Lack of significant effect of bilastine administered at therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses and concomitantly with ketoconazole on ventricular repolarization: results of a thorough QT study (TQTS) with QT-concentration analysis

Bioequivalence and Safety of Bilastine 20 mg Orodispersible Tablets and Conventional Tablets: A Randomized, Single-Dose, Two-Period Crossover Study in Healthy Volunteers Under Fasting Conditions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Orodispersible tablets (ODT) rapidly dissolve in the oral cavity and can improve patient's convenience. This pharmacokinetic study assessed the bioequivalence of a novel 20 mg ODT formulation of bilastine compared with bilastine 20 mg tablets in healthy volunteers under fasting conditions.

METHODS

A phase I, single-center, open-label, two-period, two-sequence crossover randomized clinical trial was conducted. The study comprised two periods, in which participants were administered a single oral dose of bilastine 20 mg in the form of ODT as the test product, or conventional tablets as the reference product, and a washout of 7 days between each period. Blood samples were collected for up to 72 h. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence intervals of the Cmax and AUC0-t were within the acceptance range (80-125%). Safety was evaluated at the follow-up visit (days 4-7 after the second dose) and throughout the study.

RESULTS

A total of 42 healthy volunteers were randomized, and 41 completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable for both formulations after a single dose of 20 mg. Bilastine ODT and conventional tablets were bioequivalent as the 90% confidence intervals of the test over reference ratios were within the predefined range (80-125%). Both formulations were well tolerated and showed a similar safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilastine ODT was bioequivalent to the reference treatment formulated as conventional tablets when administered as a single oral dose of 20 mg under fasting conditions. Both formulations showed a similar tolerability and safety profile, with no serious adverse events or significant analytical alterations reported.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

2019-004071-39. Date of authorization: 10 December 2019.

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.

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination of Bilastine-Montelukast in adult patients with allergic rhinitis: a phase III, randomized, multi-center, double-blind, active controlled clinical study

BACKGROUND

Histamine and cysteinyl leukotrienes (CysLTs) are potent inflammatory mediators in allergic rhinitis (AR). Studies involving other combinations of antihistaminics (Levocetirizine) and highly selective leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTA) (Montelukast) combination have shown additive benefits and are widely prescribed for AR.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of Bilastine 20 mg and Montelukast 10 mg fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy in patients with AR.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, comparative, parallel, phase III study was conducted to evaluate efficacy and safety of Bilastine 20 mg and Montelukast 10 mg FDC at 16 tertiary care otolaryngology centres in India. Adult patients with AR for one year with IgE antibody positive and 12-h NSS score >36 in 3 days were randomized to receive either Bilastine 20 mg and Montelukast 10 mg or Montelukast 10 mg & Levocetirizine 5 mg tablets for 4 weeks. The change in total symptom score (nasal symptom scores (NSS) & non-nasal symptom scores (NNSS)) from baseline to week 4 was assessed as primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included changes in TSS, NSS, NNSS, individual symptom scores (ISS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life (RQLQ), discomfort due to rhinitis (VAS), and clinical global impression (CGI) scores.

RESULTS

The change in mean TSS from baseline to week 4 in Test group (16.6 units) was comparable to reference group (17 units) (p= 0.8876). The difference in change in mean NSS, NNSS and ISS from baseline to day 7, 14, 28 were comparable. RQLQ improved from baseline to Day 28. Significant improvements were observed in discomfort due to AR measured by VAS and CGI scores from baseline to day 14 and 28. The safety and tolerability of patients were comparable between the groups. All adverse events (AEs) were mild to moderate in severity. No patient discontinued due to AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The FDC of Bilastine 20 mg and Montelukast 10 mg was efficacious and well tolerated in Indian patients with AR.

