Comparison of the efficacy and safety of bilastine 20 mg vs desloratadine 5 mg in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients

Bilastine for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria: results from an international Delphi study

Background

Second-generation oral H1-antihistamines, including bilastine, represent the emerging treatments of allergic rhinitis (including rhinoconjunctivitis) and chronic urticaria in both adults and children. This study analyses available evidence supporting the use of bilastine amongst second-generation antihistamines for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria in adults and children.

Methods

Consensus amongst experts from 17 countries on the ideal treatment of rhinitis and urticaria, and the specific role of bilastine was measured by means of a modified Delphi process. A total of 12 statements were voted on by the experts using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). The definition of consensus was set at a minimum of 80% concordance for 4+5 scores (agree or strongly agree).

Results

All proposed statements reached consensus, with a concordance of ≥98% for five statements and ≥96% for seven.

Conclusions

The wide consensus obtained for the proposed statements suggests a prominent role for bilastine in the management of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

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.

The Impact of Bilastine on Symptoms of Allergic Rhinitis and Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Allergic diseases are immunological exaggerations with symptoms that may interfere with life quality. Bilastine, a novel oral second-generation H-1 antihistamine, is highly selective to H-1 receptors and has anti inflammatory properties. The present evidence regarding the drug efficacy is inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bilastine compared with the placebo and other active antihistamines in patients who complained either from AR or chronic urticaria.

METHODS

We systematically searched the Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating bilastine effects on symptomatic hyper histaminic allergic conditions. We collected data on total symptoms scores (TSS), total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), discomfort associated with these allergic conditions measured by visual analog score (VAS), and quality of life (QOL) for AR and urticaria. Other outcomes such as clinical global impression and safety profiles were reported as well. We pooled the studies in a random effect model using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

We included 9 RCTs comprising 3801 participants. The meta-analysis revealed that bilastine was superior to placebo, improving TSS, TNSS, VAS, and QOL in AR or chronic urticaria participants. Moreover, the bilastine was comparable to active antihistamines such as cetirizine, fexofenadine, and loratadine regarding mentioned outcomes. In addition, the novel drug was safe and tolerable with no difference in the incidence of adverse events with a placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilastine safely improved TSS in hyper histaminic allergic conditions involving nasal symptoms in AR. It decreases the discomfort associated with the disease resulting in improving the QOL of the participants.

Efficacy and Safety of Bilastine in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Bilastine is a non-sedating second generation H1 oral antihistamine (OAH) for treating allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. The effect of bilastine has not previously been evaluated in a meta-analysis. The aim of this review was to determine the efficacy and safety of bilastine in treating AR. An electronic literature search was performed using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Science Direct and Google Scholar up to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials comparing bilastine with placebo and standard pharmacotherapy were included. The included studies must have diagnosis of AR established by clinicians and the outcomes must have a minimum of 2 weeks of follow-up period. The primary outcomes assessed were total symptom score (TSS), nasal symptom score (NSS) and non-nasal symptom score (NNSS). The secondary outcomes were discomfort due to rhinitis, quality of life (QOL) and adverse events. The risk of bias and quality of evidence for all studies were appraised. The meta-analysis was done using Review Manager 5.3 software based on the random-effects model. The search identified 135 records after removal of duplicates. Following screening and review of the records, fifteen full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Five trials involving 3,329 patients met the inclusion criteria. Bilastine was superior to placebo in improving TSS, NSS, NNSS, rhinitis discomfort score and QOL but has comparable efficacy with other OAHs in TSS, NSS, NNS, rhinitis discomfort score and QOL. There was no difference in adverse effects when bilastine was compared against placebo and other OAHs except for somnolence. Bilastine has fewer incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine. The overall quality of evidence ranged from moderate to high quality. Bilastine is effective and safe in treating the overall symptoms of AR with comparable efficacy and safety with other OAHs except somnolence. Whilst bilastine has similar efficacy to cetirizine, somnolence is notably less in bilastine.

How bilastine is used to treat allergic rhinitis and urticaria in children

Management guidelines for allergic rhinitis and urticaria recommend oral second-generation antihistamines as first-line treatment. The efficacy and safety of bilastine, the newest nonsedating second-generation antihistamine, are well established in adolescents/adults with these allergic conditions. The bilastine development program for pediatric use (2-<12 years) followed EMA-authorized processes. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic simulation and modeling and a pharmacokinetic study were conducted to identify and confirm the pediatric dose (10 mg/day). A Phase III, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was performed to confirm the safety of bilastine 10 mg/day in children. In this article, evidence is reviewed for use of bilastine in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or urticaria. Several cases are presented which demonstrate its role in routine clinical practice.

The management of paediatric rhinosinusitis

Paediatric rhinosinusitis (PDRS) is commonly used as a synonym for rhinitis within healthcare. Although they may share common symptoms, the pathophysiology does differ; PDRS is the inflammation of the nasal mucosa in addition to the sinuses whereas rhinitis is the inflammation of just nasal mucosa. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis and management of PDRS. There is a greater emphasis on the diagnosis and management of PDRS within this review due to a lack of clear guidelines, which can lead to the common misconception that PDRS can be treated indifferently to rhinitis and other upper respiratory conditions. PDRS has detrimental effects on children's current health, long-term health into adulthood and education. Therefore, having a comprehensive guide of PDRS would provide a greater understanding of the condition as well as improved diagnosis and management. This article primarily focuses on the position of Europe and the United Kingdom; however, the recommendations can be applied to other countries as the causes and treatments would not differ significantly.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of a Bilastine Once-Daily, Preservative-Free, Ophthalmic Formulation

Introduction

Bilastine is a second-generation H₁ antihistamine indicated for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. On the basis of the demonstrated efficacy and safety of the oral formulation, a new ophthalmic formulation of bilastine was recently developed. Previous preclinical studies had indicated that bilastine is mainly absorbed by the conjunctiva and shows low plasma concentration. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and safety of ophthalmic bilastine (6 mg/mL) after single and multiple dose administration at steady state in healthy adults.

Methods

This was an open-label, single-centre, phase I, bioavailability clinical trial. One drop of the bilastine ophthalmic formulation was administered once daily in each eye of the subjects for 5 days. Bilastine plasma concentrations were measured by HPLC–MS/MS. Adverse drug reactions were recorded for each subject during drug administration and follow-up visits.

