A comparison of ebastine 10 mg fast-dissolving tablet with oral desloratadine and placebo in inhibiting the cutaneous reaction to histamine in healthy adults

Greens appraisal of validated stability indicating RP-HPLC method and forced degradation study for quantification of Ebastine in wastewater and dosage form

OBJECTIVES

Allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria are common conditions triggered by environmental irritants, stress, and certain foods. The FDA has recently announced that the efficacy and safety of Ebastine (EBS) have been thoroughly evaluated and confirmed. This study considered using various tools to assess their greenness. We used AGREEprep, analytical eco-scale (ESA), and analytical method volume intensity (AMVI) to evaluate the greenness of the validated stability-indicating method and a forced degradation study. This allowed for easy determination and quantitation of EBS in wastewater and dosage form.

METHODS

The method was established on Symmetry RP-C18 (150mm×4.6mm,5μm) using mobile phase, which can be prepared by mixing buffer solution of pH 3 with acetonitrile in a ratio of (37.5: 62.5, v/v) in addition to dissolving 0.72 gm of sodium lauryl sulfate in the final solution. The separation process was executed at a flow rate of 1.5mL/min and 5μL injection volume with UV detection at 254nm. Linearity was conducted for EBS in the 5-50μg/mL range. Different validation parameters were investigated, including accuracy, precision, robustness, and specificity.

RESULTS

The limits of both detection and quantification were 0.84μg/mL and 2.57μg/mL for EBS. The recovery percentages of EBS were found to be 101.01% and 101.02% for wastewater and pharmaceutical formulations, respectively.

CONCLUSION

According to International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines, a forced degradation study of EBS was evaluated, including acid, base hydrolysis, and oxidative hydrolysis using hydrogen peroxide and photolytic and thermal degradation. The highest degradation was achieved by acid hydrolysis. The safety and efficacy of EBS were evaluated via a safety comparative profile study.

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.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria: latest developments in aetiology, diagnosis and therapy

Chronic urticaria is a debilitating disease characterized by itching and hives with or without angioedema lasting for more than 6 weeks. The disease carries a significant emotional and economic burden for the patient and often results in an odyssey between doctors of different specialities. Patients suffering from chronic urticaria are considered more difficult to satisfy, treat and to have a bigger emotional burden than the average patient in dermatology, paediatric and general practice settings. A joint initiative under the Dermatology section of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical immunology (EAACI), the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2)LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO) has resulted in recently published guidelines for the diagnosis, classification and treatment of chronic urticarial: these guidelines are clinically useful and have a high success rate when followed in daily clinical practice. The treatment of choice for chronic urticaria is still nonsedating antihistamines although other treatments are available, with omalizumab (humanized IgG anti IgE antibodies) as the newest therapy. The pathogenesis of urticaria is poorly understood but autoimmunity is considered as one of the major underlying causes for this disease, although other theories exist.

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 in allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria

Histamine is a key mediator in the development of allergy symptoms, and oral H(1)-antihistamines are among the most widely used treatments for symptomatic relief in conditions such as allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. Ebastine is a second-generation antihistamine which has been shown to be an effective treatment for both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. In controlled clinical trials in adult and adolescent patients with allergic rhinitis, ebastine 10 mg once-daily improved symptoms to a significantly greater extent than placebo and to a similar extent as loratadine 10 mg and cetirizine 10 mg (both once-daily), while ebastine 20 mg proved to be more effective than these two comparator antihistamines. In addition, ebastine was significantly more effective than placebo at relieving the symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria. Ebastine provides efficacy throughout the 24-h dosing interval with once-daily administration and clinical benefit is seen from the first day of treatment. Small studies have found beneficial effects for ebastine in patients with other disorders, including cold urticaria, dermographic urticaria, atopic asthma, mosquito bites and (in combination with pseudoephedrine) the common cold. In addition to the regular ebastine tablet, a fast-dissolving tablet (FDT) formulation, which disintegrates in the mouth without the aid of a drink, is also available. It has been shown to be bioequivalent to the regular tablet, and to be significantly more effective than desloratadine at reducing histamine-induced cutaneous wheals. A number of patient surveys demonstrated that the majority of individuals who tried the fast-dissolving formulation reported it to be convenient for use, fast-acting and preferred it to their previous antihistamine medication. Perhaps most importantly, a large proportion of patients indicated that they would prefer to use this new formulation in the future. Ebastine has a rapid onset of action and it can be administered once-daily, with or without food. Dose modifications are not needed in elderly patients, or in those with renal or mild to moderate hepatic impairment. Ebastine is generally well-tolerated, and clinical studies showed that at usual therapeutic doses of 10 and 20 mg once-daily, it had no clinically relevant adverse effects on cognitive function and psychomotor performance or on cardiovascular function. In conclusion, ebastine is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. In addition to the regular tablet formulation, ebastine is available as a FDT, providing a treatment option that is particularly convenient for patients.