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

Antihistamines H1 as Potential Anthelmintic Agents against the Zoonotic Parasite Angiostrongylus cantonensis

Infections caused by parasitic helminths pose significant health concerns for both humans and animals. The limited efficacy of existing drugs underscores the urgent need for novel anthelmintic agents. Given the reported potential of antihistamines against various parasites, including worms, this study conducted a screening of clinically available antihistamines against Angiostrongylus cantonensis-a nematode with widespread implications for vertebrate hosts, including humans. Twenty-one anti-H1 antihistamines were screened against first-stage larvae (L1) of A. cantonensis obtained from the feces of infected rats. Standard anthelmintic drugs ivermectin and albendazole were employed for comparative analysis. The findings revealed four active compounds (promethazine, cinnarizine, desloratadine, and rupatadine), with promethazine demonstrating the highest potency (EC50 = 31.6 μM). Additionally, morphological analysis showed that antihistamines induced significant changes in larvae. To understand the mechanism of action, antimuscarinic activities were reported based on average pK i values for human muscarinic receptor (mAChR) subtypes of the evaluated compounds. Furthermore, an analysis of the physicochemical and pharmacodynamic properties of antihistamines revealed that their anthelmintic activity does not correlate with their activity at H1 receptors. This study marks the first documentation of antihistamines' activity against A. cantonensis, offering a valuable contribution to the quest for novel agents effective against zoonotic helminths.

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.

Long-term safety and efficacy of rupatadine in Japanese patients with itching due to chronic spontaneous urticaria, dermatitis, or pruritus: A 12-month, multicenter, open-label clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Rupatadine is a novel H1 antihistamine with platelet-activating factor antagonist activity. Its efficacy and safety on pruritic skin diseases have been demonstrated by 10mg/day rupatadine in a two weeks clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of rupatadine in the management of pruritus, and the clinical effect of updosing to 20mg in Japanese adult and adolescent patients.

METHODS

In this 52-week, multicenter, open-label clinical trial (JapicCTI-152787), 206 patients (132, eczema or dermatitis; 58, pruritus; and 16, chronic spontaneous urticaria) received the study medication. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in the total pruritus score to Week 2 by treatment with rupatadine 10mg once daily. From Week 3 to Week 52, rupatadine updosing to 20mg was allowed.

RESULTS

The mean [95% CI] change from baseline to Week 2 in the total pruritus score was -1.241 [-1.450, -1.033] (paired t test, P< 0.001). The therapeutic effect persisted up to Week 52 (paired t test, P< 0.001). Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported at an overall incidence of 18.0% (45 events in 37 patients). No serious or clinically significant ADRs were reported. Somnolence was the most common ADR (14.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical trial demonstrated the short- and long-term benefits of rupatadine in the management of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, dermatitis, and pruritus. Rupatadine 10 and 20mg doses are effective for the treatment of itch in adults and adolescents, and can be used safely on a long-term basis.

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.

The benefit of H2 receptors antagonist Rupatadine in treatment for urticaria

Second generation antihistamine drugs are mainly used for the therapy of patients suffering from urticaria; however, they are efficient in 45-60% of cases only. New drugs for treatment of urticaria need to be developed and implemented, and second generation antihistamine drug Rupatadine is one of them. At the same time, Rupatadine efficiently inhibits the inflammatory action of the platelet-activating factor. Due to its double action, Rupatadine used perorally in the dose of 10 mg once a day is an efficient drug for treatment of urticaria, and its safety was confirmed by clinical trials.

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.

The relation between cognitive control and risky driving in young novice drivers

This study investigated if decreased cognitive control, reflected in response inhibition and working-memory performance, is an underlying mechanism of risky driving in young novice drivers. Thirty-eight participants aged 17 to 25 years old, with less than 1 year of driving experience, completed a simulated drive that included several risky driving measures. Measures of response inhibition and verbal working memory were negatively associated with the standard deviation of the lateral lane position. Response inhibition, but not working memory, was also negatively related with the detection of, reaction to, and crashes with road hazards. Unexpectedly, increased cognitive control did not always relate to decreased risky driving. Visuospatial working-memory performance related positively with yellow-light running and negatively with the minimal following distance inside the city center. The findings evidence the role of cognitive control in explaining risky driving in young novice drivers. This relationship, however, differed per cognitive function and per driving parameter. Implications for future research and traffic safety interventions are discussed.

Effects of central nervous system drugs on driving: speed variability versus standard deviation of lateral position as outcome measure of the on-the-road driving test

BACKGROUND

The on-the-road driving test in normal traffic is used to examine the impact of drugs on driving performance. This paper compares the sensitivity of standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP) and SD speed in detecting driving impairment.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify studies applying the on-the-road driving test, examining the effects of anxiolytics, antidepressants, antihistamines, and hypnotics. The proportion of comparisons (treatment versus placebo) where a significant impairment was detected with SDLP and SD speed was compared.

RESULTS

About 40% of 53 relevant papers did not report data on SD speed and/or SDLP. After placebo administration, the correlation between SDLP and SD speed was significant but did not explain much variance (r = 0.253, p = 0.0001). A significant correlation was found between ΔSDLP and ΔSD speed (treatment-placebo), explaining 48% of variance. When using SDLP as outcome measure, 67 significant treatment-placebo comparisons were found. Only 17 (25.4%) were significant when SD speed was used as outcome measure. Alternatively, for five treatment-placebo comparisons, a significant difference was found for SD speed but not for SDLP.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard deviation of lateral position is a more sensitive outcome measure to detect driving impairment than speed variability.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of cetirizine versus rupatadine in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a randomized, double-blind, 6-week trial

BACKGROUND

Urticaria is a distressing condition associated with diverse clinical presentations. Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CsU) is characterized by wheals and angioedema. Its treatment requires an algorithmic approach to identify the optimum medication.

