Therapeutic advantages of third generation antihistamines

Intranasal corticosteroid use in patients with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases in the world, which is based on IgE-mediated inflammation that develops after exposure to various allergens. About 40% of people suffer from the same or other allergic diseases, every third inhabitant of the Earth has symptoms of AR and every tenth has bronchial asthma. According to the ARIA classification, ARs are divided: by the nature of the flow, by the severity of the flow and by the stage of the flow; for symptoms, the proposed therapy, consisting of sequential steps. Groups of drugs include: systemic or topical blockers of histamine H1 receptors, intranasal and systemic corticosteroids, mast cell stabilizers (intranasal cromones), M-antagonists, antagonists of leukotriene receptors. Medicines do not give a lasting effect after their cancellation, therefore, with persistent AR, treatment should be prolonged; methods of application more often oral or intranasal. The advantages of the pharmacological antiallergic effect of InHCS are the simultaneous inhibition of both the early and late phases of the allergic response and the inhibition of all AR symptoms. The advantage of InHCS over oral administration is the minimal risk of developing systemic side effects against the background of the creation of adequate concentrations of the substance in the nasal mucosa, which allows to control the symptoms of AR. Based on data from a number of studies, the advantages of intrasal corticosteroids for AR, in particular fluticasone propionate, are used.

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

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

Oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for eczema

BACKGROUND

The symptoms of eczema can lead to sleeplessness and fatigue and may have a substantial impact on quality of life. Use of oral H1 antihistamines (H1 AH) as adjuvant therapy alongside topical agents is based on the idea that combining the anti-inflammatory effects of topical treatments with the blocking action of histamine on its receptors in the skin by H1 AH (to reduce the principal symptom of itch) might magnify or intensify the effect of treatment. Also, it would be unethical to compare oral H1 AH alone versus no treatment, as topical treatment is the standard management for this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment in adults and children with eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to May 2018: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the GREAT database (Global Resource of EczemA Trials; from inception). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the abstracts of four conference proceedings held between 2000 and 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought RCTs assessing oral H1 AH as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for people with eczema compared with topical treatment plus placebo or no additional treatment as add-on therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcome measures were 'Mean change in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema' and 'Proportion of participants reporting adverse effects and serious adverse events'. Secondary outcomes were 'Mean change in physician-assessed clinical signs', 'Mean change in quality of life', and 'Number of eczema flares'.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies (3285 randomised participants). Seventeen studies included 1344 adults, and eight studies included 1941 children. Most studies failed to report eczema severity at baseline, but they were conducted in secondary care settings, so it is likely that they recruited patients with more severe cases of eczema. Trial duration was between three days and 18 months. Researchers studied 13 different H1 AH treatments. We could not undertake pooling because of the high level of diversity across studies in terms of duration and dose of intervention, concomitant topical therapy, and outcome assessment. Risk of bias was generally unclear, but five studies had high risk of bias in one domain (attrition, selection, or reporting bias). Only one study measured quality of life, but these results were insufficient for statistical analysis.Although this review assessed 17 comparisons, we summarise here the results of three key comparisons in this review.Cetirizine versus placeboOne study compared cetirizine 0.5 mg/kg/d against placebo over 18 months in 795 children. Study authors did not report patient-assessed symptoms of eczema separately for pruritus. Cetirizine is probably associated with fewer adverse events (mainly mild) (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01) and the need for slightly less additional H1 AH use as an indication of eczema flare rate (P = 0.035; no further numerical data given). Physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index (SCORAD)) were reduced in both groups, but the difference between groups was reported as non-significant (no P value given). Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.One study assessed cetirizine 10 mg/d against placebo over four weeks in 84 adults. Results show no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema (pruritus measured as part of SCORAD; no numerical data given), numbers of adverse events (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45; mainly sedation, other skin-related problems, respiratory symptoms, or headache), or physician-assessed changes in clinical signs, amount of local rescue therapy required, or number of applications as an indicator of eczema flares (no numerical data reported). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality.Fexofenadine versus placeboCompared with placebo, fexofenadine 120 mg/d taken in adults over one week (one study) probably leads to a small reduction in patient-assessed symptoms of pruritus on a scale of 0 to 8 (mean difference (MD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.07; n = 400) and a greater reduction in the ratio of physician-assessed pruritus area to whole body surface area (P = 0.007; no further numerical data given); however, these reductions may not be clinically meaningful. Results suggest probably little or no difference in adverse events (mostly somnolence and headache) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.50; n = 411) nor in the amount of 0.1% hydrocortisone butyrate used (co-intervention in both groups) as an indicator of eczema flare, but no numerical data were given. Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.Loratadine versus placeboA study of 28 adults compared loratadine 10 mg/d taken over 4 weeks versus placebo. Researchers found no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed pruritus, measured by a 100-point visual analogue scale (MD -2.30, 95% CI -20.27 to 15.67); reduction in physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORAD) (MD -4.10, 95% CI -13.22 to 5.02); or adverse events. Study authors reported only one side effect (folliculitis with placebo) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.76). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality. Number of eczema flares was not measured for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the main comparisons, we did not find consistent evidence that H1 AH treatments are effective as 'add-on' therapy for eczema when compared to placebo; evidence for this comparison was of low and moderate quality. However, fexofenadine probably leads to a small improvement in patient-assessed pruritus, with probably no significant difference in the amount of treatment used to prevent eczema flares. Cetirizine was no better than placebo in terms of physician-assessed clinical signs nor patient-assessed symptoms, and we found no evidence that loratadine was more beneficial than placebo, although all interventions seem safe.The quality of evidence was limited because of poor study design and imprecise results. Future researchers should clearly define the condition (course and severity) and clearly report their methods, especially participant selection and randomisation; baseline characteristics; and outcomes (based on the Harmonising Outcome Measures in Eczema initiative).

