Activity of ebastine (10 and 20 mg) and cetirizine at 24 hours of a steady state treatment in the skin of healthy volunteers

Greens appraisal of validated stability indicating RP-HPLC method and forced degradation study for quantification of Ebastine in wastewater and dosage form

OBJECTIVES

Allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria are common conditions triggered by environmental irritants, stress, and certain foods. The FDA has recently announced that the efficacy and safety of Ebastine (EBS) have been thoroughly evaluated and confirmed. This study considered using various tools to assess their greenness. We used AGREEprep, analytical eco-scale (ESA), and analytical method volume intensity (AMVI) to evaluate the greenness of the validated stability-indicating method and a forced degradation study. This allowed for easy determination and quantitation of EBS in wastewater and dosage form.

METHODS

The method was established on Symmetry RP-C18 (150mm×4.6mm,5μm) using mobile phase, which can be prepared by mixing buffer solution of pH 3 with acetonitrile in a ratio of (37.5: 62.5, v/v) in addition to dissolving 0.72 gm of sodium lauryl sulfate in the final solution. The separation process was executed at a flow rate of 1.5mL/min and 5μL injection volume with UV detection at 254nm. Linearity was conducted for EBS in the 5-50μg/mL range. Different validation parameters were investigated, including accuracy, precision, robustness, and specificity.

RESULTS

The limits of both detection and quantification were 0.84μg/mL and 2.57μg/mL for EBS. The recovery percentages of EBS were found to be 101.01% and 101.02% for wastewater and pharmaceutical formulations, respectively.

CONCLUSION

According to International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines, a forced degradation study of EBS was evaluated, including acid, base hydrolysis, and oxidative hydrolysis using hydrogen peroxide and photolytic and thermal degradation. The highest degradation was achieved by acid hydrolysis. The safety and efficacy of EBS were evaluated via a safety comparative profile study.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ebastine 20 mg, Ebastine 10 mg and Levocetirizine 5 mg in Acute Urticaria

INTRODUCTION

Acute and chronic urticaria can result in severely impaired quality of life from pruritus and associated sleep lessness, as well as anxiety and depression. Various treatment modalities are available out of which second generation non sedating H1 antihistamines e.g., fexofenadine, loratidine, desloratadine, cetirizine, levocetirizine, ebastine etc., are used as the first line treatment.

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of ebastine 20 mg, ebastine 10 mg and levocetirizine 5 mg in the patients of urticaria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A longitudinal study was conducted in dermatology Outpatient Department (OPD) of Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Bathinda, India. A total of 150 patients between the age group 10-70 years, both men and women having urticaria were enrolled and divided into three groups of 50 each. Group A was given ebastine 20 mg OD, Group B was given ebastine 10 mg OD and Group C was given levocetirizine 5 mg OD. The patients were asked to scale their severity of disease over a period of follow up based on Urticarial Activity Score 7 (UAS7).

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 32.82 years. The mean UAS 7 score at the end of 4th week was 1.08 with ebastine 20 mg, 1.98 with levocetirizine 5 mg and 3.98 with ebastine 10 mg. In group A, 40 out of 50 patients (i.e., 80%), in Group B 25 out of 50 (i.e., 50%) get UAS7=0 and in Group C, 35 (i.e., 70%) patients who got relieved of symptoms at the end of treatment. When the scores were redefined and categorized under relieved and not relieved, and comparison done between all three groups, then there was a significant difference in the number of patients getting relieved, with p<0.001 (highly significant). Levocetirizine 5 mg had shown more side effects like dryness of mouth and sedation as compare to ebastine irrespective of dosage. The comparison made between the number of patients developing side effects among the groups was highly significant (p<0.001) for all the side effects.

CONCLUSION

Ebastine 20 mg is found to have superior efficacy for treatment of Urticaria as compared to ebastine 10 mg but with levocetirizine 5 mg the results were almost similar. Tolerability of ebastine 20 mg is similar to ebastine 10 mg but with levocetirizine 5 mg there were more side effects and less tolerability.

Placebo-controlled assessment of somnolence effect of cetirizine: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It has been found that the most common adverse reaction which occurs more frequently on cetirizine than on placebo is somnolence. However, the somnolence rate varied widely among different studies. The objective of this study was to assess the somnolence effect of cetirizine 10 mg daily compared to placebo in patients aged 6 years and older using meta-analysis and explore the sources of heterogeneity among different studies.