OBJECTIVES

Cetirizine is commonly used in the treatment of urticaria. Rupatadine is a selective non-sedating H1 -antihistamine approved for the treatment of CsU. This trial was conducted to ascertain whether the properties of rupatadine offer advantages over cetirizine.

METHODS

Seventy patients with CsU were enrolled. Parameters assessed included: (i) mean number of wheals (MNW); (ii) pruritus; (iii) mean total symptom score (MTSS); (iv) size of wheal; (v) interference of wheals with sleep; and (vi) sedation. Patients with CsU were divided randomly into two groups. Routine investigations were performed at baseline and at the end of the study.

RESULTS

Evaluations of MTSS, MNW, and pruritus revealed statistically significant differences at week 3 compared with baseline in the cetirizine group. However, greater reductions in these parameters were obtained with rupatadine. In patients receiving rupatadine, reductions in the MNW, size of wheals, and intensity of erythema were also significant at six weeks (P < 0.001) and were significantly greater than those in the cetirizine group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in MTSS, MNW, size of wheals, intensity of erythema, and differential eosinophil count imply that rupatadine is a particularly attractive therapeutic modality compared with cetirizine for the treatment of CsU.

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.

Safety considerations in the management of allergic diseases: focus on antihistamines

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of evidence supporting the safety profiles of frequently used oral H(1)-antihistamines (AHs) for the treatment of patients with histamine-release related allergic diseases, e.g. allergic rhinitis and urticaria, and to compare them to the safety profiles of other medications, mostly topical corticosteroids and leukotriene antagonists (LTRA).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Systematic search of the published literature (PubMed) and of the regulatory authorities databases (EMA and FDA) for oral AHs.

RESULTS

Similarly to histamine, antihistamines (AHs) have organ-specific efficacy and adverse effects. The peripheral H(1)-receptor (PrH1R) stimulation leads to allergic symptoms while the brain H(1)-receptor (BrH1R) blockade leads to somnolence, fatigue, increased appetite, decreased cognitive functions (impaired memory and learning), seizures, aggressive behaviour, etc. First-generation oral AHs (FGAHs) inhibit the effects of histamine not only peripherally but also in the brain, and additionally have potent antimuscarinic, anti-α-adrenergic and antiserotonin effects leading to symptoms such as visual disturbances (mydriasis, photophobia, and diplopia), dry mouth, tachycardia, constipation, urinary retention, agitation, and confusion. The somnolence caused by FGAHs interferes with the natural circadian sleep-wake cycle and therefore FGAHs are not suitable to be used as sleeping pills. Second-generation oral AHs (SGAHs) have proven better safety and tolerability profiles, much lower proportional impairment ratios, with at least similar if not better efficacy, than their predecessors. Only SGAHs, and especially those with a proven long-term (e.g., ≥12 months) clinical safety, should be prescribed for young children. Evidence exist that intranasally applied medications, like intranasal antihistamines, have the potential to reach the brain and cause somnolence.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-generation oral antihistamines are the preferred first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis and urticaria. Patients taking SGAHs report relatively little and mild adverse events even after long-term continuous treatments. An antihistamine should ideally possess high selectivity for the H(1)-receptor, high PrH1R occupancy and low to no BrH1R occupancy.

Short-term effects of morning versus evening dose of hydroxyzine 50 mg on cognition in healthy volunteers

It is well known that the sedative properties of antihistamines can differ considerably between individual drugs. Several factors have been suggested to determine the presence, absence, and/or magnitude of sedation by antihistamines. Research has suggested that the sedative effects caused by central H1 blockade partly depend on the availability of histamine competing for the same receptor and that this competition is affected by a mechanism related to sleep. Consequently, the present study was designed to compare the effects of evening and morning doses of the first-generation antihistamine hydroxyzine on cognition. It was expected that the sedative effect of hydroxyzine would be apparent in the evening after an evening dose but would be smaller in the morning after a morning dose owing to the greater release of histamine shortly after awakening. Eighteen participants (9 females) participated in a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind 3-way crossover design. Performance was assessed using several psychomotor tests: that is, divided attention task, critical tracking task, stop signal task, the attention network test, and the experimental attention switch task. Results demonstrated that evening doses of hydroxyzine impaired performance on the divided attention and the attention network test. Impairment after morning doses was generally larger in magnitude and affected performance measures in all tasks. It is concluded that hydroxyzine-induced impairment at tmax is more prominent after morning doses compared with evening doses and that the present study could not present direct evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that histamine availability inversely affects the magnitude of antihistamine impairment.

Rupatadine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria

Allergies are a widespread group of diseases of civilization and most patients are still undertreated. Since histamine is considered to be the most important mediator in allergies such as allergic rhinitis and urticaria, the most commonly used drugs to treat these disorders are antihistamines acting on the histamine 1 (H1) receptor. The currently available antihistamines, however, have significant differences in their effects and safety profiles. Furthermore, the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma initiative calls for additional desirable properties of antihistamines. Here, we review the profile of rupatadine, a new dual platelet-activating factor and H1-receptor antagonist that fulfils these criteria and therefore offers an excellent option for the treatment of allergic diseases.

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.

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.