Functional Coupling of Human Microphysiology Systems: Intestine, Liver, Kidney Proximal Tubule, Blood-Brain Barrier and Skeletal Muscle

Organ interactions resulting from drug, metabolite or xenobiotic transport between organs are key components of human metabolism that impact therapeutic action and toxic side effects. Preclinical animal testing often fails to predict adverse outcomes arising from sequential, multi-organ metabolism of drugs and xenobiotics. Human microphysiological systems (MPS) can model these interactions and are predicted to dramatically improve the efficiency of the drug development process. In this study, five human MPS models were evaluated for functional coupling, defined as the determination of organ interactions via an in vivo-like sequential, organ-to-organ transfer of media. MPS models representing the major absorption, metabolism and clearance organs (the jejunum, liver and kidney) were evaluated, along with skeletal muscle and neurovascular models. Three compounds were evaluated for organ-specific processing: terfenadine for pharmacokinetics (PK) and toxicity; trimethylamine (TMA) as a potentially toxic microbiome metabolite; and vitamin D3. We show that the organ-specific processing of these compounds was consistent with clinical data, and discovered that trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) crosses the blood-brain barrier. These studies demonstrate the potential of human MPS for multi-organ toxicity and absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME), provide guidance for physically coupling MPS, and offer an approach to coupling MPS with distinct media and perfusion requirements.

The role of antihistamines in chronic actinic dermatitis treatment

Inveterate actinic dermatitis is an immunologically mediated photodermatosis characterized by itchy eczematous dermhelminthiasis exposed to sunlight. The disease proceeds in the same way as the atopic eczema or atopic dermatitis. The treatment of patients with inveterate actinic dermatitis is similar to the treatment of patients with atopic dermatitis and eczema. Administration of the modern antihistaminic preparation desloratadine (Aerius) in the treatment has a positive effect on the skin process relief and on some cellular and humoral immunity factors.

Oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common skin disease in many countries, and although the majority of cases of eczema occur before the age of five years and often resolve during childhood or adolescence, it can also persist into adulthood. Itch is the most important aspect of eczema, often impacting significantly on the quality of life of an affected individual.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral antihistamines (H1 antagonists) as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to March 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We examined the reference lists of excluded studies in order to identify further references to relevant trials. We searched trials registers for ongoing and unpublished trials. We also handsearched the abstracts of the International Research Workshops on eczema, as well as the conference proceedings of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) and the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), from 2000 to 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects and safety of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema. We excluded studies that compared an antihistamine versus another antihistamine and had no placebo control arm. We also excluded topical antihistamines and oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy and studies using any concomitant therapy other than emollients or moisturisers, principally because some of these forms of concomitant therapy may be considered treatment modifiers in assessments of the effects of antihistamines on eczema.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our search retrieved 409 references to studies. Based on assessments of their titles, abstracts, or both, we excluded all except 36 of these studies. After evaluation of the full text of each report, we excluded a further 35 studies, and 1 study is awaiting classification pending a response from the trial investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no high-level evidence to support or refute the efficacy or safety of oral H1 antihistamines used as monotherapy for eczema. Because most of the studies allowed the use of concomitant medications and involved multi-therapeutic approaches, meaningful assessments of the individual effects of oral H1 antihistamines on eczema were not feasible. Although well-designed randomised controlled trials excluding concomitant medications appear to be needed, consideration should be given to the potential ethical issues raised with the use of antihistamines as monotherapy for the management of eczema by withholding the use of rescue or additional therapies. A further systematic review of studies in which concomitant therapies were permitted might be of value in determining the potential benefits of oral H1 antihistamines as add-on therapy.

Oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common skin disease in many countries, and although the majority of cases of eczema occur before the age of five years and often resolve during childhood or adolescence, it can also persist into adulthood. Itch is the most important aspect of eczema, often impacting significantly on the quality of life of an affected individual.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral antihistamines (H1 antagonists) as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to March 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We examined the reference lists of excluded studies in order to identify further references to relevant trials. We searched trials registers for ongoing and unpublished trials. We also handsearched the abstracts of the International Research Workshops on eczema, as well as the conference proceedings of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) and the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), from 2000 to 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects and safety of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema. We excluded studies that compared an antihistamine versus another antihistamine and had no placebo control arm. We also excluded topical antihistamines and oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy and studies using any concomitant therapy other than emollients or moisturisers, principally because some of these forms of concomitant therapy may be considered treatment modifiers in assessments of the effects of antihistamines on eczema.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our search retrieved 409 references to studies. Based on assessments of their titles, abstracts, or both, we excluded all except 36 of these studies. After evaluation of the full text of each report, we excluded a further 35 studies, and 1 study is awaiting classification pending a response from the trial investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no high-level evidence to support or refute the efficacy or safety of oral H1 antihistamines used as monotherapy for eczema. Because most of the studies allowed the use of concomitant medications and involved multi-therapeutic approaches, meaningful assessments of the individual effects of oral H1 antihistamines on eczema were not feasible. Although well-designed randomised controlled trials excluding concomitant medications appear to be needed, consideration should be given to the potential ethical issues raised with the use of antihistamines as monotherapy for the management of eczema by withholding the use of rescue or additional therapies. A further systematic review of studies in which concomitant therapies were permitted might be of value in determining the potential benefits of oral H1 antihistamines as add-on therapy.

Heart rhythm disturbances associated with rupatadine: a case series from the Spanish and Portuguese pharmacovigilance systems

We searched the Spanish and Portuguese pharmacovigilance databases for spontaneous case reports of heart rhythm disturbances associated with rupatadine and other new H1 antihistamines. Five cases were found involving patients treated with rupatadine (13.9% of all reports relating to this drug). In all five cases, the reaction started after exposure and resolved when the drug was discontinued. In two cases, rupatadine was the only medication being taken by the patient, and no other condition that could explain the heart rhythm disturbances was diagnosed. The reporting odds ratio was 3.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.0-10.5). The reporting rate was 2 cases per 100,000 patients treated per year (95% confidence interval, 0.4-6.0). These results suggest a causal relationship between rupatadine and heart rhythm disturbances.

Toxicological Significance of Mechanism-Based Inactivation of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes by Drugs

Cytochrome P450 (P450) enzymes oxidize xenobiotics into chemically reactive metabolites or intermediates as well as into stable metabolites. If the reactivity of the product is very high, it binds to a catalytic site or sites of the enzyme itself and inactivates it. This phenomenon is referred to as mechanism-based inactivation. Many clinically important drugs are mechanism-based inactivators that include macrolide antibiotics, calcium channel blockers, and selective serotonin uptake inhibitors, but are not always structurally and pharmacologically related. The inactivation of P450s during drug therapy results in serious drug interactions, since irreversibility of the binding allows enzyme inhibition to be prolonged after elimination of the causal drug. The inhibition of the metabolism of drugs with narrow therapeutic indexes, such as terfenadine and astemizole, leads to toxicities. On the other hand, the fate of P450s after the inactivation and the toxicological consequences remains to be elucidated, while it has been suggested that P450s modified and degraded are involved in some forms of tissue toxicity. Porphyrinogenic drugs, such as griseofulvin, cause mechanism-based heme inactivation, leading to formation of ferrochelatase-inhibitory N-alkylated protoporphyrins and resulting in porphyria. Involvement of P450-derived free heme in halothane-induced hepatotoxicity and catalytic iron in cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity has also been suggested. Autoantibodies against P450s have been found in hepatitis following administration of tienilic acid and dihydralazine. Tienilic acid is activated by and covalently bound to CYP2C9, and the neoantigens thus formed activate immune systems, resulting in the formation of an autoantibodydirected against CYP2C9, named anti-liver/kidney microsomal autoantibody type 2, whereas the pathological role of the autoantibodies in drug-induced hepatitis remains largely unknown.