An international Delphi study on the burden of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria and the role of bilastine among current treatment options

BACKGROUND

allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria are common histamine-driven diseases, exerting detrimental effects on cognitive functions, sleep, daily activities and quality of life. Non-sedating second-generation H₁-antihistamines are the first line treatment of choice. Aim of the study was to define the role of bilastine among second-generation H₁-antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria in patients of different ages.

METHODS

an international Delphi study was carried out to assess consensus among experts from 17 European and extra-European countries on three main topics: 1) Burden of disease; 2) Current treatment options; 3) Specific characteristics of bilastine among second generation antihistamines.

RESULTS

here, we present the results obtained for a selection of 15 out of 27 consensus statements, focused on disease burden, role of second-generation antihistamines and bilastine profile. The rate of concordance was ≥ 98% for 4 statements, ≥ 96% for 6, ≥ 94% for 3, and ≥ 90% for 2.

CONCLUSIONS

the high degree of agreement obtained suggests a wide awareness of the burden of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria among experts from all over the world and reflect a broad consensus on the role of second generation antihistamines in general and of bilastine in particular for their management.

Bilastine 10 and 20 mg in paediatric and adult patients: an updated practical approach to treatment decisions

Background

Bilastine, a non-sedating H₁-antihistamine, is indicated to treat the symptoms of allergic disorders (e.g. rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria) in adults and adolescents and, more recently, in children. Following its marketing approval, many questions regarding the ideal use of bilastine in various clinical practice situations have been received by the Medical Information Department (MID) of Faes Farma Spain. This article is an update of a previous review, with a focus on recent clinical information on the use of bilastine in paediatric and other populations.

Methods

Results of recent clinical studies in paediatric and other populations as well as questions received and responses provided by the Faes Farma MID.

Results

The information regarding the use of bilastine in paediatric patients is the most relevant aspect of this updated review. The stepwise approval of the paediatric formulations in various countries started with the European Medicines Agency approval in 2017 in accordance with a 2009 Paediatric Investigation Plan, followed by approval in other countries. The queries that are most commonly received by the Faes Farma MID include the potential for drug interactions involving bilastine and other frequently used drugs, and the use of bilastine in special populations or to treat specific symptoms related to allergic conditions. As the concomitant use of many medications is not permitted during clinical trials, the advice provided regarding the concomitant use of other medications with bilastine considers the pharmacological properties of both the drug in question and bilastine, as well as expert opinion. Likewise, advice regarding the use of bilastine in special populations (e.g. patients with renal impairment, obesity, lactose intolerance, and elderly or pregnant individuals) or to treat specific symptoms (e.g. treatment-resistant urticaria, pruritus or BASCULE syndrome) considers the best evidence from a variety of sources, including clinical studies, real-world experience, guideline recommendations and expert opinion.

Conclusion

This updated review provides current data regarding the best use of bilastine in specific situations and patients and identifies areas in which further knowledge is required. Although decisions regarding the use of bilastine may be aided by expert opinion that relies on knowledge of the underlying science, additional research and evidence are required to answer certain queries regarding the use of bilastine.

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.

The safety and tolerability profile of bilastine for chronic urticaria in children

Background

Urticaria is a condition defined by the development of wheals, angioedema or both. It is classified based on its duration as acute (≤ 6 weeks) or chronic (> 6 weeks). Chronic urticaria is less frequent than acute one in children, but it represents a debilitating condition, always needing treatment. Symptoms affect child's daily activities and disturb sleeping patterns, causing emotional distress and negatively influencing learning and cognition. Therefore, the management of chronic urticaria must point to a complete control of symptoms, taking into account tolerability and the patient quality of life.

Review of literature

The recently revised version of EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guideline on the management of urticaria, in addition to recommending the use of second-generation H₁ antihistamines as the treatment of choice, gives particular attention to their use in the paediatric population. Bilastine has been studied in children; at the dose of 10 mg/once daily, it is licenced for the symptomatic relief of urticaria in children ≥ 6 to 11 years, in the European Union, in appropriate formulation, as oral solution or orodispersible tablet.

