedating antihistamines (second-generation antihistamines) have been developed that have reduced adverse effects because they do not cross the blood-brain barrier; these agents (acrivastine, cetirizine, loratadine, mizolastine, fexofenadine, ebastine, azelastine and epinastine) cause significantly less sedation and psychomotor impairment than their older counterparts. A review of the literature reveals that there are few studies which document the efficacy of second-generation antihistamines in the treatment of acute urticaria, a biologic entity that usually resolves within 3 weeks. We did not identify controlled studies that suggested superiority of any antihistamine in the treatment of acute urticaria. Loratadine or cetirizine, and possibly mizolastine, appear to be treatments of choice for chronic idiopathic urticaria. For symptomatic dermatographism, the combination of an antihistamine and an H2 antagonist, e.g. chlorpheniramine and cimetidine, appears to be effective. Very few studies have been conducted on the use of antihistamines in the treatment of cold, cholinergic, and pressure urticaria. Antihistamines are the mainstay of urticarial therapy. This evidence-based review suggests that there are efficacy differences between newer, nonsedating antihistamines and older agents in some forms of the disorder. Clearly, further well-controlled clinical trials in larger numbers of patients are needed to clarify the role of these agents in the treatment of urticaria.

Duration of the antihistaminic effect after discontinuation of ebastine

BACKGROUND

The inhibitory effect of antihistamines on allergen-induced skin reactions can impair the results of allergen skin testing, which are necessary for the diagnosis of atopic diseases. This study was designed to determine the time period required for the inhibitory effect of ebastine on allergen-induced skin reactivity to disappear completely.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study including 23 out of 27 randomized patients. They received either ebastine 20 mg or placebo once daily for 7 days. At the end of treatment, allergen challenge was performed daily for 7 days. Histamine challenge was performed on day 1 (6 and 24 h) and day 5 after treatment. The wheal and flare surface areas were measured and analyzed.

RESULTS

Highly significant inhibition of the wheal and flare response induced by allergen was observed after ebastine treatment on days 1 and 2 as compared with placebo (P < 0.01 for both). The inhibition was reduced, although still significant, by day 3 (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed by day 4 between the ebastine and the placebo groups. The effects of histamine challenge were significantly reduced in the ebastine compared with the placebo group at day 1 (6 and 24 h), and were similar at day 5 after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that the wheal and flare response to allergen after ebastine discontinuation returns to placebo values after 4 days. Therefore, patients using ebastine need to be antihistamine-free for 4 days before the skin prick test. This is valuable information for the allergologist seeking to diagnose allergen sensitivity.

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.