Allergic rhinitis in family practice: the role of levocetirizine in clinical care

Allergic rhinitis is one of the most common presentations of allergic disorders in the United States, affecting more than 20% of the population. Chronic rhinitis affects patients' quality of life and exacerbates comorbid conditions. Its widespread burden affects society by substantially decreasing worker and scholastic productivity. Allergic rhinitis is typically managed with pharmacotherapy to alleviate symptoms and control comorbid conditions, yet many of these agents carry their own burden due to bothersome and sometimes severe side effects that can compromise patient safety. A new generation of non- or less-sedating antihistamines has recently emerged. These agents offer the promise of enhanced efficacy and tolerability. Of these agents, levocetirizine is the latest antihistamine introduced in the United States. It appears to be safe and effective for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. In addition to covering the above topics, this article reviews the value of levocetirizine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis based on its pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic profile, its efficacy compared with placebo and other new-generation antihistamines, and its safety and tolerability.

In Vitro Pharmacology of Clinically Used Central Nervous System-Active Drugs as Inverse H1 Receptor Agonists

The human histamine H(1) receptor (H(1)R) is a prototypical G protein-coupled receptor and an important, well characterized target for the development of antagonists to treat allergic conditions. Many neuropsychiatric drugs are also known to potently antagonize this receptor, underlying aspects of their side effect profiles. We have used the cell-based receptor selection and amplification technology assay to further define the clinical pharmacology of the human H(1)R by evaluating >130 therapeutic and reference drugs for functional receptor activity. Based on this screen, we have reported on the identification of 8R-lisuride as a potent stereospecific partial H(1)R agonist (Mol Pharmacol 65:538-549, 2004). In contrast, herein we report on a large number of varied clinical and chemical classes of drugs that are active in the central nervous system that display potent H(1)R inverse agonist activity. Absolute and rank order of functional potency of these clinically relevant brain-penetrating drugs may possibly be used to predict aspects of their clinical profiles, including propensity for sedation.

Histamine H1 receptor involvement in prepulse inhibition and memory function: relevance for the antipsychotic actions of clozapine

Histamine H(1) blockade is one of the more prominent actions of the multi-receptor acting antipsychotic clozapine. It is currently not known how much this H(1) antagonism of clozapine contributes to the therapeutic or adverse side effects of clozapine. The current studies with Sprague-Dawley rats were conducted to determine the participation of histaminergic H(1) receptor subtype in sensorimotor plasticity and memory function affected by clozapine using tests of prepulse inhibition (PPI) and radial-arm maze choice accuracy. The PPI impairment caused by the glutamate antagonist dizocilpine (MK-801) was significantly attenuated by clozapine. In the current project, we found that the selective H(1) antagonist pyrilamine also reversed the dizocilpine-induced impairment in PPI of tactile startle with an auditory prepulse. In the radial-arm maze (RAM), pyrilamine, like clozapine, impaired working memory and caused a significant dose-related slowing of response. Pyrilamine, however, decreased the number of reference memory errors. We have previously shown that nicotine effectively attenuates the clozapine-induced working memory impairment, but in the current study, nicotine did not significantly alter the effects of pyrilamine on the RAM. In summary, the therapeutic effect of clozapine in reversing PPI impairment was mimicked by the H(1) antagonist pyrilamine, while pyrilamine had a mixed effect on cognition. Pyrilamine impaired working memory but improved reference memory in rats. Thus, H(1) antagonism seems to play a role in part of the beneficial actions of antipsychotics, such as clozapine.