Results

Twelve healthy subjects (age 18–55 years) were included in the study. After multiple dose administration, bilastine reached a mean (± SD) maximum blood concentrations of 2682.26 ± 1615.88 pg/mL at a median time of 2.50 h (range 1.25–4.00 h). The half-life of bilastine in plasma was 7.88 ± 6.72 h. Steady state AUC was 19,512.51 ± 9248.76 h·pg/mL. Adverse events were mild and transient, consisting mainly of dysgeusia.

Conclusions

Bilastine once-daily ophthalmic formulation 6 mg/mL is absorbed into the bloodstream in low amounts by the ophthalmic route. The bilastine ophthalmic formulation showed a good safety profile after multiple dose administration.

Ocular redness - II: Progress in development of therapeutics for the management of conjunctival hyperemia

Conjunctival hyperemia is one of the most common causes for visits to primary care physicians, optometrists, ophthalmologists, and emergency rooms. Despite its high incidence, the treatment options for patients with conjunctival hyperemia are restricted to over-the-counter drugs that provide symptomatic relief due to short duration of action, tachyphylaxis and rebound redness. As our understanding of the immunopathological pathways causing conjunctival hyperemia expands, newer therapeutic targets are being discovered. These insights have also contributed to the development of animal models for mimicking the pathogenic changes in microvasculature causing hyperemia. Furthermore, this progress has catalyzed the development of novel therapeutics that provide efficacious, long-term relief from conjunctival hyperemia with minimal adverse effects.

The clinical evidence of second-generation H1-antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria in children over 2 years with a special focus on rupatadine

INTRODUCTION

Many obstacles limit the development of pharmacologic studies in children, in particular ethical and practical issues. Therefore, although second-generation H1-antihistamines (sgAH) are recommended by international guidelines as first-line therapy in childhood allergies, most data on the efficacy of antihistamines in children has been extrapolated from studies in adult patients.

AREAS COVERED

The current review focuses on rupatadine, a well-studied modern sgAH that has dual affinity for histamine H1-receptors and PAF receptors. In recent years, clinical efficacy and safety controlled-clinical trials on rupatadine were conducted in children and were based on latest current guidelines using validated tools of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

EXPERT OPINION

Children are not little adults since they present specific physiologic, metabolic, and developmental differences that should be evaluated in specific trials. The clinical evidence with rupatadine in children is the most recent and validated in accordance with current recommendations, with extensive direct data on efficacy and safety in pediatric populations over 2 years old.

Gut microbial characteristics of adult patients with allergy rhinitis

Background

Although recent studies have indicated that intestinal microbiota dweller are involved in the pathogenesis of allergy rhinitis (AR), the influence of gut microbiota on AR adult has not been fully elucidated yet. Hence, we carried out this study to uncover the distinctive bacterial taxa that differentiate allergy rhinitis patients from healthy individuals. Feces samples from thirty three AR patients and thirty one healthy individuals were analyzed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing.

Results

Results showed that the bacterial diversity in AR group was significantly higher than that of the non-AR group. Bacterial communities between AR and non-AR group were significantly differentiated as revealed by Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) and the variation within non-AR were higher than that of the counterpart. Firmicutes, Fusobacteria, Actinobacteria, Cyanobacteria and Chloroflexi were the significantly differed phyla taxa and the top significantly distinguished bacterial genus included Prevotella_9, Phascolarctobacterium, Roseburia, Megamonas, Alistipes, Lachnoclostridium and Fusobacterium. The higher network complexity in AR group were dominated by taxa belonging to Firmicutes. The predicted function, alpha linolenic acid metabolism and bacterial invasion of epithelial cells pathway were higher in non-AR group while gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) signaling pathway, Fc γ-R mediated phagocytosis and endocytosis were higher in AR patients. Although the bacterial diversity between moderate and severe AR patients showed no significant difference, the significant correlation between featured genus and total nasal symptom score or rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire, such as Butyricicoccus and Eisenbergiella, revealed the potential to intervene the AR status by means of gut microbiota.

Conclusions

In conclusion, patients with allergy rhinitis had distinguished gut microbiota characteritics in comparison with healthy controls. The results suggest that gut microbiota might play crucial roles in influencing the course and different symptoms of AR.

Trial registration ChiCTR, ChiCTR1900028613. Registered 29 December 2019, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=47650.

Bilastine: a lifetime companion for the treatment of allergies

Objective: Bilastine is a potent and highly selective H₁-antihistamine approved for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. This article summarizes available data on the use of bilastine in the treatment of allergic disorders in different age groups, including younger and older adults, and school-age children and adolescents.Methods: A PubMed literature search ("bilastine") was conducted on 25 February 2019. Additional literature known to the authors and identified from the reference lists of cited publications was included.Results: Bilastine is administered orally at a dose of 20 mg once daily in adults and adolescents aged ≥12 years and 10 mg once daily in children aged 6 to <12 years. Clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy at improving nasal and ocular symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis, and wheals and itching in patients with urticaria. It has a rapid onset of action and long duration of action. Bilastine does not undergo significant metabolism and does not interact with the CYP450 system, which limits its potential for drug-drug interactions. No dosage adjustments are required in patients with renal or hepatic impairment, or in the elderly. Bilastine is generally well tolerated, even when administered at above-standard doses. It does not exhibit anticholinergic effects or cardiotoxic effects, shows no central nervous system penetration and has minimal sedative properties. It has been shown to improve health-related quality of life.Conclusions: Bilastine is a suitable option for the treatment of patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or urticaria across age groups from school-age children to elderly patients.

Human H1 receptor (HRH1) gene polymorphism is associated with the severity of side effects after desloratadine treatment in Chinese patients with chronic spontaneous uticaria

H1 nonsedating antihistamines, such as desloratadine, are first-line treatment options for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). However, desloratadine induces various degrees of sedation side effect in CSU patients, and no biomarkers currently exist for predicting the severity of such side effect. Herein, we evaluated the association between HRH1 gene rs901865 polymorphism and the severity of sedation side effect following desloratadine therapy in patients with CSU. We found that 20 of the 114 patients (17.50%) showed sedation side effect after desloratadine treatment, and 3 patients (2.63%) experienced serious sleepiness. The frequency of HRH1 rs901865 G allele was significantly higher in patients who experienced sedation than in patients with rs901865 A allele (p = 0.0009). Moreover, patients with the rs901865 G/G genotype suffered a more serious sedation side effect than patients with the rs901865 G/A genotype (p = 0.005). These results provide evidence that the HRH1 rs901865 G/G polymorphism is associated with severe sedation side effect after desloratadine treatment. Thus, the HRH1 rs901865 allele may potentially be used as a biomarker for predicting the severity of sedation side effect in patients suffering from CSU and treated with desloratadine.

