H1-receptor antagonists: safety issues

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Ebastine in Patients with Impaired Hepatic Function Compared with Healthy Volunteers

OBJECTIVE

To assess the differences between patients with hepatic insufficiency and healthy subjects with regard to the pharmacokinetics, cardiac safety and overall safety of ebastine and its active metabolite carebastine.

DESIGN

Open-label parallel-group study.

PARTICIPANTS

24 patients with varying degrees of hepatic insufficiency, as categorised by the Child-Pugh classification, and 12 healthy volunteers.

METHODS

Healthy subjects and patients with Child-Pugh class A (n = 8) or B (n = 8) received ebastine 20 mg once daily for 7 days. Patients with Child-Pugh class C (n = 8) [single or repeated dose] received ebastine 10 mg. Plasma concentrations of ebastine and carebastine were determined for 23.5 hours following the initial dose on day 1 and for 96 hours following the dose on day 7 by using a sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay with a minimum quantifiable limit of 0.05 microg/L for ebastine and 1.00 microg/L for carebastine. Hepatic function was assessed by blood clearance of indocyanine green 0.5 mg/kg administered intravenously on day 2. Cardiac and overall safety parameters were monitored.

RESULTS

Overall, the pharmacokinetics of ebastine were not modified by hepatic impairment. No correlation between ebastine pharmacokinetics and hepatic function, as expressed by indocyanine green clearance, was observed. Comparison of the effective half-life of ebastine and carebastine between groups did not show relevant differences. Therefore, no apparent accumulation of ebastine occurred, and steady-state concentrations of ebastine and carebastine were predictable from single-dose pharmacokinetics both in healthy subjects and in hepatically impaired patients. Finally, no apparent difference was noted in the safety of ebastine between patients with hepatic insufficiency and healthy subjects as assessed by evaluation of adverse events, vital signs and laboratory parameters.

CONCLUSION

Ebastine can be safely administered to patients with impaired hepatic function, as no clinically important differences can be anticipated from the pharmacokinetics and safety profile of ebastine/carebastine as compared with healthy subjects. Nevertheless, the dosage used in severely impaired patients (10mg daily) was half that used in patients with mild to moderate impairment, and any comedication did not include drugs affecting liver function; in clinical practice, both these factors should be taken into account.

Transitioning the Second-Generation Antihistamines to Over-the-Counter Status

BACKGROUND

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory committee deemed the second-generation antihistamines (SGA) safe for over-the-counter use against the preliminary opposition of the manufacturers. As a result, loratadine is now available over-the-counter. First-generation antihistamines (FGA) are associated with an increased risk of unintentional injuries, fatalities, and reduced productivity. Access to SGA over-the-counter could result in decreased use of FGA, thereby reducing deleterious outcomes. The societal impact of transitioning this class of medications from prescription to over-the-counter status has important policy implications.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cost-effectiveness of transitioning SGA to over-the-counter status from a societal perspective.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A simulation model of the decision to transition SGA to over-the-counter status was compared with retaining prescription-only status for a hypothetical cohort of individuals with allergic rhinitis in the United States. Estimates of costs and effectiveness were obtained from the medical literature and national surveys. Sensitivity analysis was performed using a second-order Monte Carlo simulation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Discounted, quality-adjusted life-years saved as a result of amelioration of allergic rhinitis symptoms and avoidance of motor vehicle, occupational, public and home injuries and fatalities; discounted direct and indirect costs.

RESULTS

Availability of SGA over-the-counter was associated with annual savings of 4 billion dollars (2.4-5.3 billion dollars) or 100 dollars (64-137 dollars) per allergic rhinitis sufferer and 135,061 time-discounted quality-adjusted life years (84,913-191,802). The sensitivity analysis provides evidence in support of these results.

CONCLUSION

Making SGA available over-the-counter is both cost-saving and more effective for society, largely as a result of reduced adverse outcomes associated with FGA-induced sedation. Further study is needed to determine the differential impact on specific vulnerable populations.

Hydroxyzine from topical phospholipid liposomal formulations: evaluation of peripheral antihistaminic activity and systemic absorption in a rabbit model

