Evaluation of the cognitive, psychomotor and pharmacokinetic profiles of rupatadine, hydroxyzine and cetirizine, in combination with alcohol, in healthy volunteers

Current and future management of chronic spontaneous urticaria and chronic inducible urticaria

Background: Chronic urticaria (CU), characterized by ≥6 weeks of intense pruritus, remains a debilitating condition for patients. New and safe treatments are needed to manage CU recalcitrant to standard therapy. Objective: A review of the current literature of standard and novel therapeutics in the management of CU was conducted. Methods: A literature search via a medical literature data base and clinical trial data base was conducted to identify treatment options for CU and current clinical trials. Results: Second-generation antihistamines, omalizumab, and cyclosporine remain the most proven therapeutic options for CU. Dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, tezepelumab, and CDX-0159 are all undergoing clinical trials for CU. Although ligelizumab demonstrated initial promising results, a phase III study was discontinued due to a nonsuperior clinical impact compared with omalizumab. Conclusion: Novel therapies are needed for the treatment of recalcitrant CU. With a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of CU, promising therapeutics are in clinical trials for CU.

Japanese cedar and cypress pollinosis updated: New allergens, cross-reactivity, and treatment

Pollen from many tree species in the Cupressaceae family is a well-known cause of seasonal allergic diseases worldwide. Japanese cedar pollinosis and Japanese cypress pollinosis, which are caused by pollen from Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) and Japanese cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa), respectively, are the most prevalent seasonal allergic diseases in Japan. Recently, the novel major Japanese cypress allergen Cha o 3 and the homologous Japanese cedar allergen Cry j cellulase were identified, and it was shown, for the first time, that cellulase in plants is allergenic. Although the allergenic components of pollen from both species exhibit high amino acid sequence identity, their pollinosis responded differently to allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) using a standardized extract of Japanese cedar pollen. Pharmacotherapy and ASIT for Japanese cedar and cypress pollinosis have advanced considerably in recent years. In particular, Japanese cedar ASIT has entered a new phase, primarily in response to the generation of updated efficacy data and the development of new formulations. In this review, we focus on both Japanese cypress and cedar pollinosis, and discuss the latest findings, newly identified causative allergens, and new treatments. To manage pollinosis symptoms during spring effectively, ASIT for both Japanese cedar and Japanese cypress pollen is considered necessary.

The clinical evidence of second-generation H1-antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria in children over 2 years with a special focus on rupatadine

INTRODUCTION

Many obstacles limit the development of pharmacologic studies in children, in particular ethical and practical issues. Therefore, although second-generation H1-antihistamines (sgAH) are recommended by international guidelines as first-line therapy in childhood allergies, most data on the efficacy of antihistamines in children has been extrapolated from studies in adult patients.

AREAS COVERED

The current review focuses on rupatadine, a well-studied modern sgAH that has dual affinity for histamine H1-receptors and PAF receptors. In recent years, clinical efficacy and safety controlled-clinical trials on rupatadine were conducted in children and were based on latest current guidelines using validated tools of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

EXPERT OPINION

Children are not little adults since they present specific physiologic, metabolic, and developmental differences that should be evaluated in specific trials. The clinical evidence with rupatadine in children is the most recent and validated in accordance with current recommendations, with extensive direct data on efficacy and safety in pediatric populations over 2 years old.

Second generation H1 - antihistamines interaction with food and alcohol-A systematic review

Histamine is a mediator of many physiological processes. It plays an important role in modulating allergy reactions and immune system responses. H1 receptor is a therapeutic target for drugs applied in allergic diseases such as allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, urticarial, or atopic dermatitis. H1-antihistamines display different chemical structures, pharmacokinetics and a potential for drug-drug and drug-food interactions. Drug-food interactions are known to reduce therapeutic effects of the medicine, as well as to induce a potent adverse drug reactions. Considering it all, a systematic review was conducted to investigate the importance of drug-food interaction for H1-antihistamine drugs. As non-sedating second generation H1-antihistamines remain to be drugs of choice in treating allergic conditions, the review has been focused on this particular class of medicines. The aim of this paper is to examine the evidence of food-drug and food-alcohol interactions for second generation H1-antihistamine drugs. A systematic literature queries were performed in the following databases: Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science (all from their inception date till October 2016). The queries covered nine specific names of second generation anthistamine drugs, namely bilastine, cetirizine, desloratadine, ebastine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine, loratadine, mizolastine, and rupatadine, in combinations with such terms as "food", "juice", "grapefruit", "fruits", "alcohol", "pharmacokinetics", and "meal". Additional publications were found by checking all the reference lists. Where none data on drug-food interaction could be found within the investigated databases, a specific drug prescribing information was used. 2326 publications were identified with the database queries. Articles were subjected to analysis by reviewing their title, abstract and full text; duplicated papers were removed. Having collected a complete set of data, a critical review was undertaken. For selected H1-antihistamines food, fruit juices or alcohol consumption may significantly impact the efficacy and safety of the therapy. This issue shall be well understood to educate patients properly, as it provides the major therapeutic element in allergic diseases.

