Acute and subchronic effects of the H1-histamine receptor antagonist ebastine in 10, 20 and 30 mg dose, and triprolidine 10 mg on car driving performance

Efficacy of Triprolidine in the Treatment of Temporary Sleep Disturbance

Triprolidine, a first-generation antihistamine for allergic rhinitis, has a shorter half-life and fewer persistent effects relative to other antihistamines and may be useful in the treatment of temporary sleep disturbance. Patients aged ≥18 years old were randomized 1:1:1 to receive either triprolidine 2.5 mg (n = 65), triprolidine 5 mg (n = 66), or placebo (n = 67) on 3 consecutive nights. Sleep disturbance index was monitored via wrist actimeter. Subjective measures were assessed via diary card. Triprolidine 2.5 mg had a significantly lower sleep disturbance index versus placebo on night 1 (P = .02); however, when adjusted for outliers, sleep disturbance index did not significantly differ between either dose of triprolidine versus placebo on night 1. Adjusted sleep disturbance index was significantly lower with triprolidine 2.5 and 5 mg versus placebo on night 3 (P = .0017 and P = .011, respectively) and for the mean of all 3 nights (P = .01 and P = .015, respectively). Sleep latency was significantly improved for triprolidine 2.5 mg versus placebo on nights 2 and 3 and for the mean of all 3 nights and for triprolidine 5 mg versus placebo for the mean of all 3 nights. Subjective measures showed those on both doses of triprolidine felt more refreshed on awakening versus placebo for the mean of all 3 nights, with no increase in daytime sleepiness. The frequency of adverse events was similar across groups. The optimum dose of triprolidine for treatment of temporary sleep disturbance was 2.5 mg. There were improvements in both objective and subjective measures of sleep quality versus placebo, with no safety concerns raised.

EEG-Based Neurocognitive Metrics May Predict Simulated and On-Road Driving Performance in Older Drivers

The number of older drivers is steadily increasing, and advancing age is associated with a high rate of automobile crashes and fatalities. This can be attributed to a combination of factors including decline in sensory, motor, and cognitive functions due to natural aging or neurodegenerative diseases such as HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder (HAND). Current clinical assessment methods only modestly predict impaired driving. Thus, there is a need for inexpensive and scalable tools to predict on-road driving performance. In this study EEG was acquired from 39 HIV+ patients and 63 healthy participants (HP) during: 3-Choice-Vigilance Task (3CVT), a 30-min driving simulator session, and a 12-mile on-road driving evaluation. Based on driving performance, a designation of Good/Poor (simulator) and Safe/Unsafe (on-road drive) was assigned to each participant. Event-related potentials (ERPs) obtained during 3CVT showed increased amplitude of the P200 component was associated with bad driving performance both during the on-road and simulated drive. This P200 effect was consistent across the HP and HIV+ groups, particularly over the left frontal-central region. Decreased amplitude of the late positive potential (LPP) during 3CVT, particularly over the left frontal regions, was associated with bad driving performance in the simulator. These EEG ERP metrics were shown to be associated with driving performance across participants independent of HIV status. During the on-road evaluation, Unsafe drivers exhibited higher EEG alpha power compared to Safe drivers. The results of this study are 2-fold. First, they demonstrate that high-quality EEG can be inexpensively and easily acquired during simulated and on-road driving assessments. Secondly, EEG metrics acquired during a sustained attention task (3CVT) are associated with driving performance, and these metrics could potentially be used to assess whether an individual has the cognitive skills necessary for safe driving.

On-the-road driving performance the morning after bedtime use of suvorexant 15 and 30 mg in healthy elderly

RATIONALE

Suvorexant is a first-in-class orexin receptor antagonist for treating insomnia. There is a general concern that hypnotics may impair next-morning driving ability.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate next-morning driving performance in older adults after single and repeated doses of suvorexant.

METHODS

Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 4-period crossover study in 24 healthy volunteers (10 females), aged 65-80 years. Subjects were treated with suvorexant (15 and 30 mg) for eight consecutive nights, zopiclone 7.5 mg nightly on days 1 and 8, and placebo. Driving performance was assessed on days 2 and 9 (9 h after dosing) using a 1-h standardized highway driving test in normal traffic, measuring standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP). Drug-placebo differences in SDLP >2.4 cm were considered to reflect clinically meaningful driving impairment.

RESULTS

Driving performance as measured by SDLP was not impaired following suvorexant. Mean drug-placebo differences in SDLP following suvorexant 15 and 30 mg on day 2 and 9 were 0.6 cm or less. Their 90 % CIs were all below the threshold of 2.4 cm for clinical relevance and included zero, indicating effects were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant. Symmetry analysis showed no significant differences between the number of participants who had SDLP differences >2.4 cm and those who had SDLP differences <-2.4 cm following suvorexant.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no clinically meaningful residual effect of suvorexant 15 and 30 mg on next-morning driving (9 h after bedtime dosing) in healthy older adults, as assessed by mean changes in SDLP and by the number of participants on drug versus placebo that exceeded a predetermined threshold for clinically meaningful impairment.