Conclusions

In line with the recent guideline recommendation for the use of second generation H₁ antihistamines in children we have reviewed the safety and tolerability profile of bilastine in children with chronic urticaria.

Model Informed Pediatric Development Applied to Bilastine: Ontogenic PK Model Development, Dose Selection for First Time in Children and PK Study Design

PURPOSE

Bilastine is an H₁ antagonist whose pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) have been resolved in adults with a therapeutic oral dose of 20 mg/day. Bilastine has favorable characteristics for use in pediatrics but the PK/PD and the optimal dose in children had yet to be clinically explored. The purpose is to: (1) Develop an ontogenic predictive model of bilastine PK linked to the PD in adults by integrating current knowledge; (2) Use the model to design a PK study in children; (3) Confirm the selected dose and the study design through the evaluation of model predictability in the first recruited children; (4) Consider for inclusion the group of younger children (< 6 years).

METHODS

A semi-mechanistic approach was applied to predict bilastine PK in children assuming the same PD as described in adults. The model was used to simulate the time evolution of plasma levels and wheal and flare effects after several doses and design an adaptive PK trial in children that was then confirmed using data from the first recruits by comparing observations with model predictions.

RESULTS

PK/PD simulations supported the selection of 10 mg/day in 2 to <12 year olds. Results from the first interim analysis confirmed the model predictions and design hence trial continuation.

CONCLUSION

The model successfully predicted bilastine PK in pediatrics and optimally assisted the selection of the dose and sampling scheme for the trial in children. The selected dose was considered suitable for younger children and the forthcoming safety study in children aged 2 to <12 years.

Efficacy and safety of bilastine in Japanese patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase II/III study

BACKGROUND

Bilastine, a novel non-sedating second-generation H₁-antihistamine, has been widely used in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria with a recommended dose of 20 mg once daily in most European countries since 2010. We evaluated its efficacy and safety in Japanese patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU).

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II/III study (trial registration No. JapicCTI-142574). Patients (age, 18-74 years) were randomly assigned to receive bilastine 20 mg, 10 mg or placebo once daily for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline (Day -3 to 0) in total symptom score (TSS) at 2 weeks (Day 8-14), consisting of the itch and rash scores.

RESULTS

A total of 304 patients were randomly allocated to bilastine 20 mg (101 patients), bilastine 10 mg (100 patients), and placebo (103 patients). The changes in TSS at 2 weeks were significantly decreased by bilastine 20 mg than did placebo (p < 0.001), demonstrating the superiority of bilastine 20 mg. Bilastine 10 mg also showed a significant difference from placebo (p < 0.001). The TSS changes for the bilastine showed significant improvement from Day 1, and were maintained during the treatment period. The Dermatology Life Quality Index scores were also improved in bilastine than in placebo. The bilastine treatments were safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-week treatment with bilastine (20 or 10 mg) once daily was effective and tolerable in Japanese patients with CSU, demonstrating an early onset of action.

Bilastine in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria: a practical approach to treatment decisions based on queries received by the medical information department

BACKGROUND

Bilastine is a safe and effective commonly prescribed non-sedating H1-antihistamine approved for symptomatic treatment in patients with allergic disorders such as rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. It was evaluated in many patients throughout the clinical development required for its approval, but clinical trials generally exclude many patients who will benefit in everyday clinical practice (especially those with coexisting diseases and/or being treated with concomitant drugs). Following its introduction into clinical practice, the Medical Information Specialists at Faes Farma have received many practical queries regarding the optimal use of bilastine in different circumstances.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

Queries received by the Medical Information Department and the responses provided to senders of these queries.