On-the-road driving performance after use of the antihistamines mequitazine and l-mequitazine, alone and with alcohol

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies demonstrated that mequitazine produces mild sedation after single doses. Its enantiomer, l-mequitazine, has a stronger potency for the H1 receptor. The aim of the current study was to assess the effects of l-mequitazine and mequitazine, alone and with alcohol, on driving.

METHODS

Twenty-five healthy volunteers were treated with l-mequitazine 2.5, 5.0 and 10 mg, mequitazine 10 mg and placebo, alone and in combination with alcohol in a double-blind crossover design. Driving performance was assessed using the standardized highway driving test in normal traffic. Its primary measure is the Standard Deviation of the Lateral Position (SDLP). Secondary measures consisted of an auditory word learning test during driving, and subjective measures of driving performance.

RESULTS

L-mequitazine 2.5 and 5.0 mg showed no effect on SDLP in the highway driving test, while SDLP significantly increased after l-mequitazine 10 mg (alone +1.59 cm; with alcohol +1.41 cm) and mequitazine 10 mg (with alcohol +1.17 cm). Alcohol significantly impaired all performance measures (SDLP +2.63 cm) but did not interact with the effects of treatment. Subjective measures indicated that participants were aware of the impairing effects of alcohol, but not of l-mequitazine and mequitazine.

CONCLUSION

L-mequitazine can be considered safe to drive in dosages of 2.5 and 5.0 mg. L-mequitazine 10 mg led to mild driving impairment. Alcohol impaired all performance measures and added to the effects of l-mequitazine and mequitazine.

Rupatadine: global safety evaluation in allergic rhinitis and urticaria

INTRODUCTION

Rupatadine is a second-generation H1-antihistamine with dual affinity for histamine H1 and PAF receptors. Rupatadine is indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

AREAS COVERED

A Medline search was conducted to identify preclinical and clinical studies of rupatadine. This was supplemented with additional articles obtained from online sources. The focus of this review is on the safety profile of rupatadine.

EXPERT OPINION

The review of these data indicates that rupatadine is highly selective for histamine H1-receptors, exhibits additional PAF antagonism in in vitro and in vivo studies, does not cross the blood-brain barrier, and has similar adverse events comparable with other second-generation antihistamines. Rupatadine is a safe and well tolerated drug in patients over 2 years old, with no central nervous system or cardiovascular effects and it can be taken with or without foods.

Rupatadine in Established Treatment Schemes Improves Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria Symptoms and Patients' Quality of Life: a Prospective, Non-interventional Trial

Introduction

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common and hard to treat condition associated with a substantial negative impact on patients’ quality of life (QoL). Clinical studies have shown that rupatadine is effective and safe in the treatment of CSU, but data from routine clinical care are scarce. Therefore, we assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of rupatadine in established dosages on CSU activity and patients’ QoL in a routine daily practice setting.

Methods

This was an open, prospective, non-interventional study performed in 146 dermatological practices in Germany. CSU patients for whom treatment with rupatadine was indicated were eligible to participate. Key symptoms of urticaria activity and their impact on patients’ QoL were assessed at the beginning and the end of treatment. Adverse events (AEs) and withdrawals, as well as the dosage regimens chosen, were documented. Patients and physicians were requested to rate effectiveness and tolerability of therapy at the final visit. All statistical analyses were descriptive.

Results

The majority of the 660 patients screened to be treated (median age 44 years, IQR = 31–59 years, n = 654) received rupatadine 10 mg tablets once (477 patients) or twice (105 patients) daily for a median time of 28 days. After treatment, 93.2% of the patients (606/650) reported a clear overall improvement of symptoms. Rupatadine significantly reduced the urticaria activity score (UAS7) as well as the frequency and severity of existing angioedema episodes. Similarly all domains of the urticaria-specific QoL questionnaire (CU-Q₂oL) were markedly improved. The majority of physicians and patients rated rupatadine treatment as effective and well tolerated. There were 39 (5.9%) early treatment withdrawals, and 21 patients (3.2%) experienced AEs.

Conclusion

Rupatadine when given according to the routine treating schemes improves symptoms and CU-Q₂oL of CSU patients; the drug is also safe and well tolerated.