Allergy medication in Japanese volunteers: treatment effect of single doses on nocturnal sleep architecture and next day residual effects

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the acute effects of two histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists on nocturnal sleep architecture and on next day cognitive function and psychomotor performance.

METHODS

This was a single-site, randomized, double-blind, 3-way crossover study, comparing the effects of a single dose of chlorpheniramine (6 mg), fexofenadine (120 mg) and placebo in 18 healthy (male and female) Japanese volunteers aged 20-55 years. Volunteers were resident for 3 days and each period was separated by a minimum 5-day washout period. The three treatments were administered at 23.00 h. Overnight sleep was measured from 23.00 h to 07.00 h using polysomnography. Residual effects were studied at 07.00 h and 9.00 h the next morning, with the latency to sleep (sleep latency test) measured at 09.30 h.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, chlorpheniramine increased the latencies to sleep onset and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep (p < or = 0.05 for both), and reduced the duration of REM sleep (p <or= 0.01), but this was not observed with fexofenadine. As far as residual effects the next morning were concerned there were decrements in performance with chlorpheniramine, but not with fexofenadine. Chlorpheniramine 6 mg impaired divided attention (p < 0.001), vigilance (p < 0.05), working memory (p < 0.0001) and sensori-motor performance (p < 0.01), and the latency to daytime sleep was reduced (p < 0.0001). Six adverse events possibly related to study medication were reported during the study, three of which were related to placebo, two to fexofenadine and one to chlorpheniramine.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that a single nocturnal dose of fexofenadine has advantages over the first-generation antihistamine chlorpheniramine, being free of disruption of night-time sleep and detrimental effects on cognitive performance the next day. It is likely that this advantage will remain with chronic ingestion, but this would need to be confirmed.

A review of the second-generation antihistamine ebastine for the treatment of allergic disorders

Ebastine is a once-daily, non-sedating, selective, long-acting, second-generation antihistamine. The use of ebastine is indicated in patients suffering from intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. Ebastine 10 mg/day, appears as effective as other second-generation antihistamines, such as cetirizine and loratadine. Ebastine 20 mg/day is indicated in patients with moderate and severe allergic symptoms. No cardiovascular effects of ebastine are described, although there is a pharmacokinetic interaction when ketoconazole or macrolides are co-administered. Ebastine has no relevant effects on the psychomotor performance. Even with ebastine 20 mg/day skilled performance does not appear to be impaired. Furthermore, ebastine 5-10 and 2.5 mg, appears to be efficient and can be used safely in children 6-11 and 2-5 years of age, respectively. Ebastine appears to be a safe, effective and well-tolerated second-generation antihistamine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria.

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.

P‐glycoprotein Influences the Brain Concentrations of Cetirizine (Zyrtec®), a Second‐Generation Non‐Sedating Antihistamine

Recent in vitro studies have suggested that P-glycoprotein (Pgp) and passive membrane permeability may influence the brain concentrations of non-sedating (second-generation) antihistamines. The purpose of this study was to determine the importance of Pgp-mediated efflux on the in vivo brain distribution of the non-sedating antihistamine cetirizine (Zyrtec), and the structurally related sedating (first-generation) antihistamine hydroxyzine (Atarax). In vitro MDR1-MDCKII monolayer efflux assays demonstrated that cetirizine was a Pgp substrate (B-->A/A-->B + GF120918 ratio = 5.47) with low/moderate passive permeability (PappB-->A = 56.5 nm/s). In vivo, the cetirizine brain-to-free plasma concentration ratios (0.367 to 4.30) were 2.3- to 8.7-fold higher in Pgp-deficient mice compared with wild-type mice. In contrast, hydroxyzine was not a Pgp substrate in vitro (B-->A/A-->B ratio = 0.86), had high passive permeability (PappB-->A + GF120918 = 296 nm/s), and had brain-to-free plasma concentration ratios >73 in both Pgp-deficient and wild-type mice. These studies demonstrate that Pgp-mediated efflux and passive permeability contribute to the low cetirizine brain concentrations in mice and that these properties account for the differences in the sedation side-effect profiles of cetirizine and hydroxyzine.