RESULTS

The most frequent questions received by the Medical Information Department included the potential for drug-drug interactions with bilastine and commonly used agents such as anticoagulants (including the novel oral anticoagulants), antiretrovirals, antituberculosis regimens, corticosteroids, digoxin, oral contraceptives, and proton pump inhibitors. Most of these medicines are not usually allowed in clinical trials, and so advice needs to be based upon the pharmacological profiles of the drugs involved and expert opinion. The pharmacokinetic profile of bilastine appears favourable since it undergoes negligible metabolism and is almost exclusively eliminated via renal excretion, and it neither induces nor inhibits the activity of several isoenzymes from the CYP 450 system. Consequently, bilastine does not interact with cytochrome metabolic pathways. Other queries involved specific patient groups such as subjects with renal impairment, women who are breastfeeding or who are trying to become pregnant, and patients with other concomitant diseases. Interestingly, several questions related to topics that are well covered in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), which suggests that this resource is not being well used.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this analysis highlights gaps in our knowledge regarding the optimal use of bilastine. Expert opinion based upon an understanding of the science can help in the decision-making, but more research is needed to provide evidence-based answers in certain circumstances.

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.

One-year safety and efficacy study of bilastine treatment in Japanese patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria or pruritus associated with skin diseases

A number of second-generation non-sedating antihistamines are used in clinical practices over the world. However, long-term safety and efficacy have not been proved high level evidence based medicine. We have performed an open-label, multicenter, phase III study to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of bilastine, a novel non-sedating H₁ -antihistamine for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) or pruritus associated with skin diseases (trial registration no. JapicCTI-142528). Patients aged 18-74 years were treated with bilastine 20 mg once daily for up to 52 weeks. Safety and tolerability were assessed on the basis of adverse events (AE), bilastine-related AE, laboratory tests and vital signs. Efficacy was assessed based on rash score, itch score, overall improvement and quality of life. One hundred and ninety-eight patients enrolled, 122 of whom (61.6%) completed the 52-week treatment period. AE were reported in 64.5% and bilastine-related AE in 2.5% of patients throughout the 52-week treatment period. All AE were mild to moderate in severity. AE associated with the nervous system occurred in 10 patients (5.1%) including seven patients (3.6%) with headache. Somnolence reported in two of these patients (1.0%) was related to bilastine. All efficacy variables improved during treatment with bilastine. In conclusion, long-term treatment with bilastine 20 mg once daily for 52 weeks is safe and well tolerated in Japanese patients with CSU or pruritus associated with skin diseases. Bilastine improved disease symptoms of both conditions early in treatment, and the efficacy was maintained throughout the treatment.

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.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

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.

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.

Pro-arrhythmic potential of oral antihistamines (H1): combining adverse event reports with drug utilization data across Europe

Background

There is appreciable utilisation of antihistamines (H₁) in European countries, either prescribed by physician and purchased by patients for self-medication. Terfenadine and astemizole underwent regulatory restrictions in ’90 because of their cardiac toxicity, but only scarce clinical data are available on other antihistamines.

Aim

To investigate the pro-arrhythmic potential of antihistamines by combining safety reports of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) with drug utilization data from 13 European Countries.

Methods

We identified signals of antihistamine arrhythmogenic potential by analyzing FAERS database for all cases of Torsades de Pointes (TdP), QT abnormalities (QTabn), ventricular arrhythmia (VA) and sudden cardiac death/cardiac arrest (SCD/CA). Number of cases ≥3 and disproportionality were used to define alert signals: TdP and QTabn identified stronger signals, whereas SCD/CA identified weaker signals. Drug utilization data from 2005 to 2010 were collected from administrative databases through health authorities and insurance.

Results

Antihistamines were reported in 109 cases of TdP/QT prolongation, 278 VA and 610 SCD/CA. Five agents resulted in stronger signals (cetirizine, desloratadine, diphenhydramine, fexofenadine, loratadine) and 6 in weaker signals (alimemazine, carbinoxamine, cyclizine, cyproeptadine, dexchlorpheniramine and doxylamine). Exposure to antihistamines with stronger signal was markedly different across European countries and was at least 40% in each Country. Cetirizine was >29 Defined Daily Doses per 1000 inhabitants per day (DID) in Norway, desloratadine >11 DID in France and loratadine >9 DID in Sweden and Croatia. Drugs with weaker signals accounted for no more than 10% (in Sweden) and in most European countries their use was negligible.