Hydroxyzine, an effective but sedating H1-antihistamine is given orally to treat allergic skin disorders. This study was performed to assess the peripheral H(1)-antihistaminic activity and extent of systemic absorption of hydroxyzine from liposomes applied to the skin. Using L-alpha-phosphatidylcholine (PC), small unilamellar vesicles (SUVs) and multilamellar vesicles (MLVs) containing hydroxyzine were prepared. Hydroxyzine in Glaxal Base (GB) was used as the control. Using a randomized, crossover design, each formulation, containing 10 mg of hydroxyzine, was applied to the shaved backs of 6 rabbits (3.08 +/- 0.05 kg). Histamine-induced wheal tests and blood sampling were performed at designated time intervals up to 24 hours. Compared with baseline, hydroxyzine from all formulations significantly suppressed histamine-induced wheal formation by 75% to 95% for up to 24 hours. Mean maximum suppression, 85% to 94%, occurred from 2 to 6 hours, with no differences among the formulations. The areas of plasma hydroxyzine concentration versus time area under the curve (AUCs) from PC-SUV and PC-MLV, 80.1 +/- 20.8 and 78.4 +/- 33.9 ng/mL/h, respectively, were lower than that from GB, 492 +/- 141 ng/mL/h (P < or =.05) over 24 hours. Plasma concentrations of cetirizine arising in-vivo as the active metabolite of hydroxyzine, from PC-SUV, PC-MLV, and GB, were similar with AUCs of 765 +/- 50, 1035 +/- 202, and 957 +/- 227 ng/mL/h, respectively (P < or =.05). Only 0.02% to 0.06% of the initial hydroxyzine dose remained on the skin after 24 hours. In this model, hydroxyzine from SUV and MLV had excellent topical H1-antihistaminic activity, and minimal systemic exposure occurred. Cetirizine formed in-vivo contributed to some of H1-antihistaminic activity.

P-glycoprotein limits the brain penetration of nonsedating but not sedating H1-antagonists

The present study evaluates the impact of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) on plasma-brain disposition and transepithelial transport of sedating versus nonsedating H1-antagonists using multidrug-resistant (mdr) gene 1a and 1b (mdr1a/b) knockout (KO) mice and human MDR1-transfected Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells. Three nonsedating (cetirizine, loratadine, and desloratadine) and three sedating (diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine, and triprolidine) H1-antagonists were tested. Each compound was administered to KO and wild-type (WT) mice intravenously at 5 mg/kg. Plasma and brain drug concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. Mean pharmacokinetic parameters (CL, V(ss), and t(1/2)) were obtained using WinNonlin. In addition, certirizine, desloratadine, diphenhydramine, and triprolidine (2 microM) were tested as substrates for MDR1 using MDR1-MDCK cells. The bidirectional apparent permeability was determined by measuring the amount of compound at the receiving side at 5 h. The brain-to-plasma area under the curve (AUC) ratio was 4-, 2-, and >14-fold higher in KO compared with WT mice for cetirizine, loratadine, and desloratadine, respectively. In contrast, the brain-to-plasma AUC ratio between KO and WT was comparable for hydroxyzine, diphenhydramine, and triprolidine. Likewise, the efflux ratio between basolateral to apical and apical to basolateral was 4.6- and 6.6-fold higher in MDR1-MDCK than the parental MDCK for certirizine and desloratadine, respectively, whereas it was approximately 1 for diphenhydramine and triprolidine. Our results demonstrate that sedating H1-antagonists hydroxyzine, diphenhydramine, and triprolidine are not P-gp substrates. In contrast, nonsedating H1-antagonists cetirizine, loratadine, and desloratadine are P-gp substrates. Affinity for P-gp at BBB may explain the lack of central nervous system side effects of modern H1-antagonists.

The comparison of the efficacy and safety of cetirizine, oxatomide, ketotifen, and a placebo for the treatment of childhood perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

There has been no study comparing the long-term effects of ketotifen, oxatomide, and cetirizine for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis among children.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a study to compare the efficacy of the three agents for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis among children.

METHODS

The study consisted of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized design, comprising 69 perennial allergic rhinitis patients with mite allergy, aged 6 to 12 years, randomly assigned to 1 of 4 test treatment groups for 3 months: 19 in the cetirizine group (10 mg daily), 18 in the ketotifen group (1 mg, twice daily), 16 in the oxatomide group (1 mg/kg, twice daily), and 16 in the placebo group. We used the nasal symptom score of diary card and the Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire and eosinophil cation protein peripheral blood total eosinophil count and immunoglobulin E level, eosinophil proportion from a nasal smear, and nasal peak expiratory flow rate to evaluate the effect of the four agents.

RESULTS

Cetirizine was significantly more effective at reducing the mean rhinorrhea score compared with oxatomide for both weeks 8 and 12 (P < 0.01). Before the end of week 12, cetirizine was significantly more effective than ketotifen (P < 0.01). Cetirizine and oxatomide significantly decreased the mean Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score compared with the placebo for week 12 (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Cetirizine was more effective than oxatomide and ketotifen for the relief of nasal congestion and rhinorrhea, and was responsible for significantly decreasing the eosinophil representation of a posttreatment nasal smear.

Safety and efficacy of desloratadine 5 mg in asthma patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and nasal congestion

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines relieve most seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms, with the exception of nasal congestion, which is often the most troublesome symptom for patients. A nonsedating antihistamine that significantly decreases nasal congestion and improves symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma would be a significant advance in therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of desloratadine 5 mg in patients experiencing moderate SAR, nasal congestion, and symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma.