First do no harm: managing antihistamine impairment in patients with allergic rhinitis

Antihistamines are effective medications that have been used for decades in the management of allergic rhinitis; however, they may be administered or selected in an inappropriate fashion and may be the source of drug-related morbidity. Our objective is to present relevant background information and an expert consensus statement on the use of antihistamines in treatment of allergic rhinitis. In July 2002, 14 experts in allergy, clinical immunology, pharmacology, and impairment assessment were invited to participate in a roundtable conference to present current concepts and develop a consensus statement on the clinical management of allergic rhinitis with antihistamines. Many of the antihistamines used to treat allergic rhinitis, as well as the disease itself, may produce sedation, impairment, and reduced quality of life. Allergic rhinitis is more appropriately managed with the relatively nonimpairing second-generation antihistamines (eg, loratadine, desloratadine, cetirizine, and fexofenadine), because older agents (eg, diphenhydramine, chlorpheniramine, and brompheniramine) produce sedation and impairment and worsen sleep architecture. Although there is some debate surrounding the varying degrees of efficacy of second-generation antihistamines, it is known that some agents may produce varying levels of drowsiness or impairment, especially at higher than recommended doses. The differences with regard to safety among the second-generation antihistamines are smaller than are the differences between the first and second generations. A nonsedating, nonimpairing (even at higher than recommended doses), second-generation antihistamine is preferred for all patients, particularly those with a higher risk for the development of adverse effects. We recommend that primary care and specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, and all other health professionals involved in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis follow this consensus document and share this information with patients for whom antihistamine therapy is recommended. In addition, further epidemiologic studies on the effects of antihistamines should be performed.

Next generation antihistamines: therapeutic rationale, accomplishments and advances

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

Histamine H(1)-receptor activation of nuclear factor-kappa B: roles for G beta gamma- and G alpha(q/11)-subunits in constitutive and agonist-mediated signaling

Nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kappa B) is an important transcription factor in inflammation that has obtained a great interest as a drug target for the treatment of various allergic conditions. In this study, we show that the histamine H(1) receptor, which is also an important player in allergic and inflammatory conditions, activates NF-kappa B in both a constitutive and agonist-dependent manner. Moreover, the observed constitutive NF-kappa B activation is inhibited by various H(1)-receptor antagonists, suggesting that inverse agonism may account, at least in part, for their ascribed antiallergic properties. Investigation of the H(1) receptor-mediated NF-kappa B activation in transfected COS-7 cells indicates that the level of the observed constitutive activity of the H(1) receptor can be modulated by the expression levels of either G alpha-proteins or G beta gamma-heterodimers. Members of the G alpha(q/11)-family of G alpha-proteins are most effective in increasing H(1) constitutive activity. Also, coexpression of G beta(2) in combination with either G gamma(1) or G gamma(2) results in an increased constitutive activity of the H(1) receptor, whereas scavenging of G beta gamma-subunits by coexpression of G alpha(t) completely neutralizes the constitutive, but not the agonist-induced, NF-kappa B activity. Our data suggest that both G alpha(q/11)- and G beta gamma-subunits play a role in the agonist-induced, H(1) receptor-mediated NF-kappa B activation, but that constitutive NF-kappa B activation by the H(1) receptor is primarily mediated through G beta gamma-subunits.

Desloratadine

Desloratadine is the orally active major metabolite of the nonsedating H1-antihistamine loratadine. The drug had no adverse cardiovascular effects in various animal models or when administered at 9 times the recommended adult dosage for 10 days in volunteers. Therapeutic dosages had no effects on wakefulness or psychomotor performance in healthy volunteers. No clinically significant interactions have been reported between desloratadine and drugs that inhibit the cytochrome P450 system, nor does the drug potentiate the adverse psychomotor effects of alcohol. Oral desloratadine 5 mg once daily for up to 4 weeks in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) significantly reduced nasal (including congestion) and non-nasal symptoms and improved health-related quality of life compared with placebo. Similar beneficial effects were observed in patients with SAR and coexisting asthma (in whom asthma symptoms and use of beta2-agonists were reduced). Desloratadine 5 mg once daily for 6 weeks significantly improved pruritus and reduced the number of hives compared with placebo in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). Sleep and daytime performance also improved. Desloratadine was well tolerated in clinical trials and had an adverse event profile similar to that of placebo in patients with SAR (with or without asthma) or CIU.

Safety of antihistamines in children

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

Antihistamines

In the 1990s, major improvements occurred in the therapeutic index of H1 antihistamines. The third-generation compounds promise to be more effective and nontoxic. The future major advances are likely to result from development and exploitation of non-H1 receptor-mediated antiallergic actions of these drugs.