Funding

Dr. R. Pfleger GmbH.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13555-015-0089-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Drug use and driving]

Some drugs are known to impair driving because they can change the vision or hearing, and/or disrupt the intellectual or motor abilities: impaired vigilance, sedation, disinhibition effect, the coordination of movement disorders and the balance. The doctor during prescribing and the pharmacist during deliverance of drug treatment should inform their patients of the potential risks of drugs on driving or operating machinery. The driver has direct responsibility, who hired him and him alone, to follow the medical advice received. The pictograms on the outer packaging of medicinal products intended to classify substances according to their risk driving: The driver can whether to observe simple precautions (level one "be prudent"), or follow the advice of a health professional (level two "be very careful"), or if it is totally not drive (level three "danger caution: do not drive"). This classification only evaluates the intrinsic danger of drugs but not the individual variability. Medicines should be taken into account also the conditions for which the medication is prescribed. It is important to inform the patient on several points.

Rupatadine: efficacy and safety of a non-sedating antihistamine with PAF-antagonist effects

Rupatadine is a modern non-sedating H1-antihistamine that also haswith additional antagonist effects on platelet-activating factor (PAF). Under the tradenames Rupafin® and Urtimed®, Rrupatadine is approvedregistered in Germany for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria infor adults and children aged over 12 years. In this review, the available literature available to date onregarding the pharmacological profile and clinical application of Rrupatadine is reviewed and compared to other conventional histamines. In conclusionFinally, the side effects, safety and interaction profileincompatibility of Rrupatadine are discussed. Due to CYP p450 metabolism, Rrupatadine should not be given together with Eerythromycin, Kketoconazole or grapefruit juice. Rupatadine has been found to be effective and safe Iin a variety of randomized clinical trials both in both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, as well as inbut also chronic urticaria Rupatadine has been found as effective and safe.

Psychomotor and subjective effects of bilastine, hydroxyzine, and cetirizine, in combination with alcohol: a randomized, double-blind, crossover, and positive-controlled and placebo-controlled Phase I clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of concomitant administration of alcohol and bilastine versus alcohol alone on the central nervous system.

METHODS

Twenty-four healthy young volunteers of both sexes participated in a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover, and positive-controlled and placebo-controlled clinical trials. At 1-week intervals, subjects received six different treatments: (i) placebo; (ii) alcohol 0.8 g/kg alone (ALC); (iii) ALC in combination with: bilastine 20 mg (B20 + A); (iv) bilastine 80 mg (B80 + A); (v) cetirizine 10 mg (CET + A); and (vi) hydroxyzine 25 mg (HYD + A). Psychomotor performance tests (fine motor, finger tapping, nystagmus, critical flicker-fusion frequency, temporal estimation, 'd2' cancellation, and simple reaction time) and subjective self-reports (drunkenness, drowsiness, mental slowness, clumsiness, anger, attentiveness, competence, happiness, hostility, interest, and extroversion) were carried out at baseline and multiple points thereafter.

RESULTS

All active treatments induced a significant psychomotor impairment. The greatest and most lasting impairment was observed with HYD + A followed by B80 + A and CET + A. In contrast, objective measures showed less impairment with B20 + A and ALC, both with a similar magnitude. Self-reports showed a subjective perception of performance impairment in all active treatments.

CONCLUSION

Concomitant administration of bilastine (at therapeutic dose) and alcohol does not produce greater central nervous system depressant effects than ACL alone.

Rupatadine for the treatment of urticaria

INTRODUCTION

Rupatadine fumarate is a second-generation antihistamine provided with a potent, long-lasting and balanced in vivo dual platelet-activating factor (PAF) and histamine antagonist activity and it uniquely combines both activities at a high level of potency. Rupatadine has a rapid onset of action and a long-lasting effect, so a once-daily dosing is permitted, moreover is well tolerated by young adults and the elders. Rupatadine does not present the side effects of first-generation H1-antihistamines, such as somnolence, fatigue, headache, impaired memory and learning, sedation, increased appetite, dry mouth, dry eyes, visual disturbances, constipation, urinary retention and erectile dysfunction.

AREAS COVERED

This study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of rupatadine in chronic urticaria (CU) and acquired cold urticaria (ACU), through a systematic review of the literature.

EXPERT OPINION

Patients affected by urticaria are often discouraged because frequently their disease does not recognize a cause and it is unresponsive to treatments. Patients can control their symptoms assuming second-generation H1-antihistamines, such as rupatadine. Several randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials testify effectiveness and safety of rupatadine in CU and ACU. However, further clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of rupatadine in different urticaria subtypes and to test the safety of doses higher than 20 mg are encouraged.