METHODS

This 4-week, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind study evaluated desloratadine treatment (5 mg once daily) versus placebo in 331 subjects with SAR and mild seasonal allergic asthma. Subjects evaluated SAR and asthma symptoms twice daily, recording 12-hour reflective and instantaneous severity evaluation scores. The primary efficacy parameter was the difference from baseline in AM/PM reflective total symptom scores. Changes in individual SAR and asthma symptoms were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, desloratadine significantly reduced mean AM/PM reflective total symptom scores for SAR, beginning with the first dose (P < 0.001) and continuing throughout days 1 to 15 (-4.90 vs -2.98; P < 0.001) and days 1 to 29 (-5.47 vs -3.73; P < 0.001). Desloratadine significantly decreased AM/PM reflective total asthma symptom scores for days 1 to 15 (P = 0.023) and AM/PM reflective nasal congestion scores over days 1 to 15 and days 1 to 29 (P = 0.006 and P = 0.014, respectively). Desloratadine was safe and well tolerated; adverse events were similar to placebo overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Desloratadine provided significant relief from the signs and symptoms of SAR, including nasal congestion. In this patient population, symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma also improved.

Emerging safety issues regarding long-term usage of H(1)receptor antagonists

The second generation histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists are important therapeutic tools in the treatment of atopic disease and may also have a place as an adjunct therapy for those patients whose allergic asthma coexists with allergic rhinitis. They are amongst the most widely prescribed and safest drugs in the world. However, as second generation H(1)-receptor antagonists are used to treat non-life threatening conditions, the risk of adverse effects is of vital importance. For many, the potential for sedation by some of the newer antihistamines still remains an issue, while there have recently been widespread concerns regarding the potential for cardiotoxicity and the impact of drug-drug interactions associated with some second generation H(1)-receptor antagonists. Consequently, progress with this class of drugs should involve not only increased efficacy but also improvements in their safety and specificity. Moreover, there is a trend towards using second generation H(1)-receptor antagonists as long-term therapy rather than confining their use to treating the short-term manifestations of allergic disease. To this end, a number of novel, potent and safe antihistamines have been developed which are either metabolites of active drugs or enantiomers. This review will examine some of the safety issues associated with established and newer second generation drugs particularly in relation to their long-term usage in adults and children.

Second-generation antihistamines: the OTC debate

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate that the safety profiles of second-generation antihistamines (SGAs) meet the criteria set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for switching these products to over-the-counter (OTC) status.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE search of articles published from 1970 through 2000.

SUMMARY

Most patients with allergic rhinitis treat their symptoms with first-generation antihistamines (FGAs), which are available over-the-counter (OTC). Yet FGAs are generally considered less safe than the newer drugs. FGAs cause central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects and may increase users' risk for work-related injuries and motor vehicle accidents and, in children, for learning impairment. SGAs cause fewer CNS effects, do not appear to affect learning in children, and do not have significant drug interactions. Several other countries have made SGAs available OTC. Blue Cross of California petitioned FDA in July 1998 to make this class of drugs available OTC in the United States. This petition will finally be heard in May 2001. The 1951 Durham-Humphrey amendment to the original Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 requires that "a drug be made available without a prescription if, by following the labeling, consumers can use it safely and effectively without professional guidance." If judged according to this and other criteria promulgated by FDA, SGAs should be strongly considered for being switched to OTC status.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of SGAs have been adequately established. Consumers should have the option of self-treating mild allergic rhinitis symptoms with these products.

New insights into the second generation antihistamines

Second generation antihistamines are recognised as being highly effective treatments for allergy-based disease and are among the most frequently prescribed and safest drugs in the world. However, consideration of the therapeutic index or the benefit/risk ratio of the H1 receptor antagonists is of paramount importance when prescribing this class of compounds as they are used to treat non-life threatening conditions. There are many second generation antihistamines available and at first examination these appear to be comparable in terms of safety and efficacy. However, the newer antihistamines in fact represent a heterogeneous group of compounds, having markedly differing chemical structures, adverse effects, half-life, tissue distribution and metabolism, spectrum of antihistaminic properties, and varying degrees of anti-inflammatory effects. With regard to the latter, there is growing awareness that some of these compounds might represent useful adjunct medications in asthma therapy. In terms of safety issues, the current second generation grouping includes compounds with proven cardiotoxic effects and others with the potential for adverse drug interactions. Moreover, some of the second generation H1 antagonists have given cause for concern regarding their potential to cause a degree of somnolence in some individuals. It can be argued, therefore, that the present second generation grouping is too large and indistinct since this was based primarily on the concept of separating the first generation sedating compounds from nonsedating H1 antagonists. Although it is too early to talk about a third generation grouping of antihistamines, future membership of such a classification could be based on a low volume of distribution coupled with a lack of sedating effects, drug interactions and cardiotoxicity.