Conclusions

Some second-generation antihistamines are associated with signal of torsadogenicity and largely used in most European countries. Although confirmation by analytical studies is required, regulators and clinicians should consider risk-minimisation activities. Also antihistamines without signal but with peculiar use in a few Countries (e.g., levocetirizine) or with increasing consumption (e.g., rupatadine) deserve careful surveillance.

Clinical ECG Assessment

With the adoption of the ICH E14 guidance, the thorough QT/QTc (TQT) study has become the focus of clinical assessment of an NCE's effects on ECG parameters. The TQT study is used as a guide to the liability of a drug to cause proarrhythmias on the basis of delayed cardiac repolarization. Around 300 TQT studies have been performed since 2005 and through interactions between sponsors and regulators, especially FDA's Interdisciplinary Review Team (IRT) for QT studies. These studies can today be performed more effectively and with great confidence in the generated data. This chapter will discuss technical features and the design and analysis of TQT studies, how assay sensitivity is demonstrated, and examples from recently conducted studies. ECG assessment for drugs that cannot be safely given to healthy volunteers is also addressed, and examples from studies in cancer patients and in healthy volunteers with tyrosine kinase inhibitors are discussed. The TQT study is resource intensive and designed to solely evaluate whether an NCE prolongs the QTc interval. If data with similar confidence can be generated from other studies that are routinely performed as part of the clinical development, this would represent a more optimal use of human resources. Methods and approaches to increase the confidence in ECG data derived from "early QT assessment" in single-ascending/multiple-ascending dose studies are therefore discussed, and a path toward replacing the TQT study using these approaches will be outlined.

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.

Cardiovascular safety of antihistamines

Histamine is a mediator, which increases the permeability of capillaries during the early phase of allergic reaction, causes smooth muscle contraction of bronchi and stimulates mucous glands in the nasal cavity. Antihistamines are the basis of symptomatic treatment in the majority of allergic diseases, especially allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, urticaria and anaphylaxis. The cardiotoxic effects of the two withdrawn drugs, terfenadine and astemizole, were manifested by prolonged QT intervals and triggering torsades de pointes (TdP) caused by blockade of the ‘rapid’ I_Kr potassium channels. These phenomena, however, are not a class effect. This review deals with a new generation of antihistamine drugs in the context of QT interval prolongation risk.

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.

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.

Lomitapide at supratherapeutic plasma levels does not prolong the Qtc interval--results from a TQT study with moxifloxacin and ketoconazole

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of high plasma levels of lomitapide and its main metabolite on ECG parameters.

METHODS

In this randomized five-way cross-over thorough QT study, 56 healthy subjects were enrolled. Study treatments were administered orally for 3 days in five separate periods in which subjects were dosed with (1) a single dose of 75 mg lomitapide on Day 1 followed by a single dose of 200 mg on Day 3; (2) ketoconazole 200 mg BID; (3) ketoconazole with a single dose of 75 mg lomitapide on Day 3; (4) a single dose of 400 mg moxifloxacin on Day 3 and (5) placebo.

RESULTS

Single doses of 75 and 200 mg lomitapide alone or in combination with ketoconazole caused minor changes in the change-from-baseline QTcI (ΔQTcI), whereas moxifloxacin and ketoconazole caused an increase of ΔQTcI with a peak effect at 1 and 3 hours postdosing, respectively. The largest mean placebo-corrected ΔQTcI (ΔΔQTcI) for lomitapide did not exceed 3 ms (upper bound of 90% CI: 4.7 ms) at any time points postdosing. Ketoconazole caused mild QT prolongation with mean ΔΔQTcI of 5.9 and 6.5 ms at 2 and 3 hours postdosing, and exposure-response analysis demonstrated a significantly positive slope of 1.3 ms per μg/mL (90% CI: 1.0-1.7). Moxifloxacin met the criteria for assay sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Lomitapide does not have an effect on cardiac repolarization. The study's ability to detect small QTc changes was demonstrated with both moxifloxacin and ketoconazole.