Central nervous system effects of the second-generation antihistamines marketed in Japan--review of inter-drug differences using the proportional impairment ratio (PIR)-

Background

Second-generation antihistamines (AHs) have, in general, fewer sedative effects than the first-generation. However, important inter-drug differences remain in the degree of cognitive and/or psychomotor impairment. The extent to which a particular compound causes disruption can be conveniently compared, to all other AHs, using the Proportional Impairment Ratio (PIR). Although the PIR can differentiate the relative impairment caused by individual drugs, there is no indication of the reliability of the ratios obtained.

Objective

To calculate the PIRs –together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as an index of reliability– and compare AHs currently, or soon to be, available in Japan, with respect to their intrinsic capacity to cause impairment.

Methods

Results from studies of cetirizine, desloratadine, ebastine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine, loratadine, mequitazine, and olopatadine were included in the PIR calculations. All data utilised came from crossover studies in healthy volunteers which were randomised and placebo and positive-internal controlled. Existing databases from studies reporting the sedative effects of AHs on objective (speed, accuracy, memory) and subjective (feeling) psychometrics were augmented, via results from suitable studies published after the previous reviews. The null value for a PIR was one.

Results

A total of 45 studies were finally included for this review. Of the AHs assessed, fexofenadine, ebastine, and levocetirizine showed a PIR for objective tests of 0. However, only fexofenadine (PIR = 0.49) had an upper limit of the 95% CI of less than 1. Fexofenadine, levocetirizine, desloratadine, olopatadine, loratadine, and mequitazine all had a PIR for subjective ratings of 0, but the upper limits of the 95% CIs were all in excess of 1, although fexofenadine (PIR = 2.57) was the lowest.

Conclusions

The results show that there are differences between second-generation AHs in the extent of sedation produced. However, subjective ratings indicate that patients may not necessarily be aware of this.

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.

The prevalence and nature of stopped on-the-road driving tests and the relationship with objective performance impairment

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The on-the-road driving test in normal traffic is applied to examine the impact of drugs on driving performance. Although participants are accompanied by a licensed driving instructor, under Dutch law, the driver is primarily responsible for safe driving and is not permitted to continue driving when it is judged that the drug compromises safety. This review examined the prevalence and nature of stopped driving tests, and the relationship with Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP), i.e. the "weaving of the car".

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted to gather all publications on clinical trials that applied the on-the-road driving test, examining the effects of Central Nervous System (CNS)-drugs such as anxiolytics, antidepressants, antihistamines, analgesics, and hypnotics.

RESULTS

47 papers reported on 50 Dutch clinical trials in which 1059 subjects participated (903 healthy volunteers and 156 patients). A total of 7232 driving tests were performed; 5050 after drug treatment and 2042 after placebo. 3.1% of all driving tests were terminated before completion: 4.1% after drug treatment, and 0.7% after placebo. The decision to stop a driving test was 3-4 times more often made by the driving instructor than the subject. The most common reasons for stopping were the driver feeling tired or sleepy, or the driving instructor noticing signs of drowsiness and performance impairment. Although SDLP values of stopped driving tests are sometimes high, there is no clear relationship between SDLP (changes from placebo) and the decision to stop a driving test. Based on 8 studies that reported exact data, 39.6% of stopped drivers had a lower and 60.4% had a higher SDLP than 35 cm, i.e. the cut-off point of safe driving. This confirms that perception of the driver as well as judgment by the instructor of driving to be 'unsafe' differs between individuals.

CONCLUSION

Driving tests are sometimes stopped after drug treatment or placebo. The decision to stop driving is not a good correlate of objective performance.

Acute and subchronic effects of bilastine (20 and 40 mg) and hydroxyzine (50 mg) on actual driving performance in healthy volunteers

Bilastine is a new second-generation H1 antagonist. Although bilastine has been demonstrated to produce little or no performance impairment in laboratory tests, it cannot be excluded that it produces impairments in real-life performance such as driving. This study aims to assess the effects of two doses of bilastine (20 and 40 mg) on actual driving after single and repeated administration. Hydroxyzine 50 mg was included as an active control. Twenty-two participants (11 females, 11 males) were tested in a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, four-way cross-over design. Participants were treated with once-daily doses for eight consecutive days. On day 1 and 8 of each treatment period participants performed an actual highway driving test. The primary variable was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), a measure of weaving. Results demonstrated that hydroxyzine significantly increased SDLP on days 1 and 8 of treatment. Bilastine did not affect SDLP. It is concluded that hydroxyzine produces severe driving impairment after single doses and that this impairment only partly mitigates over time due to a lack of complete tolerance. Bilastine did not produce any driving impairment after single and repeated doses and can be safely used in traffic in doses up to 40 mg.