Brain histamine H1 receptor occupancy after oral administration of desloratadine and loratadine

Some histamine H1 receptor (H1R) antagonists induce adverse sedative reactions caused by blockade of histamine transmission in the brain. Desloratadine is a second-generation antihistamine for treatment of allergic disorders. Its binding to brain H1Rs, which is the basis of sedative property of antihistamines, has not been examined previously in the human brain by positron emission tomography (PET). We examined brain H1R binding potential ratio (BPR), H1R occupancy (H1RO), and subjective sleepiness after oral desloratadine administration in comparison to loratadine. Eight healthy male volunteers underwent PET imaging with [11C]-doxepin, a PET tracer for H1Rs, after a single oral administration of desloratadine (5 mg), loratadine (10 mg), or placebo in a double-blind crossover study. BPR and H1RO in the cerebral cortex were calculated, and plasma concentrations of loratadine and desloratadine were measured. Subjective sleepiness was quantified by the Line Analogue Rating Scale (LARS) and the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS). BPR was significantly lower after loratadine administration than after placebo (0.504 ± 0.074 vs 0.584 ± 0.059 [mean ± SD], P < 0.05), but BPR after desloratadine administration was not significantly different from BPR after placebo (0.546 ± 0.084 vs 0.584 ± 0.059, P = 0.250). The plasma concentration of loratadine was negatively correlated with BPR in subjects receiving loratadine, but that of desloratadine was not correlated with BPR. Brain H1ROs after desloratadine and loratadine administration were 6.47 ± 10.5% and 13.8 ± 7.00%, respectively (P = 0.103). Subjective sleepiness did not significantly differ among subjects receiving the two antihistamines and placebo. At therapeutic doses, desloratadine did not bind significantly to brain H1Rs and did not induce any significant sedation.

Antihistamines for Allergic Rhinitis Treatment from the Viewpoint of Nonsedative Properties

Antihistamines targeting the histamine H₁ receptor play an important role in improving and maintaining the quality of life of patients with allergic rhinitis. For more effective and safer use of second-generation drugs, which are recommended by various guidelines, a classification based on their detailed characteristics is necessary. Antihistamines for first-line therapy should not have central depressant/sedative activities. Sedative properties (drowsiness and impaired performance) are associated with the inhibition of central histamine neurons. Brain H₁ receptor occupancy (H₁RO) is a useful index shown to be correlated with indices based on clinical findings. Antihistamines are classified into non-sedating (<20%), less-sedating (20–50%), and sedating (≥50%) groups based on H₁RO. Among the non-sedating group, fexofenadine and bilastine are classified into “non-brain-penetrating antihistamines” based on the H₁RO. These two drugs have many common chemical properties. However, bilastine has more potent binding affinity to the H₁ receptor, and its action tends to last longer. In well-controlled studies using objective indices, bilastine does not affect psychomotor or driving performance even at twice the usual dose (20 mg). Upon selecting antihistamines for allergic rhinitis, various situations should be taken into our consideration. This review summarizes that the non-brain-penetrating antihistamines should be chosen for the first-line therapy of mild allergic rhinitis.

Current therapeutical strategies for allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis is a common condition with increasing prevalence and is associated with several comorbid disorders such as bronchial asthma and atopic dermatitis. If allergen avoidance is not possible, allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causal treatment option.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on current treatments and the future outlook for allergic rhinitis. Pharmacotherapy includes mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, glucocorticosteroids (GCSs), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and nasal decongestants. Nasal GCSs are currently regarded as the most effective treatment and are considered first-line therapy together with non-sedating antihistamines. The new formulation MP29-02 combines the nasal GCS fluticasone propionate with azelastine in one single spray and has achieved greater improvements than those under monotherapy with modern GCSs or antihistamines. Furthermore, this review discusses allergen immunotherapy alone and in combination with modern monoclonal antibodies.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the variety of medications for allergic rhinitis, ranging from general symptomatic agents like GCSs or decongestants, to more specific ones like histamine receptor or leukotriene blockers, to causal therapy like immunotherapy, many patients still experience treatment failures or unsatisfactory results. The ultimate goal may be to endotype every downstream pathway separately in order to offer patients individualized, targeted therapy with specific antibodies against the respective pathway.

Bilastine: a new H1 -antihistamine with an optimal profile for updosing in urticaria

This review set out to examine published papers detailing the efficacy of bilastine in skin models and urticaria to assess whether it meets the optimal profile for updosing in urticaria, that is, strong clinical efficacy and freedom from unwanted side effects, particularly sedation. Bilastine is a highly effective H₁ -antihistamine even when used at the basic dose of 20 mg daily. Its facilitated uptake after oral dosage gives it a rapid onset and long duration of action. In both wheal and flare studies and in urticaria updosing fourfold showed increased effectiveness. With respect to somnolence, bilastine is a substrate for P-glycoprotein, a membrane pump which prevents it crossing the blood-brain barrier. Consequently, bilastine is a practically 'non-sedating' H₁ -antihistamine. In conclusion, the excellent profile of bilastine in both efficacy and safety make it the ideal H₁ -antihistamine for updosing the daily dose fourfold in difficult-to-treat urticaria as recommended by the EAACI/GA² LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the management of urticaria.

A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Focusing on Different Allergic Rhinitis Medications

This study is aimed to investigate the effectiveness of 4 allergic rhinitis (AR) drugs (loratadine, cetirizine, montelukast, and desloratadine) in reducing functional problems in patients, as indicated by rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire scores. After an exhaustive search of electronic databases containing published scientific literature, high-quality randomized controlled trials relevant to our study were selected based on a stringent predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA 12.0 and comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA 2.0) software. The literature search broadly identified 386 studies, and after a multistep screening and elimination process, a total of 13 randomized controlled trials contributed to this network meta-analysis. These 13 high-quality studies contained a combined total of 6867 patients with AR on 4 different medications. The results of network meta-analysis revealed that, compared with placebo, all 4 mediations treated AR effectively [cetirizine: mean: -0.62, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) = -0.90 to -0.34, P < 0.001; loratadine: mean: -0.32, 95% CI = -0.55 to -0.097, P = 0.005; montelukast: mean: -0.28, 95% CI = -0.54 to -0.023, P = 0.033; desloratadine: mean: -0.39, 95% CI = -0.60 to -0.18, P < 0.001]. A comparison of surface under the cumulative ranking curve values of these 4 interventions clearly showed that cetirizine is the most optimal medication for AR treatment. In conclusion, this network meta-analysis provides the first evidence that cetirizine is the most efficacious treatment for AR compared with loratadine, montelukast, and desloratadine, significantly reducing the functional problems in patients with AR.