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.

Up-dosing with bilastine results in improved effectiveness in cold contact urticaria

Background

Cold contact urticaria (CCU) is characterized by itchy wheal and flare responses due to the release of histamine and other pro-inflammatory mediators after exposure to cold. The treatment of choice is nonsedating antihistamines, dosages of which may be increased up to fourfold if standard doses are ineffective. Here, we assess the effects of a standard 20 mg dose and up-dosing to 40 and 80 mg of bilastine in reducing the symptoms of CCU and inflammatory mediator release following cold challenge.

Methods

Twenty patients with CCU were included in this randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled 12-week study. They received placebo, 20, 40 or 80 mg of bilastine daily each for 7 days with 14-day washout periods. The primary readout was change in critical temperature thresholds (CTT). Secondary readouts were changes in pruritus, levels of histamine IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-α collected by skin microdialysis and safety and tolerability of bilastine.

Results

Bilastine 20 mg was highly effective (P < 0.0001) in reducing CTT. Up-dosing to 80 mg significantly (P < 0.04) increased its effectiveness. At this dose, 19 of 20 (95%) patients responded to treatment, with 12 of 20 (60%) becoming symptom free. Only one patient was refractory to treatment. Microdialysis levels of histamine, IL-6 and IL-8 assessed 1–3 h after cold challenge were significantly (P < 0.05) decreased following up-dosing with 80 mg bilastine. Bilastine treat-ment was well tolerated without evidence of increased sedation with dose escala-tion.

Conclusions

Bilastine was effective in reducing the symptoms of patients with CCU. Increased efficacy of bilastine with fourfold up-dosing was without sedation and supports urticaria treatment guidelines.

Critical appraisal of bilastine for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria

Bilastine is a second generation antihistamine indicated for the treatment of seasonal or perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria with a daily dose of 20 mg, in adults and children over 12 years of age. The efficacy of bilastine has been shown to be similar to that of the comparator drugs for the control of the nasal and nonnasal symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, while also showing a subjective improvement in the quality of life and in overall clinical impression. For chronic urticaria the symptoms (itching and the development of papules) lessens from the second day of treatment onwards, in a similar way to other antihistamines used as comparators. Bilastine should not be administered at meal times to avoid interference with the absorption process. It is not distributed to the central nervous system, is scarcely metabolized, and elimination is through the kidneys and feces, with a 14-hour elimination half-life. It has no effect on cytochrome P450. During clinical development, bilastine was shown to be a drug that is adequately tolerated, with a similar effect to placebo with regard to drowsiness and changes in heart rate. In relation to its use, headaches were the most frequent adverse effect to be reported. No cardiotoxic effects have been observed, and the therapeutic dose does not alter the state of alertness.

Bilastine: in allergic rhinitis and urticaria

Bilastine is an orally administered, second-generation antihistamine used in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal or perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. In two well designed phase III trials, 14 days' treatment with bilastine was associated with a significantly lower area under the effect curve (AUEC) for the reflective total symptom score (TSS) than placebo in patients with symptomatic seasonal allergic rhinitis. Additionally, reflective nasal symptom scores were significantly lower in bilastine than placebo recipients in patients with a history of seasonal allergic rhinitis who were challenged with grass pollen allergen in a single-centre, phase II study. Neither bilastine nor cetirizine was effective in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis with regard to the mean AUEC for reflective TSS in another well designed phase III trial. However, results may have been altered by differences in some baseline characteristics and placebo responses between study countries. In another well designed phase III trial, compared with placebo, bilastine was associated with a significantly greater change from baseline to day 28 in the mean reflective daily urticaria symptom score in patients with chronic urticaria. There were no significant differences in primary endpoint results between bilastine and any of the active comparators used in these trials (i.e. cetirizine, levocetirizine and desloratadine). Bilastine was generally well tolerated, with a tolerability profile that was generally similar to that of the other second-generation antihistamines included in phase III clinical trials.