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.

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

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

Ebastine in allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria

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

Impact of psychotropic medications on simulated driving: a critical review

Driving a motor vehicle is central to the functional autonomy of patients with psychiatric illnesses. There have been many studies of the deleterious effects of psychotropic medications such as benzodiazepines, typical antipsychotics and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) on human motor skills; however, in the literature little attention has been paid to how such impairment affects driving ability. Computerised driving simulators offer a laboratory-based method of assessing the effects of specific psychotropic medications on driving abilities, in a standardised, controlled and safe manner. The purpose of the present article is to review research undertaken to-date on the effects of psychotropic medications on computer-simulated driving. A search of various databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo, was conducted. Forty-one articles assessing the impact of psychotropics on computer-simulated driving were identified. The pooled total number of subjects assessed in these simulator studies was 1336 (mean sample size 30.36 [SD 35.8]). The most common outcome measures in the various studies were speed, steering, deviation from lateral position (tracking, lane drifting), reaction time or braking accuracy, driving errors (e.g. errors in turning, coordination, gap acceptance, signalling, following distance) and vehicle collisions. The results of the studies were quite variable; however, the most common drug-related impairments included those of tracking and reaction time. Benzodiazepines and TCAs were most commonly associated with impairment, although the level of impairment was dependent on the population studied, the dose and the time of testing relative to drug administration. Computer-simulated driving provides a useful tool to research psychotropic-related impairment of driving abilities. Limitations of currently available data include the lack of generalisability, standardisation and small sample sizes.

Repeated-dose effects of mequitazine, cetirizine and dexchlorpheniramine on driving and psychomotor performance

AIMS

Previous studies have demonstrated that the antihistamines mequitazine, cetirizine and dexchlorpheniramine produce mild sedation after single doses. It is unknown, however, whether acute sedation persists after repeated dosing. Therefore, this study assessed the effects of repeated dosing of these antihistamines on driving and psychomotor performance.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy volunteers were treated with mequitazine 10 mg q.a.m., cetirizine 10 mg q.a.m., dexchlorpheniramine Repetab 6 mg b.i.d. and placebo for four separate 8-day periods. Drug effects were assessed on days 1 and 8 using on-the-road driving tests (highway driving and car following), psychomotor tests (tracking and divided attention) and subjective questionnaires.

RESULTS

Dexchlorpheniramine and mequitazine significantly impaired driving performance on the highway driving test on the first day; dexchlorpheniramine increased Standard Deviation of Lateral Position by 2 cm [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5, 3.8] and mequitazine by 2.5 cm (CI 1.0, 4.3). These effects on driving performance disappeared after 8 days of treatment. No effect of treatment was found on car following, tracking and divided attention. Although subjective ratings confirmed that subjects knew their driving had been impaired in the mequitazine and dexchlorpheniramine condition after completion of the highway driving test on day 1, they did not expect their driving to be affected before the start of the test. Cetirizine did not impair performance on any of the tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Single doses of mequitazine 10 mg and dexchlorpheniramine Repetab 6 mg cause mild driving impairment. However, when taken over several days, the impairing effect wears off, possibly as a result of tolerance.

A review of the second-generation antihistamine ebastine for the treatment of allergic disorders

Ebastine is a once-daily, non-sedating, selective, long-acting, second-generation antihistamine. The use of ebastine is indicated in patients suffering from intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. Ebastine 10 mg/day, appears as effective as other second-generation antihistamines, such as cetirizine and loratadine. Ebastine 20 mg/day is indicated in patients with moderate and severe allergic symptoms. No cardiovascular effects of ebastine are described, although there is a pharmacokinetic interaction when ketoconazole or macrolides are co-administered. Ebastine has no relevant effects on the psychomotor performance. Even with ebastine 20 mg/day skilled performance does not appear to be impaired. Furthermore, ebastine 5-10 and 2.5 mg, appears to be efficient and can be used safely in children 6-11 and 2-5 years of age, respectively. Ebastine appears to be a safe, effective and well-tolerated second-generation antihistamine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Effects of MDMA (ecstasy), and multiple drugs use on (simulated) driving performance and traffic safety

RATIONALE

The effects of MDMA on driving behaviour are not clear, since the direct effects of MDMA on cognitive performance are reported as not generally negative.

OBJECTIVES

To assess in an advanced driving simulator acute effects on simulated driving behaviour and heart rate of MDMA, and effects of polydrug use.

METHODS

A group of young participants who had indicated that they regularly used MDMA were asked to complete test rides in an advanced driving simulator, shortly after the use of MDMA, just before going to a party. They were tested again after having visited the "rave", while they were under the influence of MDMA and a number of different other active drugs. Participants were also tested sober, at a comparable time at night. Separately, a control group of participants was included in the experiment.

