Ebastine in context. Introduction

Ebastine in the light of CONGA recommendations for the development of third-generation antihistamines

In 2003 a consensus group on new-generation antihistamines (CONGA) defined the characteristics required for a third-generation H(1) antihistamine as there had been much controversy about this issue since the early 1990s. One of the antihistamines that had been claimed to belong to such a group is the second-generation antihistamine, ebastine. The objective of this review is to analyze the pharmacology of ebastine, in light of the CONGA recommendations for the development of new-generation antihistamines: (1) anti-inflammatory properties, (2) potency, efficacy and effectiveness, (3) lack of cardiotoxicity, (4) lack of drug interactions, (5) lack of CNS effects, and (6) pharmacological approach. Ebastine seems to have anti-inflammatory properties that help to ameliorate nasal congestion, though this has not yet been conclusively demonstrated. Its pharmacological-therapeutic profile does not differ greatly from that of other second-generation antihistamines. Its cardiac safety has been widely assessed and no cardiac toxicity has been found at therapeutic doses despite initial concerns. The risk of potentially relevant drug interactions has been investigated and ruled out. Ebastine does not produce sedation at therapeutic doses and drug interaction studies with classical CNS depressants have not demonstrated a synergistic effect. Pharmacologically, ebastine is an H(1) inverse agonist. Perhaps the answer to the quest for new-generation antihistamines lies not only in H(1) but in a combined approach with other histamine receptors.

Ebastine inhibits T cell migration, production of Th2-type cytokines and proinflammatory cytokines

BACKGROUND

Cytokine imbalance and cellular migration to inflammatory sites are critical components of allergic diseases. Redirecting cytokine imbalance and inhibiting cell migration therefore represent important therapeutic strategies for the treatment of these disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To study the in vitro effect of ebastine, a novel non-sedating H1 receptor antagonist, on cytokine secretion and migration of activated T cells, as well as production of pro-inflammatory cytokines by macrophages.

METHODS

Peripheral T cells obtained from healthy volunteers were cultured in wells coated with the combination of anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody (mAb) and anti-CD26 mAb, anti-CD3 mAb and anti-CD28 mAb, or anti-CD3 mAb with PMA, in the presence or absence of ebastine. T cell proliferation and the production of cytokines were measured by [3H]thymidine incorporation assay and ELISA, respectively. In addition, transendothelial migration of T cells and production of pro-inflammatory cytokines by macrophages were examined.

RESULTS

Ebastine inhibited T cell proliferation and the production of IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, and TNF-alpha by T cells under each co-stimulatory condition tested, whereas it exhibited no effect on the production of IL-2 or IFN-gamma. In addition, T cell migration and the production of such pro-inflammatory cytokines as TNF-alpha and IL-6 by macrophages were inhibited by ebastine.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that ebastine has a specific inhibitory effect on Th2-type cytokine production. Moreover, ebastine inhibited T cell migration and pro-inflammatory cytokine production by T cells and macrophages, suggesting that ebastine might be useful for the treatment of T cell-mediated allergic inflammatory disorders, including asthma, atopic dermatitis, and Th2-type autoimmune diseases.

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

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