Pharmacological modulation by cetirizine and ebastine of the cutaneous reactivity to histamine

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.

Second-Generation Antihistamines

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

Cetirizine: a review of its use in allergic disorders

Cetirizine is a selective, second-generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist, with a rapid onset, a long duration of activity and low potential for interaction with drugs metabolised by the hepatic cytochrome P450 system. Cetirizine was generally more effective than other H1 receptor antagonists at inhibiting histamine-induced wheal and flare responses. Cetirizine is an effective and well tolerated agent for the treatment of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) in adult, adolescent and paediatric patients. In adults with these allergic disorders, cetirizine was as effective as conventional dosages of ebastine (SAR, PAR, CIU), fexofenadine (SAR), loratadine (SAR, CIU) or mizolastine (SAR). This agent was significantly more effective, and with a more rapid onset of action, than loratadine in 2-day studies in environmental exposure units (SAR). In paediatric patients, cetirizine was as at least as effective as chlorphenamine (chlorpheniramine) [SAR], loratadine (SAR, PAR) and oxatomide (CIU) in the short term, and more effective than oxatomide and ketotifen (PAR) in the long term. Cetirizine was effective in reducing symptoms of allergic asthma in adults and reduced the relative risk of developing asthma in infants with atopic dermatitis sensitised to grass pollen or house dust mite allergens. It had a corticosteroid-sparing effect in infants with severe atopic dermatitis and was effective in ameliorating reactions to mosquito bites in adults. Cetirizine was well tolerated in adults, adolescents and paediatric patients with allergic disorders. In adult, adolescent and paediatric patients aged 2-11 years, the incidence of somnolence with cetirizine was dose related and was generally similar to that with other second-generation H1 receptor antagonists. Although, its sedative effect was greater than that of fexofenadine in some clinical trials and that of loratadine or fexofenadine in a postmarketing surveillance study. In infants aged 6-24 months, the tolerability profile of cetirizine was similar to that of placebo. Cetirizine did not have any adverse effects on cognitive function in adults, or cognitive function, behaviour or achievement of psychomotor milestones in paediatric patients. Cetirizine was not associated with cardiotoxicity.

CONCLUSION

Cetirizine is well established in the treatment of symptoms of SAR, PAR or CIU. It demonstrated a corticosteroid-sparing effect and reduced the relative risk of developing asthma in sensitised infants with atopic dermatitis. Cetirizine was effective in the treatment of allergic cough and mosquito bites; however, its precise role in these indications has yet to be clearly established. On the basis of its favourable efficacy and tolerability profile and rapid onset of action, cetirizine provides an important option for the treatment of a wide range of allergic disorders.

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.

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.

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.

Activity of ebastine (10 and 20 mg) and cetirizine at 24 hours of a steady state treatment in the skin of healthy volunteers

We have compared the inhibitory effects of ebastine (10 mg), ebastine (20 mg) and cetirizine (10 mg) on histamine-induced wheal and flare skin reactions 24 h following a 6-day-long treatment. This was a double-blind, randomised, crossover, placebo-controlled study involving 24 healthy volunteers (18-65 years) with negative skin prick tests and the absence of specific IgEs to common allergens. Subjects were randomised to receive each of the following treatments once daily for 6 days: ebastine (10 mg), ebastine (20 mg), cetirizine (10 mg) or placebo with a washout period of 5 days. Twenty-four hours after the last dose of each treatment, histamine skin prick tests were performed (0, 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 and 200 mg/mL), and wheal and flare responses were measured. All active treatments produced significant inhibition of the wheal responses compared to placebo (P < 0.001). Wheal response inhibition was significantly better with 20 mg of ebastine compared with 10 mg of ebastine and 10 mg of cetirizine. In a comparison to histamine concentrations required to produce a wheal surface area of 10 mm2, 20 mg of ebastine was also significantly better than ebastine 10 mg and cetirizine (P < 0.001), and 10 mg ebastine was significantly better than cetirizine (P < 0.05). Highly significant (P < 0.001) effects on the flare response were observed with each active treatment compared to placebo, with no difference between groups. The frequency of adverse events, primarily somnolence, was similar among the four treatment groups. Our results clearly indicate that ebastine, at either recommended dosage of 10 and 20 mg, and cetirizine produced significant inhibition of the histamine-induced wheal and flare reaction compared to placebo for up to 24 h. A superior efficacy of 20 mg of ebastine is observed compared with 10 mg of ebastine and 10 mg of cetirizine on the skin wheal response 24 h after the last dose of a 6-day-long treatment. This study clearly proves ebastine to be an effective, truly once-daily antihistamine.