RESULTS

Driving performance in the sense of lateral and longitudinal vehicle control was not greatly affected after MDMA, but deteriorated after multiple drug use. The most striking result was the apparent decreased sense for risk taking, both after MDMA and after multiple drug use. This was clear from gap acceptance data, while the ultimate indicator of unsafe driving, accident involvement or even causation, was increased by 100% and 150%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Driving under the influence of MDMA alone is certainly not safe; however, driving back (home) after a dance party ("rave") where MDMA users regularly combine MDMA with a host of other drugs can be described as extremely dangerous.

Antihistamines and driving ability: evidence from on-the-road driving studies during normal traffic

BACKGROUND

All antihistamines are capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier and thus may cause sedation. Most antihistamine users are ambulatory patients and therefore presumably drive a car.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the effects of antihistamine drugs on driving ability.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

A literature search (MEDLINE and cross-references) was performed using the keywords driving and antihistamine. Sixteen studies using the on-the-road driving test during normal traffic were included in the review. Studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled and included a positive control.

RESULTS

First-generation antihistamines (diphenhydramine, triprolidine, terfenadine, dexchlorpheniramine, clemastine) significantly impair driving performance after both one-time and repeated (daily) administration. Second-generation antihistamines (cetirizine, loratadine, ebastine, mizolastine, acrivastine, emedastine, mequitazine) may also impair driving performance, but the magnitude and extent of impairment depend on the administered dose, sex, and time between testing and treatment administration. Tolerance develops after 4 to 5 days of administration, but impairment is not absent. Third-generation antihistamines (fexofenadine and levocetirizine) have been shown to produce no driving impairment after both one-time and repeated administration.

CONCLUSIONS

First- and second-generation antihistamines may significantly impair driving performance. In the context of driving safety but also taking into account the cardiotoxic properties of some of the second-generation antihistamines, we advise treating patients with third-generation antihistamines such as fexofenadine and levocetirizine.

A dose-ranging study of the effects of mequitazine on actual driving, memory and psychomotor performance as compared to dexchlorpheniramine, cetirizine and placebo

BACKGROUND

Mequitazine is a so-called 'non-sedative' second-generation antihistamine even though it has never been firmly established that this drug's sedative potential actually differs from that of the 'sedative' first-generation antihistamines.

OBJECTIVE

The present study compares the sedative effects of three doses of mequitazine on actual driving, psychomotor performance and memory with those of a first- and a second-generation antihistamine.

METHODS

Eighteen healthy volunteers received on separate days a single dose of 5, 10 and 15 mg mequitazine, 10 mg cetirizine, 6 mg dexchlorpheniramine and placebo. Drug effects were assessed using two actual driving tests (highway-driving test and car-following test), cognitive and psychometric tests (tracking, divided attention, memory, reasoning and critical flicker fusion), pupil size and questionnaires.

RESULTS

Highway-driving data revealed an overall effect of Treatment on the standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP). Dexchlorpheniramine impaired driving performance as indicated by a significant rise in SDLP. Mequitazine significantly increased SDLP in a dose-related manner, but the separate dose effects failed to reach statistical significance. Divided attention performance was also affected by Treatment. Reaction time (RT) during mequitazine treatments increased in a dose-related manner and significantly differed from placebo at the highest dose. Subjects reported to be less alert after treatment with dexchlorpheniramine. Cetirizine did not affect performance in any of the tasks.

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that mequitazine is mildly sedating. The effects of mequitazine are comparable to those of other second-generation antihistamines, in that it causes mild driving impairment, particularly at higher doses.

Comparative study of acute effects of single doses of fexofenadine, olopatadine, d-chlorpheniramine and placebo on psychomotor function in healthy volunteers

Since most classical (first-generation) antihistamines have undesirable sedative effects on the central nervous system (CNS), newer (second-generation) antihistamines have been developed to relieve the sedative effects and to improve the patient's quality of life. However, the psychomotor profiles of second-generation antihistamines are not fully elucidated. In this randomized, double-blind, crossover study, the acute effects of single doses of second-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine (120 mg) and olopatadine (10 mg), on cognitive and psychomotor performance were investigated in comparison with those of placebo and d-chlorpheniramine (4 mg), a first-generation antihistamine, using objective and subjective assessments, in 11 healthy Japanese volunteers. In a battery of psychomotor tests, d-chlorpheniramine impaired tracking ability in the compensatory tracking task and caused a reduction in behavioural activity as continuously measured by wrist actigraphy. Olopatadine, like d-chlorpheniramine, reduced the behavioural activity, while fexofenadine had no effect in any of the tests. No significant changes in the subjects' self-ratings of drowsiness were found with the three antihistamines. These results suggest that d-chlorpheniramine and olopatadine, but not fexofenadine, produce sedative effects on psychomotor performance, and that the CNS profile of fexofenadine is different from that of olopatadine.