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.

Fexofenadine: a review of its use in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria

Fexofenadine, the active metabolite of terfenadine, is a selective histamine H1 receptor antagonist that does not cross the blood brain barrier and appears to display some anti-inflammatory properties. Fexofenadine is rapidly absorbed (onset of relief < or = 2 hours) and has a long duration of action, making it suitable for once daily administration. Clinical trials (< or = 2 weeks' duration) have shown fexofenadine 60 mg twice daily and 120 mg once daily to be as effective as loratadine 10 mg once daily, and fexofenadine 120 mg once daily to be as effective as cetirizine 10 mg once daily in the overall reduction of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. When given in combination, fexofenadine and extended release pseudoephedrine had complementary activity. Fexofenadine was effective in relieving the symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhoea, itchy nose palate or throat, and itchy, watery, red eyes in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. There were often small improvements in nasal congestion that were further improved by pseudoephedrine. Fexofenadine produced greater improvements in quality of life than loratadine to an extent considered to be clinically meaningful, and enhanced patients' quality of life when added to pseudoephedrine treatment. Although no comparative data with other H1 antagonists exist, fexofenadine 180 mg once daily was effective in reducing the symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria for up to 6 weeks. Fexofenadine was well tolerated in clinical trials in adults and adolescents and the adverse event profile was similar to placebo in all studies. The most frequently reported adverse event during fexofenadine treatment was headache, which occurred with a similar incidence to that seen in placebo recipients. Fexofenadine does not inhibit cardiac K+ channels and is not associated with prolongation of the corrected QT interval. When given alone or in combination with erythromycin or ketoconazole, it was not associated with any adverse cardiac events in clinical trials. As it does not cross the blood brain barrier, fexofenadine is free of the sedative effects associated with first generation antihistamines, even at dosages of up to 240 mg/day.

CONCLUSIONS

fexofenadine is clinically effective in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria for which it is a suitable option for first-line therapy. Comparative data suggest that fexofenadine is as effective as loratadine or cetirizine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. In those with excessive nasal congestion the combination of fexofenadine plus pseudoephedrine may be useful. In clinical trials fexofenadine is not associated with adverse cardiac or cognitive/psychomotor effects.

Anticholinergic effects of desloratadine, the major metabolite of loratadine, in rabbit and guinea-pig iris smooth muscle

Allergic conjunctivitis is the most common ocular allergic disease. Although very symptomatic it does not endanger vision, and topical antihistamines or chromones are the first choice treatment in clinical practice. Recently, equivalent nanomolar affinities for histamine H and muscarinic M 1 and M3 cloned human receptors have been reported for desloratadine, the active metabolite of loratadine, a widely prescribed antihistamine. This property might enhance its utility in the treatment of asthma, but could induce adverse anticholinergic effects after topical administration. In the present study, we compare the anticholinergic activity of desloratadine with other known muscarinic antagonists and antihistamines on rabbit and guinea-pig iris smooth muscle. Desloratadine was found to be a competitive antagonist (pA2 = 6.67+/-0.09) of carbachol-induced contractions in isolated rabbit iris smooth muscle. Atropine (pA2 = 9.44+/-0.02) and NPC-14695 (pA2 = 9.18+/-0.03) also behaved as competitive antagonists, whereas tiotropium bromide (pD'2 = 9.06+/-0.02) exhibited a non-competitive behaviour in this tissue. Carebastine (pA2 = 5.64+/-0.04) and fexofenadine (pA2 < 4.0) were also studied. After topical administration on the guinea-pig eye conjunctiva, desloratadine produced a potent (ED50 = 2.3 mg/ml) and long lasting mydriasis (> 120 min at the ED50) in conscious animals. Fexofenadine and carebastine were inactive even at the highest concentration tested (10 mg/ml). Atropine (ED50 = 30 microg/ml) and tiotropium bromide (ED50 = 10 microg/ml) were much more potent than desloratadine or pirenzepine (ED50 = 3 mg/ml) in this model. The competitive muscarinic antagonism of desloratadine in vitro, and its potency and duration of action in vivo, suggest that topical treatment of allergic conjunctivitis and rhinitis with desloratadine could produce undesirable peripheral anticholinergic side effects such as mydriasis and xerostomia.