Computational and experimental investigation of DNA repair protein photolyase interactions with low molecular weight drugs

This paper reports the previously unknown interactions between eight low molecular weight commercially available drugs (130-800 Da) and DNA repair protein photolyase using computational docking simulations and surface plasmon resonance (SPR) experiments. Theoretical dissociation constants, K(d), obtained from molecular docking simulations were compared with the values found from SPR experiments. Among the eight drugs analyzed, computational and experimental values showed similar binding affinities between selected drug and protein pairs. We found no significant differences in binding interactions between pure and commercial forms of the drug lornoxicam and DNA photolyase. Among the eight drugs studied, prednisone, desloratadine, and azelastine exhibited the highest binding affinity (K(d) = 1.65, 2.05, and 8.47 μM, respectively) toward DNA photolyase. Results obtained in this study are promising for use in the prediction of unknown interactions of common drugs with specific proteins such as human clock protein cryptochrome.

Rupatadine does not potentiate the CNS depressant effects of lorazepam: randomized, double-blind, crossover, repeated dose, placebo-controlled study

AIM

The main objective was to assess whether benzodiazepine intake when rupatadine plasma concentrations were at steady-state would increase the CNS depressant effects. Rupatadine is a new H(1)-antihistamine which also inhibits platelet activating factor (PAF) release and has been shown to be clinically effective at doses of 10 mg.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy young volunteers took part in a crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial comprising two experimental periods (repeated administration for 7 days of rupatadine 10 mg or placebo as single oral daily doses, separated by a washout of 14 days). On days 5 and 7, according to a fully balanced design, a single oral dose of lorazepam 2 mg or placebo was added. CNS effects were evaluated on these days by seven objective tests of psychomotor performance and eight subjective visual analogue scales (VAS) at pre-dose and several times after drug intake. Four treatment conditions were evaluated: placebo, rupatadine 10 mg, lorazepam 2 mg and rupatadine 10 mg + lorazepam 2 mg.

RESULTS

Significant CNS effects, either impairment of psychomotor performance or subjective sedation, were observed when lorazepam was administered, either alone or in combination with steady state concentrations of rupatadine. No significant differences were found between these two conditions. In addition, rupatadine was not different from placebo. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Repeated doses of rupatadine (10 mg orally) did not enhance the CNS depressant effects of lorazepam (2 mg orally, single dose) either in objective psychomotor tasks or in subjective evaluations.

Cognitive domains affected by histamine H(1)-antagonism in humans: a literature review

The neurotransmitter histamine has been suggested to be involved in cognitive functioning. Generally, studies in animals have shown a decrease in performance after decreasing histamine neurotransmission and improved performance after increasing histamine neurotransmission. It is unclear, however, what role histamine plays in cognition in humans. Up until now, most data are derived from studies and reviews that aimed to assess the sedative potential of H(1)-antagonists and not the effects on cognition in particular. The objective of this paper is specifically to review which cognitive domains are affected by H(1)-antagonists. Taken together, 90 experimental studies on the performance effects of sedative H(1)-antagonists published between 1973 and 2009 were reviewed. Results showed that psychomotor skills and attention are most frequently impaired and memory the least. Tasks assessing memory that were affected usually required rapid responses. It was concluded that both the complexity of the task as well as the demand for information processing speed determines the sensitivity to the effects of central H(1)-antagonism. The importance of the sensitive cognitive domains to histaminergic dysfunction, as well as the relation between histamine related decrease in arousal and task performance deserve further research.

Rupatadine and its effects on symptom control, stimulation time, and temperature thresholds in patients with acquired cold urticaria

BACKGROUND

Patients with acquired cold urticaria (ACU) show itchy wheals during cold exposure. This disturbing condition involves histamine and platelet-activating factor in its pathogenesis. Rupatadine is a dual antagonist of both histamine and platelet-activating factor.

OBJECTIVE

To assess rupatadine efficacy in preventing reactions to cold challenge in patients with ACU.

METHODS

A crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which 21 patients with ACU received rupatadine, 20 mg/d, or placebo for 1 week each is presented. The main outcome was the critical stimulation time threshold (CSTT) determined by ice cube challenge. Secondary outcomes included CSTT and the critical temperature threshold assessed by a cold provocation device (TempTest 3.0), as well as scores for wheal reactions, pruritus, burning sensations, and subjective complaints after cold challenge.

