The clinical safety of H1-receptor antagonists. An EAACI position paper

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Maintenance of remission with low-dose olopatadine hydrochloride for itch in well-controlled chronic urticaria

Background:

The long-term follow-up of chronic urticaria (CU) is important to ensure the adequate treatment of patients. Olopatadine hydrochloride is one of the second-generation nonsedating antihistamines.

Methods:

This study was designed to assess the optimal dose of olopatadine to suppress symptoms of chronic urticarial itch in well-controlled patients. After CU patients were treated with 10 mg olopatadine, patients having a visual analog scale (VAS) itch score of less than 20 were randomly allocated into one of three groups: 10 mg/day (n = 35), 5 mg/day (n = 30), or no medication (n = 32).

Results:

The suppressive effects of both the 5 mg and 10 mg olopatadine treatments on the VAS itch score were more significant and longer lasting over a period of 4 weeks than the no-medication treatment. Both the 5-mg group and the 10-mg group showed improved urticarial symptoms and maintained their VAS itch score within normal limits compared to the no-medication group. The differences between the 5-mg and 10-mg groups were not significant.

Conclusion:

These results demonstrate that treatment with olopatadine at a dose of 5 mg once daily is effective and safe for the management and prevention of CU symptoms for itch in well-controlled patients.

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.

New insights into the second generation antihistamines

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

Involvement of multiple human cytochromes P450 in the liver microsomal metabolism of astemizole and a comparison with terfenadine

AIMS

The aims of the present study were to investigate the metabolism of astemizole in human liver microsomes, to assess possible pharmacokinetic drug-interactions with astemizole and to compare its metabolism with terfenadine, a typical H1 receptor antagonist known to be metabolized predominantly by CYP3A4.

METHODS

Astemizole or terfenadine were incubated with human liver microsomes or recombinant cytochromes P450 in the absence or presence of chemical inhibitors and antibodies.

RESULTS

Troleandomycin, a CYP3A4 inhibitor, markedly reduced the oxidation of terfenadine (26% of controls) in human liver microsomes, but showed only a marginal inhibition on the oxidation of astemizole (81% of controls). Three metabolites of astemizole were detected in a liver microsomal system, i.e. desmethylastemizole (DES-AST), 6-hydroxyastemizole (6OH-AST) and norastemizole (NOR-AST) at the ratio of 7.4 : 2.8 : 1. Experiments with recombinant P450s and antibodies indicate a negligible role for CYP3A4 on the main metabolic route of astemizole, i.e. formation of DES-AST, although CYP3A4 may mediate the relatively minor metabolic routes to 6OH-AST and NOR-AST. Recombinant CYP2D6 catalysed the formation of 6OH-AST and DES-AST. Studies with human liver microsomes, however, suggest a major role for a mono P450 in DES-AST formation.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to terfenadine, a minor role for CYP3A4 and involvement of multiple P450 isozymes are suggested in the metabolism of astemizole. These differences in P450 isozymes involved in the metabolism of astemizole and terfenadine may associate with distinct pharmacokinetic influences observed with coadministration of drugs metabolized by CYP3A4.

Second-generation antihistamines: a comparative review

Second-generation histamine H1 receptor antagonists (antihistamines) have been developed to reduce or eliminate the sedation and anticholinergic adverse effects that occur with older H1 receptor antagonists. This article evaluates second-generation antihistamines, including acrivastine, astemizole, azelastine, cetirizine, ebastine, fexofenadine, ketotifen, loratadine, mizolastine and terfenadine, for significant features that affect choice. In addition to their primary mechanism of antagonising histamine at the H1 receptor, these agents may act on other mediators of the allergic reaction. However, the clinical significance of activity beyond that mediated by histamine H1 receptor antagonism has yet to be demonstrated. Most of the agents reviewed are metabolised by the liver to active metabolites that play a significant role in their effect. Conditions that result in accumulation of astemizole, ebastine and terfenadine may prolong the QT interval and result in torsade de pointes. The remaining agents reviewed do not appear to have this risk. For allergic rhinitis, all agents are effective and the choice should be based on other factors. For urticaria, cetirizine and mizolastine demonstrate superior suppression of wheal and flare at the dosages recommended by the manufacturer. For atopic dermatitis, as adjunctive therapy to reduce pruritus, cetirizine, ketotifen and loratadine demonstrate efficacy. Although current evidence does not suggest a primary role for these agents in the management of asthma, it does support their use for asthmatic patients when there is coexisting allergic rhinitis, dermatitis or urticaria.