Effects of bilastine on T-wave morphology and the QTc interval: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, thorough QTc study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The International Conference of Harmonisation (ICH) E14 guideline for thorough QT studies requires assessing the propensity of new non-antiarrhythmic drugs to affect cardiac repolarization. The present study investigates whether a composite ECG measure of T-wave morphology (Morphology Combination Score [MCS]) can be used together with the heart rate corrected QT interval (QTc) in a fully ICH E14-compliant thorough QT study to exclude clinically relevant repolarization effects of bilastine, a novel antihistamine.

METHODS

Thirty participants in this crossover study were randomly assigned to receive placebo, moxifloxacin 400 mg, bilastine at therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses (20 and 100 mg) and bilastine 20 mg co-administered with ketoconazole 400 mg. Resting ECGs recorded at 12 nominal time points before and after treatments were used to determine Fridericia corrected QTc (QTcF) and MCS from the T-wave characteristics: asymmetry, flatness and notching.

RESULTS

There were no effects of bilastine monotherapy (20 and 100 mg) on MCS or QTcF at those study times where the bilastine plasma concentrations were highest. MCS changes for bilastine monotherapy did not exceed the normal intrasubject variance of T-wave shapes for triplicate ECG recordings. Maximum QTcF prolongation for bilastine monotherapy was 5 ms or less: 3.8 ms (90% CI 0.3, 7.3 ms) for bilastine 20 mg and 5.0 ms (90% CI 2.0, 8.0 ms) for bilastine 100 mg. There were no indications of bilastine inducing larger repolarization effects on T-wave morphology as compared with the QTcF interval, as evidenced by the similarity of z-score equivalents for placebo-corrected changes in MCS and QTcF values.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that bilastine, at therapeutic and supratherapeutic dosages, does not induce any effects on T-wave morphology or QTcF. These results confirm the absence of an effect for bilastine on cardiac repolarization.

Establishing the place in therapy of bilastine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis according to ARIA: evidence review

BACKGROUND

The ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) guidelines development group examined the properties of oral H(1)-antihistamines and made proposals about an 'optimal' drug. Several criteria should be met by oral H(1)-antihistamines in terms of their pharmacological, and clinical efficacy and safety profiles.

OBJECTIVE

Bilastine, a new H(1)-antihistamine, has been approved in 28 European countries for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria in adults and children older than 12 years. To determine its potential place in therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, this manuscript examines whether bilastine meets the criteria defined in the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)/ARIA proposals for oral H(1)-antihistamines.

METHODS

The optimal properties of oral H(1)-antihistamines and current ARIA recommendations for their use in allergic rhinitis are presented, as well as relevant pharmacological and clinical data for bilastine obtained from the published literature that specifically address the defined criteria.

RESULTS

Bilastine is a potent inhibitor of the histamine H(1) receptor. Data from preclinical studies have confirmed its selectivity for the histamine H(1) receptor over other receptors, and demonstrated antihistaminic properties in vitro and in vivo. Bilastine does not interfere with the cytochrome P450 system and is devoid of cardiac side effects. Studies in healthy volunteers and patients have shown that bilastine does not affect driving ability, cardiac conduction or alertness. In large pivotal randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs), bilastine had a favourable safety profile. Bilastine 20 mg once daily improved all nasal and ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis with greater efficacy than placebo and comparable to that of cetirizine and desloratadine. Moreover, bilastine was shown to improve quality of life, an important outcome of RCTs in allergic diseases. There were no significant changes in laboratory tests, electrocardiograms or vital signs. A potential limitation of this assessment of bilastine is that it is a literature-based review and the findings are dependent upon the quality of the published evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilastine meets current EAACI/ARIA criteria for medications used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.