RESULTS

After rupatadine treatment, 11 (52%) of 21 patients exhibited a complete response (ie, no urticaria lesions after ice cube provocation). A significant improvement in CSTT compared with placebo was observed after ice cube and TempTest 3.0 challenge (P = .03 and P = .004, respectively). A significant reduction of critical temperature threshold (P < .001) and reduced scores for cold provocation-induced wheal reactions (P = .01), pruritus (P = .005), burning sensation (P = .03), and subjective complaints (P = .03) after rupatadine treatment were also found. Mild fatigue (n = 4), somnolence (n = 1), and moderate headache (n = 1) were reported during active treatment.

CONCLUSION

Rupatadine, 20 mg/d, shows high efficacy and is well tolerated in the treatment of ACU symptoms.

No cardiac effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of rupatadine: results from a 'thorough QT/QTc study' performed according to ICH guidelines

AIMS

To evaluate the effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of rupatadine on cardiac repolarization in line with a 'thorough QT/QTc study' protocol performed according to International Conference on Harmonization guidelines.

METHODS

This was a randomized (gender-balanced), parallel-group study involving 160 healthy volunteers. Rupatadine, 10 and 100 mg day(-1), and placebo were administered single-blind for 5 days, whilst moxifloxacin 400 mg day(-1) was given on days 1 and 5 in open-label fashion. ECGs were recorded over a 23-h period by continuous Holter monitoring at baseline and on treatment days 1 and 5. Three 10-s ECG samples were downloaded at regular intervals and were analysed independently. The primary analysis of QTc was based on individually corrected QT (QTcI). Treatment effects on QTcI were assessed using the largest time-matched mean difference between the drug and placebo (baseline-subtracted) for the QTcI interval. A negative 'thorough QT/QTc study' is one where the main variable is around < or =5 ms, with a one-sided 95% confidence interval that excludes an effect >10 ms.

RESULTS

The validity of the trial was confirmed by the fact that the moxifloxacin-positive control group produced the expected change in QTcI duration (around 5 ms). The ECG data for rupatadine at both 10 and 100 mg showed no signal effects on the ECG, after neither single nor repeated administration. Furthermore, no pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship, gender effects or clinically relevant changes in ECG waveform outliers were observed. No deaths or serious or unexpected adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This 'thorough QT/QTc study' confirmed previous experience with rupatadine and demonstrated that it had no proarrhythmic potential and raised no concerns regarding its cardiac safety.

Drug interactions

Drugs for allergy are often taken in combination with other drugs, either to treat allergy or other conditions. In common with many pharmaceuticals, most such drugs are subject to metabolism by P450 enzymes and to transmembrane transport. This gives rise to considerable potential for drug-drug interactions, to which must be added consideration of drug-diet interactions. The potential for metabolism-based drug interactions is increasingly being taken into account during drug development, using a variety of in silico and in vitro approaches. Prediction of transporter-based interactions is not as advanced. The clinical importance of a drug interaction will depend upon a number of factors, and it is important to address concerns quantitatively, taking into account the therapeutic index of the compound.

Rupatadine: pharmacological profile and its use in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Rupatadine is a once-daily, non-sedating, selective and long-acting new drug with a strong antagonist activity towards both histamine H1 receptors and platelet-activating factor receptors. The use of rupatadine is indicated in adult and adolescent patients (>12 years of age) suffering from intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis. In the treatment of these conditions, rupatadine is at least as effective as ebastine, cetirizine, loratadine and desloratadine. Avery good safety profile of rupatadine has been evidenced in various studies, including a long-term (1-year) safety study. Rupatadine does not present drug-drug interactions with azithromycin, fluoxetine and lorazepam, but should not be administered concomitantly with known CYP3A4 inhibitors.

Comparison of peripheral and central effects of single and repeated oral dose administrations of bilastine, a new H1 antihistamine: a dose-range study in healthy volunteers with hydroxyzine and placebo as control treatments

Peripheral anti-H1 and central nervous system (CNS) activities after single (day 1) and repeated (day 7) administrations of increasing doses of bilastine (BIL) were assessed in 20 healthy volunteers throughout a crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo (PLA)-controlled study. Repeated doses of BIL 20, 40, or 80 mg and hydroxyzine 25 mg (HYD) as positive standard were administered on 7 consecutive days. Before and at several time points after drug intake, skin reactivity to the intradermal injection of histamine, objective tests of psychomotor performance, and subjective mood scales were evaluated. All active treatments led to a significant and similar reduction in the wheal reaction in relation to PLA after both the single (P < 0.001) and repeated administrations (P < 0.001). No delay was observed in the onset of its peripheral activity after the first dose of BIL as compared with HYD. No tolerance or sensitization was seen when comparing acute and repetitive assessments. Central nervous system effects showed that HYD induced the greatest psychomotor impairment (P < 0.05). Repeated HYD intake showed a lower number of significant alterations in comparison to acute administration. Bilastine 80 mg also showed some impairment (P < 0.05). Subjectively, the only active treatment that could not be differentiated from PLA was BIL 20 mg. Hydroxyzine 25 mg showed the greatest differentiation (P < 0.01). A clear dissociation between peripheral anti-H1 and CNS activity was found after BIL treatment. Significant and sustained peripheral H1-blocking effects were observed after both single and repeated administrations of the therapeutic dose of 20 mg BIL. The 40-mg dose of BIL produced subjective report of sedation, whereas unwanted objective CNS side effects were observed only with the 80-mg dose.