Differential cognitive effects of ebastine and (+)-chlorpheniramine in healthy subjects: correlation between cognitive impairment and plasma drug concentration

AIMS

It has been widely recognized that classical antihistamines induce sedation as an adverse effect, while second-generation antihistamines have few if any sedative effects. In order to evaluate the sedative properties of ebastine, a second-generation antihistamine, its effect on cognitive performance in healthy subjects was compared with placebo and (+)-chlorpheniramine.

METHODS

Twelve healthy male subjects were instructed to perform six types of attention-demanding cognitive tasks, and objective measurements of reaction times and accuracy was made before and after drug administration. Their sleepiness levels were also monitored. Test drugs were ebastine 10 mg, placebo and two doses of (+)-chlorpheniramine 2 mg and 6 mg, as positive controls. Plasma drug concentrations at the end of the study were analysed.

RESULTS

After treatments with (+)-chlorpheniramine, the reaction times of the tasks were significantly prolonged (e.g. ratios of after/before dosing: placebo (0.998 +/- 0.113) vs (+)-chlorpheniramine 2 mg (1.103 +/- 0.083; P<0.05) or (+)-chlorpheniramine 6 mg (1.170 +/- 0.139; P<0.001) in a 7 ms visual discrimination time task) and the accuracy was significantly decreased (e.g. ratios: placebo (1.038 +/- 0.158) vs (+)-chlorpheniramine 2 mg (0.792 +/- 0.202; P<0.01) or (+)-chlorpheniramine 6 mg (0.837 +/- 0.222; P<0.05) in a 7 ms task). On the other hand, performance was not affected by ebastine or placebo treatment (e.g. ebastine 10 mg (reaction time ratio; 1.014 +/- 0.067 and accuracy ratio; 0.990 +/- 0.146) in a 7 ms task). Subjective sleepiness was also not affected by ebastine but (+)-chlorpheniramine significantly increased sedation. With respect to the relationship between plasma drug concentrations and task performance, the latter deteriorated with an increase in plasma (+)-chlorpheniramine concentration (e.g. r=0.439 (P=0.007) in a 5 ms and r = 0.352 (P=0.039) in a 7 ms task), but it did not correlate with the plasma concentration of carebastine, an active metabolite of ebastine.

CONCLUSIONS

Ebastine 10 mg did not cause any cognitive impairment or subjective sleepiness. On the other hand, (+)-chlorpheniramine impaired cognitive function and induced sleepiness even at 2 mg, the recommended dose in over-the-counter medication. In addition, impaired CNS performance was significantly correlated with plasma (+)-chlorpheniramine concentration.

H1-receptor antagonists: safety issues

Histamine is an important neurotransmitter. Old (first-generation) H1-receptor antagonists such as chlorpheniramine, diphenhydramine, or triprolidine produce histamine blockade at H1-receptors in the central nervous system (CNS) and frequently cause somnolence or other CNS adverse effects. New (second generation) H1-antagonists such as cetirizine, fexofenadine, and loratadine represent an advance in therapeutics; in manufacturers' recommended doses, they enter the CNS in smaller amounts, produce relatively little somnolence or other CNS adverse effects, and do not exacerbate the adverse CNS effects of alcohol or other CNS-active chemicals. Two H1-antagonists, astemizole and terfenadine, have been found to prolong the QTc interval and, rarely, to cause cardiac dysrhythmias after overdose or under other specific conditions. This has led to withdrawal of regulatory approval for them. An H1-antagonist absolutely free from adverse effects under all circumstances is not yet available for use.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation of the effects of fexofenadine, loratadine and promethazine on cognitive and psychomotor function

AIMS

To assess whether fexofenadine in a range of doses from 80 to 180 mg has any disruptive effects on aspects of psychomotor and cognitive function in comparison with placebo, loratadine and promethazine, an antihistamine known to produce psychomotor and cognitive impairment.

METHODS

Twenty-four healthy volunteers received fexofenadine 80 mg, 120 mg and 180 mg, loratadine 10 mg, promethazine 30 mg (as a positive internal control) and placebo in a six-way crossover, double-blind study. Following each dose, subjects were required to perform a series of tests of cognitive function and psychomotor performance at 1.5, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 24 h post dose. The test battery included critical flicker fusion (CFF), choice reaction time (CRT) and assessment of subjective sedation (LARS). Overall levels of activity were monitored by means of wrist mounted actigraphs throughout each of the 24 h experimental periods.

RESULTS

Fexofenadine at all doses tested was not statistically different from placebo in any of the tests used and loratadine did not cause any significant impairment of cognitive function. Significant impairments were found following promethazine. Promethazine caused a significant reduction in CFF threshold and this effect was evident up to 12 h post dose (P<0.05). There was a significant increase in recognition reaction time at 3 and 6 h post promethazine administration, and the drug caused a significant (P<0. 002) increase in the percentage of 'sleep-like' activity from actigraph records during the daytime.