Twenty-four hours of activity of cetirizine and fexofenadine in the skin

BACKGROUND

Cetirizine and fexofenadine, the active metabolite of terfenadine, are powerful and well-tolerated H1 receptor antagonists effective in the treatment of skin and nose atopic diseases.

OBJECTIVE

We have compared the pharmacodynamic activity of the two antihistamines at therapeutic dosages, cetirizine at 10 mg and fexofenadine at 120 mg and 180 mg, on histamine-induced skin reactivity during a 24-hour period after single intake.

METHODS

Twenty-six healthy volunteers participated in a randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study. The areas of wheal and flare induced by histamine (100 mg/mL) administered by prick test were measured at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 hours postdose. Statistical analysis of the areas under the time-response curves was performed by a Friedman's ANOVA followed by a Wilcoxon test and Bonferroni's correction.

RESULTS

The three active treatments clearly inhibited the wheal and flare areas throughout the 24-hour period compared with placebo. Maximal inhibition occurred at 4 hours postdose. Between 4 and 24 hours postdose, the time course of inhibition by cetirizine differed significantly (P < 0.001) from that by fexofenadine at either dose, which did not differ from each other. At 24 hours, fexofenadine inhibited <40% of the skin reaction, whereas cetirizine reduced 60% of the wheal. The duration of effect, considered as the time for wheal to be inhibited by at least 70%, also significantly favored cetirizine (19 hours) compared with fexofenadine (9.3 and 8.5 hours for 180 and 120 mg, respectively; P < 0.001). Consistency of activity was evaluated by the frequency of total inhibition of the wheal (> or =95%). Consistency was observed in 26 of 26 participants for cetirizine, 21 of 26 for fexofenadine, 180 mg, and 10 of 26 for fexofenadine, 120 mg (P < 0.001), suggesting better consistency for cetirizine. There was no serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study clearly shows better duration of action and consistency of the antihistaminic activity of cetirizine compared with fexofenadine (120 and 180 mg) in the histamine-induced skin reaction during a 24-hour period.

Therapeutic options in allergic disease: antihistamines as systemic antiallergic agents

As has been reported throughout this supplement, the pathophysiologic factors of allergic diseases involve many elements of systemic disease-effector-cell recruitment from circulation, stimulation of bone marrow progenitors, systemic effector-cell priming, anaphylactic reactions, and others. With this understanding, allergic inflammation can be thought of as a reflection of systemic immunologic responses with compartmentalized manifestations in various organ systems, including the upper respiratory tract, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, and skin. Thus, any therapeutic approach to the treatment of allergic disease should address, in addition to the localized disease manifestations, the systemic immunologic dysregulation. Second-generation antihistamines (cetirizine, fexofenadine, loratadine) have been used since the 1980s to treat localized allergy symptoms in upper airways, skin, and, in some cases, the lungs; however, the efficacy of these agents in controlling systemic immune dysregulation and chronic allergic inflammation (eg, nasal congestion) has not been proved. The potential role of newer antihistamines in the amelioration of both localized and systemic aspects of allergic disease represents an active area of interest. Desloratadine, a new selective histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist with potent antihistaminic and anti-inflammatory activity, is introduced and its potential for treating the systemic aspects of allergic disease is discussed.

Sedation and antihistamines: a review of inter-drug differences using proportional impairment ratios

The use of antihistamines (AHs) has until recently been associated with a number of undesirable side effects, the most troublesome of which is sedation. There are two aspects to sedation. The first, an objectively determined measure based on the results of psychometric tests from controlled trials, and the second, the subject's response to the administration of a drug. Since AHs are largely used in ambulant patients, a complete evaluation of sedation should be performed through standardised objective and subjective tests, shown to be sensitive to the central effects of AHs.An extensive review of the literature identified 76 studies of H(1) receptor antagonists in healthy volunteers, in which assessment of sedation was the primary objective. Results from studies published in peer-reviewed journals which employed a placebo condition as well as a positive internal control using a crossover design were analysed to determine the extent to which a particular antihistamine produced impairments on a battery of psychometric tests. The impairment index for each antihistamine was calculated and subsequently compared with the impairment index obtained for all other AHs.The calculation of this proportional impairment ratio enabled the sedative potential of an individual antihistamine to be identified relative to all other AHs and thus allowed the ranking of AHs with respect to their ability to cause impairments of cognitive and psychomotor function.Findings from this review clearly demonstrate that there are distinct classes of AHs with respect to their ability to impair cognitive function and psychomotor performance. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.