A 12-week placebo-controlled study of rupatadine 10 mg once daily compared with cetirizine 10 mg once daily, in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

With the current increasing incidence of allergies worldwide, new treatments showing efficacy and long term safety are needed for chronic conditions such as persistent allergic rhinitis (PER). New generation H1-antihistamines have demonstrated anti-allergic properties, which could possibly enhance their effectiveness in long-term periods of treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of rupatadine, in controlling symptoms of PER over a 12-week period.

METHODS

A randomized, double blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study was carried out in patients aged older than 12 years with PER. Main inclusion criteria were: instantaneous total symptom score (i6TSS) >or=45, nasal obstruction score <or=12, and overall assessment of PER >or=2 as moderate during the first visit. The primary efficacy endpoint was the 12-week average change from baseline of the patients' i6TSS.

RESULTS

In all, 736 patients were selected. Of them, 543 (73.8%) were randomized in three different groups: placebo (n = 185), cetirizine (n = 175) and rupatadine (n = 183). Rupatadine (P = 0.008) but not cetirizine (P = 0.07) statistically reduced the baseline i6TSS vs placebo (47.8%, 44.7% and 38.8%, respectively), after 12 weeks. Onset of action was observed at the first 24 h for both treatments (rupatadine vs placebo, P = 0.013; cetirizine vs placebo, P = 0.015). Furthermore, instantaneous total nasal symptoms score (iTNSS) (including nasal blockage) mean change from baseline showed a significant reduction with rupatadine 10 mg in comparison with placebo, along all treatment duration of 12 weeks. Study treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Rupatadine significantly relieves symptoms of PER, providing a rapid onset of action and maintains its effects over a long period of 12-weeks.

Rupatadine in allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria

Histamine is the primary mediator involved the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria, and this explains the prominent role that histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists have in the treatment of these disorders. However, histamine is clearly not the only mediator involved in the inflammatory cascade. There is an emerging view that drugs which can inhibit a broader range of inflammatory processes may prove to be more effective in providing symptomatic relief in both allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. This is an important consideration of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative which provides a scientific basis for defining what are the desirable properties of an 'ideal' antihistamine. In this review of rupatadine, a newer dual inhibitor of histamine H(1)- and PAF-receptors, we evaluate the evidence for a mechanism of action which includes anti-inflammatory effects in addition to a powerful inhibition of H(1)- and PAF-receptors. We assess this in relation to the clinical efficacy (particularly the speed of onset of action) and safety of rupatadine, and importantly its longer term utility in everyday life. In clinical trials, rupatadine has been shown to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). It has a fast onset of action, producing rapid symptomatic relief, and it also has an extended duration of clinical activity which allows once-daily administration. In comparative clinical trials rupatadine was shown to be at least as effective as drugs such as loratadine, cetirizine, desloratadine and ebastine in reducing allergic symptoms in adult/adolescent patients with seasonal, perennial or persistent allergic rhinitis. Importantly, rupatadine demonstrated no adverse cardiovascular effects in preclinical or extensive clinical testing, nor negative significant effects on cognition or psychomotor performance (including a practical driving study). It improved the overall well-being of patients with allergic rhinitis or CIU based on findings from quality of life questionnaires and patient global rating scores in clinical trials. Thus, rupatadine is a recently introduced dual inhibitor of histamine H(1)- and PAF-receptors, which has been shown to be an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. It possesses a broader profile of anti-inflammatory properties inhibiting both inflammatory cells and a range of mediators involved in the early- and late-phase inflammatory response, but the clinical relevance of these effects remain to be clarified.