CONCLUSIONS

Fexofenadine at doses up to 180 mg appears free from disruptive effects on aspects of psychomotor and cognitive function in a study where the psychometric assessments have been shown to be sensitive to impairment, as evidenced by the effects of the verum control promethazine 30 mg.

Antihistamines: models to assess sedative properties, assessment of sedation, safety and other side-effects

Behavioural changes are produced by any drug that enters the central nervous system. These psychoactive effects include changes in alertness, concentration, attention, memory, cognition, psychomotor accuracy, skilled performance and affect. Changes in psychological performance may affect the safety of both the individuals taking the drug and of those people coming into contact with them. The aims of psychopharmacological performance tests are to describe the nature, extent and severity of these changes and identify drugs without deleterious effects upon performance. Use of traditional antihistamines 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. Firstly, an objectively determined one based on the results of psychometric tests from controlled trials and secondly, the subjects response to the administration of a drug. Although the second generation of antihistamines have a much more favourable therapeutic index, use of these agents has also been reported to cause varying degrees of sedation. As antihistamines are largely used by ambulant patients, a complete evaluation of sedation should be performed through standardized objective tests, shown to be sensitive to the central effects of antihistamines as well as reliable ratings of subjective experiences. An extensive review of the literature has identified a number of tests which appear to be sensitive to the central effects of antihistamines. These include tests of psychomotor performance, sensori-motor co-ordination speed, information processing, sensory skills as well as physiological measures and subjective rating scales. Using this battery of cognitive and psychomotor tests, it is evident that only a very limited number of antihistamines can claim to be virtually free of both objective and subjective sedative effects, although the second generation of antihistamines are generally less impairing than the original ones; when prescribed at their recommended doses.

The non-cardiac systemic side-effects of antihistamines: ebastine

Ebastine and its active metabolite carebastine show potent antagonism of histamine H1-mediated phenomena in a wide variety of in vitro and in vivo non-clinical experimental models. By contrast, activity is not seen against histamine H2- or H3-mediated, nor acetylcholine- or serotonin-mediated phenomena, and both compounds are virtually without effect in models measuring pharmacological effects on the central nervous system (CNS). Explanation of these observations is found in their high selectivity for the histamine H1 receptor and in their low in vivo potency in displacing [3H]-mepyramine from central histamine H1 receptors, indicating that they do not readily pass the blood-brain barrier. These findings have been mirrored in clinical experimental models where oral doses of ebastine (1-30 mg) showed clear dose-related inhibition of intradermal histamine-induced weal and flare responses, whereas doses of 90 mg were without anticholinergic effects on salivary flow, cardiovascular reflexes or pilocarpine-induced miosis. Furthermore, in an extensive series of controlled studies in specific clinical models for measuring objective effects on the CNS, ebastine in single doses of 10-90 mg and repeated doses of 10-30 mg once daily, had no clinically relevant effects on cognitive performance and visual co-ordination tests, nor on simulated car-tracking tests and real car-driving tests. Nor was their any interaction with ethanol or diazepam. On subjective test parameters (questionnaires and visual analogue scales) there were only a few isolated and random incidences of minor increases in some indices of sedation at the highest doses. Not surprisingly, therefore, the clear therapeutic benefit seen during the extensive and international use of ebastine (5-20 mg once daily) in the treatment of seasonal and perennial rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria, has not been accompanied by signs of drug-induced anticholinergic effects (dry mouth, disturbances of visual accommodation) or sedation, making it an effective and well-tolerated first-line treatment alternative to other second-generation antihistamines.

Non-cardiac adverse effects of antihistamines (H1-receptor antagonists)

Antihistamines, available without prescription in many countries, are generally considered to be safe medications; however, the old first-generation H1 antagonists commonly cause adverse central nervous system (CNS) effects, even when administered in usual doses. Patients may not be aware of these effects and do not necessarily develop tolerance to them. In contrast, the new, second-generation H1 antagonists are relatively free from adverse effects in the CNS, primarily because they do not cross the blood-brain barrier and block the important neurotransmitter function of histamine. Most of the H1 antagonists in current use are unlikely to cause cardiac toxicity. There is no evidence that H1 antagonists, which have been approved by regulatory agencies, have carcinogenic, tumour-promoting, or teratogenic effects in humans.