Therapeutic effect of bilastine in Japanese cedar pollinosis using an artificial exposure chamber (OHIO Chamber)

BACKGROUND

Environmental exposure chambers have been used to expose subjects to aeroallergens to investigate the efficacy of prophylactic treatment with symptomatic agents in Japan. We first examined the therapeutic effect of bilastine (BIL), a novel non-sedative second-generation H₁-antihistamine, in subjects with Japanese cedar pollinosis using an artificial exposure chamber (OHIO Chamber).

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, four-way crossover, placebo- and active-controlled phase II study (trial registration number JapicCTI-132213). Subjects were exposed to cedar pollen (8000 grains/m³) for 2 h on Day -1 and 4 h each on Day 1 and 2. BIL 10 or 20 mg, placebo, or fexofenadine hydrochloride (FEX) 60 mg was administered orally 1 h after the start of pollen exposure on Day 1. Placebo or FEX was administered 12 h after the first dosing. The primary efficacy endpoint was the sum of total nasal symptom score (TNSS) from 0 to 3 h after the Day 1 dosing.

RESULTS

We enrolled 136 subjects and the sum of TNSS on Day 1 of the three active treatments was significantly lower than that of placebo and was maintained up to 26 h after the first dosing (Day 2). The sum of TNSS or sneezing score on Day 1 after BIL 20 mg was more significantly decreased than after FEX. Moreover, BIL showed a faster onset of action than FEX.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated the efficacy, rapid onset, and long duration of action of BIL in subjects with Japanese cedar pollinosis exposed to cedar pollen using the OHIO Chamber.

Comparative efficacy of bilastine, desloratadine and rupatadine in the suppression of wheal and flare response induced by intradermal histamine in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE

To compare the peripheral antihistaminic activity of bilastine, rupatadine and desloratadine in inhibiting the histamine-induced wheal and flare (W&F) response.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Twenty-four healthy volunteers aged 18-40 years participated in this crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study. Subjects received single doses of bilastine 20 mg, desloratadine 5 mg, rupatadine 10 mg and placebo. W&F responses induced by intradermal injection of histamine 5 μg were evaluated before treatment (basal value) and at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 24 hours after treatment. Fifteen minutes after histamine injection, W&F surface areas (cm²) were quantified using the Visitrak System. Itching sensation was evaluated using a 100 mm visual analog scale. EudraCT number: 2015-000790-13.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the percentage reduction in W&F areas after each active treatment compared with corresponding basal values.

RESULTS

Bilastine induced the greatest inhibition in wheal area and was significantly superior to desloratadine and rupatadine from 1 to 12 hours (both p < .001). Rupatadine and desloratadine were better than placebo without differences between them. Maximum wheal inhibition occurred at 6 hours (bilastine 83%, desloratadine 38%, rupatadine 37%). Onset of action was 1 hour for bilastine and 4 hours for desloratadine and rupatadine. Bilastine was significantly superior to desloratadine and rupatadine for flare inhibition from 1-24 hours (both p < .001) with an onset of action at 30 minutes. Bilastine was significantly better than desloratadine (2-12 hours; at least p < .05) and rupatadine (2-9 hours; at least p < .01) for reducing itching sensation. Neither desloratadine nor rupatadine significantly reduced itching compared to placebo. All active treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilastine 20 mg induced significantly greater inhibition of the W&F response compared with desloratadine 5 mg and rupatadine 10 mg throughout the 24 hour study period, and had the fastest onset of action. Only bilastine significantly reduced itching sensation versus placebo.

Efficacy and safety of bilastine in Japanese patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III study

BACKGROUND

Bilastine, a novel non-sedating second-generation H₁ antihistamine, has been approved in most European countries since 2010. This study aimed to evaluate the superiority of bilastine over placebo in Japanese patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III study (trial registration number JapicCTI-142600) evaluated the effect of a 2-week treatment period with bilastine (20 mg once daily), fexofenadine (60 mg twice daily), or a matched placebo (double dummy) in patients with PAR. All patients were instructed to record individual nasal and ocular symptoms in diaries daily. The primary endpoint was the mean change in total nasal symptom scores (TNSS) from baseline to Week 2 (Days 10-13).

RESULTS

A total of 765 patients were randomly allocated to receive bilastine, fexofenadine, or placebo (256, 254, and 255 patients, respectively). The mean change in TNSS from baseline at Week 2 was significantly decreased by bilastine (-0.98) compared to placebo (-0.63, P = 0.023). Bilastine and fexofenadine showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint. However, the mean change in TNSS from baseline on Day 1 was more significantly decreased by bilastine (-0.99) than by placebo (-0.28, P < 0.001) or fexofenadine (-0.62, P = 0.032). The active drugs also improved instantaneous TNSS 1 h after the first and before the second drug administration on Day 1 (P < 0.05). The study drugs were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

After 2-week treatment period, bilastine 20 mg once daily was effective and tolerable in Japanese patients with PAR, and exhibited a rapid onset of action.

The role and choice criteria of antihistamines in allergy management - expert opinion

Allergic diseases are the most common chronic conditions lasting throughout the patient’s life. They not only cause significant deterioration in the quality of life of patients but also lead to significant absenteeism and reduced productivity, resulting in very high costs for society. Effective and safe treatment of allergic diseases is therefore one of the main challenges for public health and should be carried out by all the specialists in family medicine, internists and paediatricians in collaboration with allergists, otorhinolaryngologists and dermatologists. Antihistamines are most commonly used in the treatment of allergies. Several dozen drugs are available on the pharmaceutical market, and their generic forms are advertised widely as very effective drugs for the treatment of allergic diseases. What is the truth? What are the data from clinical trials and observational studies? Are all drugs equally effective and safe for the patient? According to a panel of experts representing various fields of medicine, inappropriate treatment of allergies can be very risky for patients, and seemingly equally acting medications may differ greatly. Therefore, a panel of experts gathered the latest data from the entire scientific literature and analysed the latest standards and recommendations prepared by scientific societies. This paper provides a summary of these studies and highlights the importance for the patient of the proper choice of drug to treat his allergies.