Study of the EEG changes during the combined ingestion of alcohol and H1-antihistamines by using the wavelet transform

H(1)-antihistamines affect the central nervous system (CNS) and, therefore, electroencephalographic (EEG) changes should be expected to occur. The principal aim of this work was to assess the effects on the EEG when hydroxyzine 10 mg (HY) and cetirizine 25 mg (CE) were administered with and without alcohol 0.8 g/kg (AL). Thirty-three healthy young subjects participated in two placebo-controlled trials. In the first one, 15 subjects received placebo (PL), HY and CE. In the second trial, 18 volunteers took PL, AL, and AL in combination with HY and CE. CNS effects of the different treatment conditions were evaluated at baseline, as well as at +4 h and +1 h post-medication for each study, respectively. EEG recordings from electrodes O1 and O2 were analyzed using the wavelet transform. Then, several entropies were calculated from wavelet decomposition to detect changes in the pattern of regularity of the signals. The obtained results suggest that the concomitant ingestion of AL with HY reduces the changes in the irregularity of the EEG, opposite to the behavior observed for CE. Hence, wavelet entropies could be useful descriptors of the EEG alterations induced by several drugs in a different way that the conventional Fourier-based methods.

Comparison of inhibition of cutaneous histamine reaction of ebastine fast-dissolving tablet (20 mg) versus desloratadine capsule (5 mg): a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, three-period crossover study in healthy, nonatopic adults

BACKGROUND

Ebastine is a long-acting, second-generation, selective histamine H1-receptor antagonist. A fast-dissolving tablet formulation of ebastine has been developed at 10- and 20-mg doses, with the intention of facilitating administration to patients experiencing problems with swallowing, including those confined to bed and elderly people, as well as those who may need to use ebastine when they do not have easy access to water to aid swallowing a tablet.

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to assess the pharmacodynamic effects (ie, inhibition of wheal response to cutaneous histamine challenge, and subjective assessments of itching, flare, and pain) and tolerability of the fast-dissolving 20-mg ebastine tablet formulation compared with desloratadine 5-mg capsule and placebo. Acceptability and convenience of the fast-dissolving tablet were also evaluated.

METHODS

This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-period crossover study was conducted at the Drug Research Centre, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. Healthy, nonatopic, white adults aged 18 to 40 years were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 study sequences: ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CBA, or CAB, where A was the ebastine fast-dissolving 20-mg tablet, B was the desloratadine 5-mg capsule, and C was placebo. All study drugs were given orally once daily (8-9 AM) on days 1 to 5 of each study period. Study periods were separated by a washout period of 7 to 10 days. Histamine skin-prick test (SPT) challenge was performed before study drug administration on day 1 of each period (baseline), and then every 20 minutes for 2 hours after administration and again after 24 hours. The final SPT was 24 hours after the day-5 dose was administered. The primary end point was inhibition o f the histamine response, defined as the percentage reduction from baseline wheal area 24 hours after 5 days of administration. Subjective symptoms (itching, flare, and pain) were assessed by subjects using visual analog scales every 20 minutes for 2 hours after administration on day 1. At study end, acceptability (taste, convenience, and overall preference) of the fast-dissolving tablet and capsule formulations were assessed using a questionnaire completed by subjects. Tolerability was assessed using physical examination, laboratory analysis, physician questioning, and spontaneous reporting.

RESULTS

Thirty-six people were randomized (22 women, 14 men; mean [SD] age, 24.7 [4.1] years; mean [SD] weight, 63.2 [9.9] kg); 35 completed the study (1 subject was lost to follow-up after the second study period). Unadjusted mean (SD) wheal areas 24 hours after dose administration on day 5 were 72.9 (29.5), 115.0 (32.1), and 146.7 (32.2) mm(2), for ebastine, desloratadine, and placebo, respectively. Mean differences in reduction from baseline in wheal area were 29.0% for ebastine versus desloratadine and 43.7% for ebastine versus placebo (both, P < 0.001). Corresponding unadjusted mean (SD) wheal areas 24 hours after administration of the first dose on day 1 were 76.5 (22.5), 128.9 (24.0), and 140.5 (33.1) mm(2). Mean itching, flare, and pain ratings were not significantly different between study drugs. Results from the preference questionnaire indicated that the majority (80%) preferred the ebastine fast-dissolving tablet to the desloratadine capsule (and hypothetically also to tablets and oral solution, which were not tested in this study). Ninety-seven percent of subjects were of the opinion that compliance in the home setting would be facilitated by the fas-tdissolving tablet formulation. Fourteen adverse events (AEs) were reported in 9 (25%) volunteers; all AEs were of mild or moderate intensity. Five occurred with ebastine 20 mg (intermittent somnolence, back pain, pharyngolaryngeal pain, pyrexia, and oral pain [1 patient each]), 5 occurred with desloratadine 5 mg (asthenia [2 patients] and dry mouth, somnolence, and back pain [1 patient each]), and 4 occurred with placebo (diarrhea [2 patients] and somnolence and headache [1 patient each]). The relationship with the study drugs was considered unlikely in 6 cases and possible in the remaining 8 cases. An additional AE (back pain) occurred during a washout period.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study in healthy, nonatopic white subjects, inhibition of the response to histamine injection was significantly greater with the ebastine 20-mg fast-dissolving tablet compared with desloratadine 5-mg capsule and placebo after 1 and 5 days of administration. Most participants expressed an overall preference for the fast-dissolving tablet formulation over capsules. All study drugs were well tolerated.