Comparative tolerability of second generation antihistamines

Second generation histamine H1 receptor antagonists, the so-called 'nonsedating' antihistamines, have high potency and additional antiallergic properties as well as H1 antagonism and are associated with fewer adverse effects compared with the first generation antihistamines. A number of drugs in this class are approved for use: acrivastine, astemizole, azelastine, cetirizine, ebastine, fexofenadine, loratadine, mizolastine and terfenadine. All of them have a more favourable risk-benefit ratio with regard to the CNS adverse effects. Even those second generation antihistamines that are not actually 'nonsedating' are less impairing than their predecessors, but not one of them is entirely devoid of CNS activity. Under certain circumstances some antihistamines may affect cardiac repolarisation resulting in cardiovascular adverse effects. Serious cardiovascular effects have been reported with terfenadine and astemizole when they are used in high dosages or when they are given to 'at risk' patients. Animal models indicate that there might be a potential risk of cardiovascular adverse effects with other antihistamines as well. However, up to now there is no clinical evidence for this assumption, despite some confusing reports. Likewise there has been much discussion about a link between these agents and carcinogenicity. However, there is no evidence that any of the second generation antihistamines increase the risk of tumour growth in humans. Small children, elderly patients and persons with chronic renal or liver impairment are special groups in which the individual adverse effects of the second generation antihistamines must be kept in mind. The dosage for an individual has to be modified with respect to their metabolic situation. Despite the fact that some of the second generation antihistamines are listed in the US Food and Drug Administration pregnancy risk classification as class B, the use of second generation antihistamines should be avoided during pregnancy and they should never be administered to nursing mothers. Taking into account their negligible CNS activity, the low incidence of cardiovascular adverse effects, their lack of anticholinergic effects and other benefits, this class of antiallergic drugs represents a definite advance in therapy.

Brompheniramine, loratadine, and placebo in allergic rhinitis: a placebo-controlled comparative clinical trial

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of an extended-release formulation of a classical antihistamine, brompheniramine, and a second-generation compound, loratadine, in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Subjects with symptoms of allergic rhinitis received brompheniramine 12 mg twice daily (n = 112), loratadine 10 mg once daily (n = 112), or placebo twice daily (n = 114) for 7 days. Study medications were blinded using a double-dummy technique. Subjects completed an overall evaluation of symptom relief on a daily basis and returned on treatment days 3 and 7, at which times the investigator assessed symptom severity. The investigator and subject each completed a global efficacy evaluation, and subjects were interviewed regarding adverse experiences. The primary efficacy variable was the physicians' global efficacy evaluation on day 3. Symptoms also were analyzed as summed severity scores for all symptoms and for the nasal symptom cluster of rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal blockage. At all post-baseline evaluations (days 3, 7, and averaged over the two days), brompheniramine was significantly better than loratadine and placebo for both sets of summed symptom scores and all three global assessments. Loratadine was significantly better than placebo for physician ratings of total symptom severity averaged over the two days and for the physician and subject ratings of the nasal cluster on day 3. Central nervous system-related symptoms were the most frequently reported adverse experiences; somnolence was reported most frequently by patients taking brompheniramine, and its occurrence was less frequent as treatment continued. A nonprescription, extended-release formulation of brompheniramine 12 mg twice daily provided significantly better relief of symptomatic allergic rhinitis than loratadine 10 mg once daily.

Executive summary

Allergic rhinitis is now recognized as a major cause of morbidity that significantly impairs function and quality of life. Moreover, it is now widely held that the pathophysiologic mechanisms causing nasal allergy contribute, or predispose many individuals, to the development of other airway diseases, including asthma. Allergic rhinitis may well be a factor in 24% of children with otitis media with effusion (OME), and perhaps 28% of cases of chronic sinusitis. As many as 78% of persons with asthma aged 15 to 30 years have elevated serum IgE antibodies to five common aeroallergens. In many instances, nasal allergy signals the presence of more severe disease.

Considerable evidence now suggests that early and appropriate intervention can improve the quality of life and productivity of patients with allergic rhinitis, enhance the academic performance of children, and reduce the prevalence of airway complications. The goal of treatment has shifted from mere symptom alleviation to blocking the pathophysiologic mechanisms that cause chronic allergic inflammation and leave patients vulnerable to airway infections. The earlier in a patient's life that this can be accomplished, the better the anticipated consequences.

A panel of experts was convened in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, on 2 September 1996, to explore these issues and their impact on allergy prevention and treatment in primary care. Their undertaking was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Schering‐Plough Pharmaceuticals.

The eternal triangle: benefit, risk, and cost of therapeutic agents

Some people can undoubtedly tolerate a first-generation H1-receptor antagonist without sedation or other CNS adverse effects, but others cannot. There is no rapid, reliable way of differentiating these two populations. A history of presence or absence of subjective somnolence from one H1-receptor antagonist is not necessarily reliable and has no consistently useful predictive value for subsequent experience with other H1-receptor antagonists. As H1-receptor antagonists are used primarily to treat non-life-threatening disorders, safety should be a prime consideration in selecting one for use, and is surely as important a concern as efficacy and low cost. If your pilot is not permitted to take these medications before going to work, why should your taxi driver, your child's school bus driver, your dentist, your nurse, or your office assistant, to name a few examples, be allowed to do so? When the broad issue of safety is considered, first-generation H1-receptor antagonists may not be as cost-effective as they appear to be. The inherent benefit of any medication is inextricably linked with the inherent risk. It is incumbent on those promulgating the use of the older H1-receptor antagonists to define these benefits and risk further. Lowering the cost of the second-generation, relatively nonsedating H1-receptor antagonists so they are no longer the most expensive medications used in treatment of allergic rhinitis would also help solve the problem of the eternal triangle as it pertains to therapeutic use of H1-receptor antagonists.