Th17 responses are not altered by natural exposure to seasonal allergens in pollen-sensitive patients

Background

Allergic rhinitis affects 10–30 % of the global population and this number is likely to increase in the forthcoming years. Moreover, it commonly co-exists with allergic asthma as a chronic allergic respiratory syndrome. While the involvement of Th₂ cells in allergy is well understood, alterations of pro-inflammatory Th₁₇ responses remain poorly characterized. The aim of our study was to determine whether natural seasonal allergen exposure causes changes in T cell subset characteristics in patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma.

Methods

Sixteen patients with allergic rhinitis/atopic asthma (9M, 7F; age 31.8 ± 12.1) and 16 healthy controls were recruited into the study (9M, 7F; age 31.2 ± 5.3). Blood samples were collected from the patients 1–3 months before pollen season (visit 1), within 7 days of the appearance of pollen/initiation of allergic symptoms (visit 2) and 2 weeks after visit 2 following the introduction of symptomatic treatment with antihistamines (visit 3). Flow cytometry was used to assess major T cell subsets (naïve, central memory, effector memory and CD45RA+ effector) and key T cell cytokine production (IFNγ, IL-17A, TNF and IL-4) using intracellular staining. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and paired t test.

Results

As expected, an increase in the percentage of IL‐4+ CD4+ cells was observed during natural pollen exposure in patients with allergic respiratory syndrome. No significant changes were observed in the production of other cytokines, including Th₁₇ cells, which tended to be lower than in the control population but unchanged during pollen exposure. Introduction of antihistamine treatment led to only moderate changes in cytokine production from CD4 and CD8 T cells. Selective changes in CD8+ T cells were observed during natural pollen exposure including a decrease in transient cells (with features of CD45RA+ and CD45RO+ cells) and a decrease in the percentage of central memory cells in the peripheral circulation. Within the CD4 cell group the total percentage of CD45RA positive CD4 cells was increased during pollen exposure.

Conclusions

Th₁ and Th₁₇ responses are not altered during pollen season but allergen exposure affects T cell activation and memory cell status in patients with allergic respiratory syndrome.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13223-016-0157-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rupatadine: global safety evaluation in allergic rhinitis and urticaria

INTRODUCTION

Rupatadine is a second-generation H1-antihistamine with dual affinity for histamine H1 and PAF receptors. Rupatadine is indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

AREAS COVERED

A Medline search was conducted to identify preclinical and clinical studies of rupatadine. This was supplemented with additional articles obtained from online sources. The focus of this review is on the safety profile of rupatadine.

EXPERT OPINION

The review of these data indicates that rupatadine is highly selective for histamine H1-receptors, exhibits additional PAF antagonism in in vitro and in vivo studies, does not cross the blood-brain barrier, and has similar adverse events comparable with other second-generation antihistamines. Rupatadine is a safe and well tolerated drug in patients over 2 years old, with no central nervous system or cardiovascular effects and it can be taken with or without foods.

The efficacy and safety of H1-antihistamine versus Montelukast for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In order to verify the differences of effectiveness and safety between SAHs and Montelukast, and to find out potential uncared-for problems, we performed a systematic review and Meta-analysis to proceed a qualitative describe and quantitative assessment.

METHODS

We searched the databases of Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, Nature and Science as well as Wanfang data and CNKI from 2000 to March 2016, using key words "Montelukast SAH" or "H1-antihistamine Montelukast", or "Loratadine Montelukast", or "Desloratadine Montelukast", or "Levocetirizine Montelukast", or "Cetirizen Montelukast", or "Fexofenadine Montelukast". And also we included studies through relevant citations in related literature. Meta-analysis and bias of risk were performed. We analyzed Heterogeneity and publish bias as well.

RESULT

Montelukast seems more effective in nighttime symptoms compare with SAHs (P=0.008, MD=-0.04, 95%CI: -0.08, -0.01). No significant difference was found between Montelukast and SAHs in CSS (P=0.10, MD=0.03, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.07). Montelukast and SAHs combined therapy was more effective than Montelukast DNSS (P=0.0006, MD=0.15, 95%CI: 0.07, 0.24) but not in CSS (P=0.04, MD=0.08, 95%CI: 0.00, 0.15; Bonferroni correction α=0.017).

CONCLUSION

Montelukast has a significant influence in improving patients' nasal symptoms quality of live but is not as effective as SAHs, and may have a slight advantage over SAHs in relieving nighttime symptoms significantly. Combined therapy is more effective in improving patients' day time symptom than Montelukast. Probably, patients might have a lower asthenia incidence rate when using Montelukas.

Safety and tolerability of bilastine 10 mg administered for 12 weeks in children with allergic diseases

BACKGROUND

Regulations on medicinal products for paediatric use require that pharmacokinetics and safety be characterized specifically in the paediatric population. A previous study established that a 10-mg dose of bilastine in children aged 2 to <12 years provided an equivalent systemic exposure as 20 mg in adults. The current study assessed the safety and tolerability of bilastine 10 mg in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria.

METHODS

In this phase III, multicentre, double-blind study, children were randomized to once-daily treatment with bilastine 10-mg oral dispersible table (n = 260) or placebo (n = 249) for 12 weeks. Safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory tests, cardiac safety (ECG recordings) and somnolence/sedation using the Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ).

RESULTS

The primary hypothesis of non-inferiority between bilastine 10 mg and placebo was demonstrated on the basis of a near-equivalent proportion of children in each treatment arm without TEAEs during 12 weeks' treatment (31.5 vs. 32.5%). No clinically relevant differences between bilastine 10 mg and placebo were observed from baseline to study end for TEAEs or related TEAEs, ECG parameters and PSQ scores. The majority of TEAEs were mild or moderate in intensity. TEAEs led to discontinuation of two patients treated with bilastine 10 mg and one patient treated with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilastine 10 mg had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of placebo in children aged 2 to <12 years with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or chronic urticaria.

Quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis: a clinical trial comparing the use of bilastine versus loratadine

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine whether there were differences in health-related quality of life of patients with allergic rhinitis treated with bilastine 20 mg compared to those treated with loratadine 10 mg.

DESIGN

This was a prospective randomised double-blinded study.

SETTING

Otolaryngology outpatient clinics in Criciúma, state of Santa Catarina, Brazil.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-three patients, aged between 18 and 63 years, of whom 36 were treated with loratadine 10 mg and 37 with bilastine 20 mg with medication administered once a day for 10 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome was quality of life as assessed by the modified Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQm), which was applied at baseline and after 10 days of treatment.