Dissociation between objective psychomotor impairment and subjective sleepiness after diazepam administration in the aged people

The aim of the present study was to clarify whether subjective sleepiness accurately reflects benzodiazepine-related decline in psychomotor function after taking benzodiazepines (BZPs) in aged people. Subjects were eight healthy, young (mean age, 19.8 years) and seven healthy, older (mean age, 60.9 years) men. Placebo and diazepam (DZP) were administered orally in a single-blind crossover manner to the young subjects (placebo, 5 mg DZP and 10 mg DZP) and to the older subjects (placebo and 5 mg DZP). Plasma drug concentration, choice reaction time (CRT) as an objective measure of psychomotor function, and the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS) as a measure of subjective sleepiness were monitored every 20 min from 1000 until 1600 h, being the drug administered at 1200 h. Pharmacokinetic variables did not differ significantly between the two age groups. DZP at 10 mg in young subjects induced significant increases in both the CRT and SSS score. DZP at 5 mg induced no significant increase in SSS score in either age group but did induce a significant increase in CRT only in the older subjects that matched that in young subjects given 10 mg DZP. The older subjects suffered from dissociation between subjective sleepiness and objective psychomotor impairment under DZP treatment. Such individuals may underestimate the detrimental effects on brain function.

Lack of effects between rupatadine 10 mg and placebo on actual driving performance of healthy volunteers

INTRODUCTION

Rupatadine fumarate is a potent, selective, histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist and PAF inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy for the relief of allergic rhinitis. Rupatadine does not easily cross the blood-brain barrier and is believed to be non-sedating at therapeutic doses. Consequently, rupatadine should show no impairment on car driving.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the acute effects of rupatadine, relative to placebo and hydroxyzine (as an active control), on healthy subjects' driving performance.

METHODS

Twenty subjects received a single dose of rupatadine 10 mg, hydroxyzine 50 mg, or placebo in each period of this randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover study. Two hours postdosing, subjects operated a specially instrumented vehicle in tests designed to measure their driving ability. Before and after the driving tests ratings of sedation were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between rupatadine and placebo in the primary outcome variable: standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP); however, hydroxyzine treatment significantly increased SDLP (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Objective (Stanford sleepiness scale) and subjective sedation ratings (Visual Analogue Scales) showed similar results: subjects reported negative effects after hydroxyzine but not after rupatadine.

CONCLUSION

Rupatadine 10 mg is not sedating and does not impair driving performance.

Rupatadine

Rupatadine (Rupafin, Rinialer, Rupax, Alergoliber) is a selective oral histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist that has also been shown to have platelet-activating factor (PAF) antagonist activity in vitro. It is indicated for use in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) in patients aged >/=12 years. Clinical trials show that rupatadine is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and CIU. It has a rapid onset of action and a prolonged duration of activity. Importantly, it has no significant effect on cognition, psychomotor function or the cardiovascular system. Once-daily rupatadine significantly improves allergic rhinitis symptoms in patients with SAR, PAR or persistent allergic rhinitis (PER) compared with placebo, and provides similar symptom control to that of loratadine, desloratadine, cetirizine or ebastine. In patients with CIU, longer-term use of rupatadine improves CIU symptoms to a greater extent than placebo. It is as well tolerated as other commonly used second-generation H(1)-receptor antagonists. Thus, the introduction of rupatadine extends the range of oral agents available for the treatment of allergic disorders, including allergic rhinitis and CIU.

Rupatadine: pharmacological profile and its use in the treatment of allergic disorders

Rupatadine is a once-daily, non-sedating, selective and long-acting new drug with a strong antagonist activity towards both histamine H(1) receptors and platelet-activating factor receptors. The use of rupatadine is indicated in adult and adolescent patients (> 12 years of age) suffering from intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. In the treatment of these diseases, rupatadine is at least as effective as ebastine, cetirizine, loratadine and desloratadine. A very good safety profile of rupatadine has been evidenced in various studies, including a long-term (1-year) safety study. Rupatadine does not present drug-drug interactions with azithromycin, fluoxetine and lorazepam, but should not be administered concomitantly with known CYP3A4 inhibitors.