Ebastine. a review of its pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy in the treatment of allergic disorders

Ebastine is a long-acting nonsedating second generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist which binds preferentially to peripheral H1 receptors in vivo. It has shown antihistamine and antiallergic activity in healthy volunteers and patients with allergies, and protected against histamine-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma. Significant symptom improvement is observed in patients with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis or chronic idiopathic urticaria following administration of ebastine 10 mg/day, or 20 mg/day in severe rhinitis. In clinical trials, the efficacy of ebastine 10 or 20 mg/day was generally similar to standard dosages of terfenadine, cetirizine, astemizole and loratadine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis, astemizole, terfenadine and ketotifen in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria, and ketotifen, terfenadine, chlorpheniramine and mequitazine in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. The most frequent adverse events reported during ebastine therapy are drowsiness, headache and dry mouth, the incidence being similar to that reported in placebo recipients. Serious adverse cardiac events, observed on rare occasions with some other histamine H1 receptor antagonists, have not been reported with ebastine, and there has been no evidence of QTc interval prolongation related to ebastine therapy. Thus, once-daily ebastine offers an effective and well-tolerated alternative to other second generation antihistamines in current use for the first-line treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Antihistamine effects on actual driving performance in a standard test: a summary of Dutch experience, 1989-94

The review summarizes the major results of eight double-blind, placebo-controlled, volunteer studies undertaken by three independent institutions for showing the effects on actual driving performance of "sedating" and "nonsedating" antihistamines (respectively, triprolidine, diphenhydramine, clemastine and terfenadine, loratadine, cetirizine, acrivastine, mizolastine, and ebastine). A common, standardized test was used that measures driving impairment from vehicular "weaving" (i.e., standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP)). Logical relationships were found between impairment and dose, time after dosing, and repeated doses over 4-5 days. The newer drugs were generally less impairing, but differences existed among their effects, and none was unimpairing at doses 1-2x the currently recommended levels. One or possibly two of the newer drugs possessed both performance-enhancing and -impairing properties, depending on dose, suggesting two mechanisms of action.

Drug and ethanol effects on the clinical test for drunkenness: single doses of ethanol, hypnotic drugs and antidepressant drugs

The clinical test for drunkenness has been used in Finland to detect alcohol-induced impairment of driving fitness. Since the data about the effects of psychotropic drugs on the clinical test for drunkenness are limited, this test was administered in two randomized double-blind cross-over trials with 12 subjects in each. The clinical tests were done at 2 hr and 5 hr after drug intake. For comparison, the representative laboratory tests used were digit symbol substitution, simulated driving (tracking+reaction time) and "global psychomotor performance". In Trial I, 15 mg of diazepam, 50 mg of amitriptyline and 15 mg of mirtazepine, each drug administered alone, had minor effects on the clinical tests. Compared to the placebo, mirtazepine, and diazepam, diazepam+mirtazepine impaired performance on the motor subtests at 2 hr. The tracking error percentage was increased by amitriptyline, diazepam+amitriptyline, and diazepam+mirtazepine up to 4.5 hr. In Trial II with 7.5 mg of zopiclone, 0.25 mg of triazolam and 0.8 g/kg of ethanol, ethanol alone and hypnotic-ethanol combinations impaired performance on the motor and vestibular subtests, whereas single drug intake had minor effects. Tracking was more sensitive to drugs than to ethanol. In conclusion, the clinical test for drunkenness detected impaired performance following single doses of ethanol or drug-ethanol combinations better than it detected impaired performance following moderate doses of drugs or drug-drug combinations, respectively.

H1-receptor antagonists. Comparative tolerability and safety

First-generation histamine H1-receptor antagonists, such as diphenhydramine, triprolidine, hydroxyzine or chlorpheniramine (chlorphenamine), frequently cause somnolence or other CNS adverse effects. Second-generation H1-antagonists, such as terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine and cetirizine, represent a true advance in therapeutics. In manufacturers' recommended doses, they have a more favourable benefit/risk ratio than their predecessors with regard to lack of CNS effects, and do not exacerbate the adverse CNS effects of alcohol or other CNS-active chemicals. Rarely, some of the newer H1-antagonists may cause cardiac dysrhythmias after overdose or under other specific conditions. The concept of a risk-free H1-antagonist is proving to be an oversimplification. An H1-antagonist absolutely free from adverse effects under all circumstances is not yet available for use. The magnitude of the beneficial effects of each H1-antagonist should be related to the magnitude of the unwanted effects, especially in the CNS and cardiovascular system, and a benefit-risk ratio or therapeutic index should be developed for each medication in this class.