RESULTS

The use of bilastine 20 mg or loratadine 10 mg significantly reduced RQLQm scores after 10 days of treatment (P < 0.001); however, there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Health-related quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis improved significantly after 10 days of treatment with loratadine and bilastine, and the effectiveness of both was equivalent.

Allergic rhinitis: pharmacotherapy in pregnancy and old age

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 20-30% of women in reproductive age and may worsen during pregnancy. About 10% of the elderly suffer from AR, and it could be under-diagnosed in these patients. Many drugs are currently available, however AR treatment during pregnancy and old age represents a challenging issue.

AREAS COVERED

A review of the literature on the topic has been performed. Expert commentary: In pregnancy, drug avoidance should be carefully balanced with the need for AR optimal control. Topical drugs are suggested as a first approach. The safety and tolerability profile of second-generation antihistamines is well supported. If allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is ongoing and well tolerated, there is no reason for stopping it. AIT initiation in pregnancy is not recommended. For elderly patients, no specific concerns have been highlighted regarding topical treatments, except from nasal decongestionants. Second generation antihistamines are generally well tolerated. Old age should not preclude AIT.

Treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria: a review of the newest antihistamine drug bilastine

Allergic rhinitis and urticaria are common allergic diseases that may have a major negative impact on patients' quality of life. Bilastine, a novel new-generation antihistamine that is highly selective for the H1 histamine receptor, has a rapid onset and prolonged duration of action. This agent does not interact with the cytochrome P450 system and does not undergo significant metabolism in humans, suggesting that it has very low potential for drug-drug interactions, and does not require dose adjustment in renal impairment. As bilastine is not metabolized and is excreted largely unchanged, hepatic impairment is not expected to increase systemic exposure above the drug's safety margin. Bilastine has demonstrated similar efficacy to cetirizine and desloratadine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and, in a Vienna Chamber study, a potentially longer duration of action than fexofenadine in patients with asymptomatic seasonal allergic rhinitis. It has also shown significant efficacy (similar to that of cetirizine) and safety in the long-term treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. Bilastine showed similar efficacy to levocetirizine in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria and can be safely used at doses of up to fourfold higher than standard dosage (80 mg once daily). The fourfold higher than standard dose is specified as an acceptable second-line treatment option for urticaria in international guidelines. Bilastine is generally well tolerated, both at standard and at supratherapeutic doses, appears to have less sedative potential than other second-generation antihistamines, and has no cardiotoxicity. Based on its pharmacokinetic properties, efficacy, and tolerability profile, bilastine will be valuable in the management of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

Role of bilastine in the management of allergic rhinitis and urticaria: an Asia-Pacific consensus statement

The prevalence of allergic diseases is increasing globally, most particularly in middle- to low-income countries. This article examines the burden of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria in the Asia-Pacific region, unmet clinical needs, and the potential role of bilastine in the management of these conditions. An International Advisory Group meeting was convened in association with the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology Annual Congress in November 2014, followed by a literature review, and consensus-based outcomes from the meeting and literature review are described. Regional estimates of the prevalence of allergic rhinitis range from 10% to 50%, while little is known regarding the burden of urticaria in the Asia-Pacific region. A survey of allergy patients in the region identified fast, complete, and long-lasting symptom relief as the medication attributes most important to patients. International treatment guidelines for allergic rhinitis and urticaria advocate the first-line use of second-generation, no-sedating H1-antihistamines, such as bilastine, over their first-generation counterparts and a range of these agents are available to Asia-Pacific patients. The newer agents possess many of the properties of an "ideal" antihistamine (once daily administration, rapid and complete symptom relief, limited potential for drug-drug interactions, minimal side effects). The burgeoning prevalence of allergic diseases in the Asia-Pacific region and the uncontrolled symptoms that these patients experience demand a new antihistamine that offers the highest number of positive features according to the international guidelines.

Current controversies and challenges in allergic rhinitis management

There are many obstacles in the path of effective allergy management, in general, and allergic rhinitis (AR) control, in particular. Chief among them are: insufficient symptom relief in some patients provided by some currently considered first-line AR treatments in real life; an over-reliance on randomized controlled trials to direct AR guideline recommendations; the need for a broader interpretation of the AR evidence base (to include randomized controlled trials and real-life studies); poorly designed and interpreted studies; and lack of an AR control concept and common language of control. These controversies are fully reviewed here and challenging solutions have been presented.

Bilastine vs. hydroxyzine: occupation of brain histamine H1 -receptors evaluated by positron emission tomography in healthy volunteers

AIM

A close correlation exists between positron emission tomography (PET)-determined histamine H1 -receptor occupancy (H1 RO) and the incidence of sedation. Antihistamines with H1 RO <20% are classified as non-sedating. The objective was to compare the H1 RO of bilastine, a second generation antihistamine, with that of hydroxyzine.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, crossover study used PET imaging with [(11) C]-doxepin to evaluate H1 RO in 12 healthy males (mean age 26.2 years), after single oral administration of bilastine (20 mg), hydroxyzine (25 mg) or placebo. Binding potentials and H1 ROs were calculated in five cerebral cortex regions of interest: frontal, occipital, parietal, temporal, insula. Plasma bilastine concentrations, subjective sedation (visual analogue scale), objective psychomotor performance (digital symbol substitution test), physiological variables and safety (adverse events, AEs), were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean binding potential of all five regions of interest (total binding potential) was significantly greater with bilastine than hydroxyzine (mean value 0.26 vs. 0.13, P < 0.01; mean difference and 95% CI -0.130 [-0.155, 0.105]). There was no significant difference between bilastine and placebo. Overall H1 RO by bilastine was significantly lower than that by hydroxyzine (mean value -3.92% vs. 53.95%, P < 0.01; mean difference and 95% CI 57.870% [42.664%, 73.075%]). There was no significant linear relationship between individual bilastine plasma concentrations and total binding potential values. No significant between-treatment differences were observed for sedation and psychomotor performance. Twenty-six non-serious AEs were reported. Sleepiness or sedation was not reported with bilastine but appeared in some subjects with hydroxyzine.

CONCLUSIONS

A single oral dose of bilastine 20 mg had minimal H1 RO, was not associated with subjective sedation or objective impairment of psychomotor performance and was devoid of treatment-related sedative AEs, thus satisfying relevant subjective, objective and PET criteria as a non-sedating antihistamine.

Bilastine as a potential treatment in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a very frequent disease. H1 antihistamines have been used for treatment of allergic rhinitis for more than 5 decades. They differ in chemical structure, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical efficacy and adverse effects.