Ebastine: an update of its use in allergic disorders

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Changes in skin-test reactivity do not correlate with clinical efficacy of H1-blockers in seasonal allergic rhinitis

New-generation H1-blockers may possess antiallergic properties, and their effect may differ, depending on the target organ. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was carried out during the pollen season to compare the clinical effect on nasal and conjunctival symptoms of astemizole (10 mg o.d.) and loratadine (10 mg o.d.) with their effect on skin-test reactivity to allergen and histamine. Thirty-eight patients (12-56 years of age) were studied. Nasal and ocular symptoms were recorded daily from days 4 to 7. Skin prick tests with serial concentrations of allergens and one concentration of histamine were carried out before and at the end of the 7-day treatment period. Parallel-line bioassay, analysis of variance, and covariance were used to analyze skin test data. Loratadine and astemizole significantly decreased symptoms from baseline (P < 0.004 and P < 0.006). Skin-test reactivity to allergen and histamine was more profoundly decreased by astemizole than loratadine. The histamine covariant was more important in the allergen effect of astemizole than in that of loratadine. Two H1-blockers having the same clinical effect on nasal and ocular symptoms during the pollen season have totally different effects on skin-test reactivity. Skin-test reactivity to allergen or histamine is not predictive of the clinical efficacy of H1-blockers during seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of cetirizine and ebastine in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Cetirizine and ebastine are two second-generation histamine H1 antagonists undergoing evaluation for treatment of perennial rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

The clinical efficacy and safety of once daily cetirizine 10 mg were compared with ebastine 10 mg in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis in a 4-week, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, multicenter study.

METHOD

Two hundred fourteen patients (120 females, 94 males, aged 17 to 70 years, mean 31.2 years) were selected on the basis of perennial allergic rhinitis history, positive skin test for perennial allergens and a minimum rhinitis symptom score of 6/12. Patients recorded nasal symptom severity (nasal stuffiness, nasal discharge, sneezing, and itching) once daily on diary cards using a rating scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe). Clinicians made an overall evaluation after 4 weeks of treatment. An intent-to-treat-analysis was performed comparing cetirizine (106 patients) and ebastine groups (108 patients).

RESULTS

The individual and total baseline symptom scores were comparable in both treatment groups. During the first week, the percentage mean decrease in the total nasal symptom score from baseline (sum of nasal stuffiness, discharge, sneezing, and itching) was significantly higher for cetirizine 46.2% than for ebastine 32.8% (P = .037). After 4 weeks of treatment, total symptom score improvement was 53.7% for cetirizine and 44.7% for ebastine (P = .12), and the clinician's overall evaluation showed that the percentage of symptom-free patients was significantly higher for cetirizine 17.8% than for ebastine 6.9% (P = .02). Cetirizine also significantly improved nasal stuffiness. An associated antiinflammatory effect is suggested. Commonly reported drug-related side effects were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that both antihistamines, cetirizine 10 mg and ebastine 10 mg once a day, improved symptom scores of patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Cetirizine, however, provided faster improvement and total relief in a greater number of patients after 4 weeks.

Consistency of the efficacy of cetirizine and ebastine on skin reactivity

BACKGROUND

At therapeutic dosage, cetirizine and ebastine induce significant inhibition of skin reactivity to histamine. The consistency of their efficacy, that is, efficacy with the least interindividual variability among subjects, has not been carefully assessed, however.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the consistency and efficacy of these antihistamines on skin reactivity.

METHODS

Twenty-four healthy volunteers participated in a randomized double-blind crossover study. The areas of wheals and flares induced by increasing (0, 5, 10, 50, 100, 200, and 300 mg/mL) histamine concentrations, administered by prick tests, were measured before and four hours after intake of 10 mg of each antihistamine, allowing concentration-response curves to be established. The threshold histamine concentrations inducing wheal areas of 3 mm2 (positivity) were calculated by interpolation. The coefficient of variation (SD/mean %) was used to evaluate the consistency of the response.

RESULTS

Pretreatment concentration-response curves were similar, and threshold concentrations identical (0.29 mg/mL and 0.34 mg/mL for cetirizine and ebastine, respectively). For both, curves were lower after treatment than before. After cetirizine, the threshold concentration was significantly higher (217 mg/mL) than after ebastine (0.82 mg/mL) (P < .001), and total inhibition of the wheal reaction was observed in 21 of 24 patients at the lowest histamine concentration and in 17 of 24 at the highest. Ebastine never totally inhibited reaction, even to 5 mg/mL of histamine. Over the entire concentration-response curve, the coefficient of variation for the wheal reaction was 6.3% for cetirizine and 72.6% for ebastine, and, for flares, 11.0% and 83.7%, respectively. Hence, variability was much lower after cetirizine.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows clearly that the efficacy of a single therapeutic dosage of cetirizine is consistently good for suppression of cutaneous reactivity to histamine in healthy volunteers. The need for ebastine to metabolize into the active carebastine might explain its lesser consistency.

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

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

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ebastine in children

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