METHODS

We performed a detailed analysis of all available publications concerning the new H1-antihistamine bilasitine.

RESULTS

Bilastine, a piperidine derivative, is a novel potent H1 antihistamine. It is at least as potent as cetirizine or fexofenadine in in vitro studies. In animal studies it demonstrates dose-dependent antihistaminic and antiallergic effects. In humans its metabolism is not affected by age, gender or renal function but may be affected by coadministration of P glycoprotein inhibitors. Efficacy of bilastine in therapy of allergic rhinitis patients has been documented in several large controlled clinical trials showing bilastine being at least as effective as cetirizine or desloratadine. No significant suppressive effect on central nervous system could be demonstrated when bilastine was used in the recommended doses.

CONCLUSION

Bilastine is a novel H1 antihistamine with anti-allergic properties which is highly effective in the treatment of symptoms of allergic rhinitis. It has a favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile and is generally well tolerated.

Bilastine: new insight into antihistamine treatment

Bilastine is a new second generation H1-antihistamine recently approved for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic urticaria (CU). Bilastine epitomizes the evolution of research on antihistamines concerning both efficacy and safety. In AR treatment, a number of large controlled clinical trials documented its efficacy, as assessed by improvement of all nasal and ocular symptoms and quality of life. These outcomes show that bilastine meets current EAACI/ARIA criteria for medications used in the treatment of AR. Also in CU, the review of the literature indicates that once-daily treatment with bilastine 20 mg was effective in managing symptoms and improving patient's quality of life. Concerning safety and tolerability, the profile of bilastine is very similar to placebo and in particular the adverse effects on central nervous system are insignificant. The balance of efficacy and safety of bilastine is particularly helpful when dosages higher than standard are needed to control the symptoms, as frequently occurs in patients with urticaria, in whom antihistamines doses up to four times the standard dose may be administered.

Allergic rhinitis: current options and future perspectives

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergic rhinitis due its high prevalence and burden needs to be properly treated. The disease's clinical features impose well tolerated drugs usable for long-term treatment. Nowadays, second-generation antihistamines and inhaled steroids represent the milestone of rhinitis therapy. The aim of the present review is to provide an update on allergic rhinitis treatment. A particular attention has been deserved to clinical trials, published in the last year that assess the efficacy and safety of new formulation of available drugs or new molecules.

RECENT FINDINGS

Available and new drugs under investigation seem able to control rhinitis symptoms without a significant patient's burden. The challenge for the next years will be to improve treatment adherence rather than to introduce new drugs.

SUMMARY

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines have brought attention to allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma, but have also proposed a new classification in terms of symptoms severity and persistence useful for tailoring treatment on patients' phenotypes. Their further dissemination is needed; furthermore, they represent a cornerstone for the scientific community through a continuous update on relevant issues such as rhinitis phenotypes, disease management on the basis of new treatments, clinical trials transferability in real life, and allergic rhinitis management in public health programs.

Reasons for prescribing second generation antihistamines to treat allergic rhinitis in real-life conditions and patient response

Background

Second generation H1 antihistamines (H1A) are currently recommended as first choice medications for allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis. However, little is known about what influences the choice of prescription of one second generation (H1A) as opposed to another in real-life conditions.

Objective

The aim of the study was to identify the main criteria determining the choice of a second generation H1A by allergy specialists in mainland France.

Methods

Consecutive patients suffering from allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis were included and followed prospectively for 30 days from the prescription of a second generation H1A in monotherapy. Patients were asked to fill in auto-questionnaires at baseline, daily during the first 10 days of the new treatment, and at the end of follow-up. Data on efficacy, tolerance, safety, rate and type of response to treatment, as well as patient satisfaction were recorded and analyzed.

Results

1,080 patients were included between March 2011 and October 2012, mostly suffering from moderate to severe rhinitis (82.0%). The most frequently cited reason for choosing a specific H1A was the expected efficacy (85.3%). The mean time to nasal and ocular recovery was 6 days and 78.2% of patients responded to treatment within this interval. The presence of conjunctivitis was significantly associated with a more rapid response. At the end of follow-up, the satisfaction rate was higher for patients who were switched from a previous treatment (87.5%), compared to those receiving their first treatment (78.8%).

Conclusion and clinical relevance

The main reason for choosing a specific second generation H1A was its expected efficacy. Concomitant conjunctivitis is associated with a more rapid response to treatment. Symptom recovery necessitates a mean of 6 days.

New therapies for allergic rhinitis

Because of its burden on patient's lives and its impact on asthma, allergic rhinitis must be treated properly with more effective and safer treatments. According to guidelines by Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), the classification, pathogenesis, and treatment of allergic rhinitis are well defined. Currently, second-generation antihistamines and inhaled steroids are considered the cornerstone of first-line therapy. However, new formulations of available drugs (e.g., loratadine and rupatadine oral solution, ebastine fast-dissolving tablets, and the combination of intranasal fluticasone propionate and azelastine hydrochloride), recently discovered molecules (e.g., ciclesonide, bilastine, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors), immunologic targets (e.g., omalizumab), and unconventional treatments (e.g., homeopathic treatments) are currently under investigation and represent a new frontier in modern medicine and in allergic rhinitis management. The aim of this review is to provide an update on allergic rhinitis treatment, paying particular attention to clinical trials published within the past 20 months that assessed the efficacy and safety of new formulations of available drugs or new molecules.

A meta-analysis of sublingual allergen immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

The capacity of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) to provide effective symptom relief in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis is often questioned, despite evidence of clinical efficacy from meta-analyses and well-powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. In the absence of direct, head-to-head, comparative trials of SLIT and symptomatic medication, only indirect comparisons are possible.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of classes of products (second-generation H1-antihistamines, nasal corticosteroids and grass pollen SLIT tablet formulations) and single products (the azelastine-fluticasone combination MP29-02, and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast) for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults, adolescents and/or children. We searched the literature for large (n >100 in the smallest treatment arm) double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. For each drug or drug class, we performed a meta-analysis of the effect on symptom scores. For each selected trial, we calculated the relative clinical impact (according to a previously published method) on the basis of the reported post-treatment or season-long nasal or total symptom scores: 100 × (scorePlacebo - scoreActive)/scorePlacebo.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight publications on symptomatic medication trials and ten on SLIT trials met our selection criteria (total number of patients: n = 21,223). The Hedges' g values from the meta-analyses confirmed the presence of a treatment effect for all drug classes. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean (range) relative clinical impacts were -29.6% (-23% to -37%) for five-grass pollen SLIT tablets, -19.2% (-6% to -29%) for timothy pollen SLIT tablets, -23.5% (-7% to -54%) for nasal corticosteroids, -17.1% (-15% to -20%) for MP29-02, -15.0% (-3% to -26%) for H1-antihistamines and -6.5% (-3% to -10%) for montelukast.

CONCLUSIONS

In an indirect comparison, grass pollen SLIT tablets had a greater mean relative clinical impact than second-generation antihistamines and montelukast and much the same mean relative clinical impact as nasal corticosteroids. This result was obtained despite the presence of methodological factors that mask the clinical efficacy of SLIT for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Evaluation of the single-dose pharmacokinetics of bilastine in subjects with various degrees of renal insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Bilastine is a novel second-generation H1 antihistamine, which has not shown sedative or cardiotoxic effects in clinical trials and in post-marketing experience so far, developed for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. It has recently been granted marketing authorization for these therapeutic indications in adults and adolescents at a once-daily oral dose of 20 mg in several European countries.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to determine the pharmacokinetics of bilastine at a single oral dose of 20 mg in renally impaired subjects. The need for a dose adjustment in patients with renal insufficiency was assessed by comparing the exposure to bilastine in these subjects with the estimated exposure of a dose corresponding to the safety margin.

METHODS

The study was an open-label, single-dose, parallel-group study of the pharmacokinetics and safety of a single dose of bilastine. The study was conducted as an in-patient setting at a clinical pharmacology facility. A total of 24 male or female subjects aged 18-80 years were to be enrolled in four groups of six subjects each. The groups were as follows: (1) healthy [glomerular filtration rate (GFR) >80 mL/min/1.73 m(2)]; (2) mild renal insufficiency (GFR 50-80 mL/min/1.73 m(2)); (3) moderate renal insufficiency (GFR 30-50 mL/min/1.73 m(2)); and (4) severe renal insufficiency (GFR ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). A single 20 mg bilastine tablet was administered in a fasted state. Blood and urine samples were collected from pre-dose up to 72 h post-dose for bilastine pharmacokinetic analysis. Pharmacokinetic results were summarized using appropriate descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

There was a clear trend of increasing area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) through the groups 1-4. The mean AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC(∞)) ranged from 737.4 to 1708.5 ng·h/mL in healthy subjects and severely impaired subjects, respectively. No significant differences among groups in median time to reach Cmax (tmax) or in the mean terminal disposition rate constants for bilastine were found. Renal and plasma clearance paralleled GFR. In all groups of renally impaired subjects the corresponding 90 % confidence interval of both AUC(∞) and AUC from time zero to time of last measurable plasma concentration (AUC(last)) were not within the 0.8-1.25 interval, indicating that bioequivalence between groups could not be demonstrated. The majority of bilastine was excreted within the first 12 h, and elimination was essentially complete by 72 h.

CONCLUSION

An oral dose of bilastine (20 mg) was well-tolerated in renal insufficiency, despite the increase in exposure. The oral plasma clearance to renal clearance ratio [(CL(P)/F)/CL(R)] was approximately equal in the different groups, suggesting that renal excretion was the main elimination route for bilastine, and no alternative elimination routes were used even in severe renal insufficiency. Although exposure to bilastine was higher in renally impaired subjects, it remained well within the safety margins, thus allowing the conclusion that a 20-mg daily dose can be safely administered to subjects with different degrees of renal insufficiency without the need for dose adjustments.

[Evidence-based treatment options for allergic diseases in otolaryngology: an update]

Allergic diseases in the area of otolaryngology (ENT) are common, increasing and associated with a number of comorbid disorders, such as bronchial asthma and atopic dermatitis. If allergen avoidance is not possible, allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causative treatment option. Options for pharmacotherapy are mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, glucocorticoids, leukotriene receptor antagonists and nasal decongestants. In type 1 allergic reactions, topical glucocorticoids are currently the most effective treatment and are considered to be the first-line therapy together with nonsedating antihistamines. A novel formulation (MP29-02) combining a nasal glucocorticoid and antihistamine in one single preparation has demonstrated an improvement of the effective total nasal symptom score by 39 % in comparison to monotherapy with fluticasone propionate. In type IV allergies, such as eczema treatment with topical glucocorticoids or calcineurin inhibitors is standard.

Paediatric rhinitis: position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Rhinitis is a common problem in childhood and adolescence and impacts negatively on physical, social and psychological well-being. This position paper, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Taskforce on Rhinitis in Children, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and therapy of paediatric rhinitis. Rhinitis is characterized by at least two nasal symptoms: rhinorrhoea, blockage, sneezing or itching. It is classified as allergic rhinitis, infectious rhinitis and nonallergic, noninfectious rhinitis. Similar symptoms may occur with other conditions such as adenoidal hypertrophy, septal deviation and nasal polyps. Examination by anterior rhinoscopy and allergy tests may help to substantiate a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. Avoidance of relevant allergens may be helpful for allergic rhinitis (AR). Oral and intranasal antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids are both appropriate for first-line AR treatment although the latter are more effective. Once-daily forms of corticosteroids are preferred given their improved safety profile. Potentially useful add-on therapies for AR include oral leukotriene receptor antagonists, short bursts of a nasal decongestant, saline douches and nasal anticholinergics. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is helpful in IgE-mediated AR and may prevent the progression of allergic disease. There are still a number of areas that need to be clarified in the management of rhinitis in children and adolescents.

Bilastine: a new nonsedating oral H1 antihistamine for treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria

Bilastine is a new, well-tolerated, nonsedating H1 receptor antihistamine. In the fasting state bilastine is quickly absorbed, but the absorption is slowed when it is taken with food or fruit juice. Therefore, it is recommended that bilastine is taken at least one hour before and no sooner than two hours after a meal. Clinical studies sponsored by the manufacturer have shown that bilastine 20 mg once daily is as efficacious as other nonsedating antihistamines in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria in individuals from 12 and 18 years of age, respectively. Bilastine is efficacious in all nasal symptoms including obstruction and in eye symptoms. The observations indicate that non-sedating antihistamines, as opposed to what has been thought previously, may be helpful in patients with allergic rhinitis in whom nasal obstruction is a major concern. Current international guidelines need to be revised in the light of the recent evidence. Research into aspects of pharmacokinetics and efficacy and adverse effect profiles of bilastine in children under 12 years of age is needed as are dose-response assessments and studies planned rigorously with the aim of assessing quality of life effects.