METHODS

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cetirizine published before 2015. Overall risk differences (RDs) were determined by meta-analyses of 13 trials using the DerSimonian and Laird (D&L) method based on fixed-effects and random-effect models, respectively. The Q statistic, H statistic, and I(2) were calculated for heterogeneity analysis. Subgroup analysis, Galbraith plot, sensitivity analysis, and meta-regression were also performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Various analyses showed that heterogeneity existed among the 13 trials and the placebo run-in period was the cause of heterogeneity. For RCTs without and with placebo run-in period, the overall RDs were 6.51% (95% CI, 4.47% to 8.56%) and 1.03% (95% CI, -0.13% to 2.19%), respectively, which indicated that the difference in somnolence rate between cetirizine 10 mg daily and placebo was not statistically significant for the subgroup with placebo run-in.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis showed that the RDs between cetirizine 10 mg daily and placebo on somnolence rate were different for studies with and without a placebo run-in period. The results for studies with a placebo run-in period suggested that cetirizine 10 mg daily has no somnolence effect compared to placebo.

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.

Inhibition of the histamine-induced weal and flare response: a valid surrogate measure for antihistamine clinical efficacy?

Histamine plays a central role in allergic responses. Inhibition of the weal and flare response to histamine is a traditional pharmacodynamic tool to measure the activity of H(1)-receptor antagonists. The time course and duration of cutaneous weal and flare inhibition are often used as surrogate measures of clinical efficacy. Pharmacodynamic differences among antihistamines are often interpreted to indicate differences in clinical efficacy. A systematic review of literature from 1980 to 2006 regarding the histamine induced weal and flare was undertaken. Search terms included 'histamine', 'skin test', 'weal', 'flare', and 'antihistamine'; retrieved articles were searched for relevant studies not identified initially. Data from human studies on the inhibition of the weal and flare by second-generation antihistamines were extracted and assessed. A literature search from 1980 to 2006 was undertaken for comparative studies of second-generation antihistamines in the clinical settings of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria; data extracted from these studies underwent systematic review. Differences were noted among second-generation antihistamines in terms of their ability to inhibit the histamine-induced weal and flare. Corresponding differences in terms of clinical efficacy in AR and chronic urticaria were not identified following a systematic review. The reasons for the disconnect between pharmacodynamic effects and clinical efficacy may include differences between the route and concentration of histamine, the involvement of mediators other than histamine in the allergic response, and the short time course of pharmacodynamic studies. The histamine-induced weal and flare response is a pharmacodynamic test that should not be used to compare the clinical efficacy of different antihistamines, and is not an adequate alternative to clinical end-point assessments in AR or chronic idiopathic urticaria.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A comparison of ebastine 10 mg fast-dissolving tablet with oral desloratadine and placebo in inhibiting the cutaneous reaction to histamine in healthy adults

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Ebastine is a long-acting, second-generation selective histamine H(1) receptor antagonist. The pharmacodynamics of a new 10mg fast-dissolving tablet (FDT) oral lyophilisate tablet formulation of ebastine were compared with those of desloratadine and placebo following histamine skin intradermal test challenge. The acceptability of the FDT was also assessed.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, randomised, crossover, three-period study in 36 healthy adults. The histamine skin intradermal test (0.05 mL of 100 microg/mL solution) was administered into volunteers' forearms, and wheal area was measured 15 minutes later. Ebastine 10 mg FDT, desloratadine 5mg capsule or placebo were given on days 1-5. On day 1, a skin intradermal test was performed at baseline, then every 20 minutes for 2 hours after administration and at 24 hours. The final skin intradermal test was on day 6, 24 hours after the last drug dose. Subjective symptoms (itching, heat and pain) were assessed on day 1 for 2 hours following the first drug dose. There was a washout period of 7-10 days between treatments. At study end, the acceptability of the new ebastine formulation was evaluated using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Ebastine 10mg inhibited the wheal response to histamine significantly more than desloratadine 5 mg or placebo 24 hours after 5 days' treatment (mean difference between treatments in wheal area reduction from baseline: 26.7%, p < 0.0001; 46.9%, p < 0.0001, respectively), and after 24 hours on day 1 (mean difference: 16.2%, p = 0.0082; 34.2%, p < 0.0001, respectively). The results with desloratadine were also significantly different from placebo on day 1 and after 5 days, but less than with ebastine after 5 days (difference, desloratadine vs placebo: 20.2%, p = 0.0001). No differences in itching, heat and pain were observed between the treatments. Most participants (70%) preferred the FDT, and all reported that it made adherence easier.

CONCLUSION

Ebastine 10 mg FDT demonstrated significantly superior antihistamine activity compared with desloratadine and placebo.

Experimental models for the evaluation of treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the experimental models used for the clinical evaluation of treatments for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed clinical studies and review articles were selected from the PubMed database using the following relevant keywords: allergic rhinitis in combination with efficacy, wheal and flare, nasal challenge, park, cat room, or exposure unit. Regulatory guidance documents on allergic rhinitis were also included.

STUDY SELECTION

The authors' knowledge of the field was used to limit references with emphasis on recent randomized and controlled studies. References of historical significance were also included.

RESULTS

Traditional outpatient studies are universally accepted in the evaluation of treatment for allergic rhinitis. Experimental models provide ancillary information on efficacy at different stages of treatment development. Skin histamine and allergen challenge, as well as direct nasal challenge with histamine and allergen, are often used as early steps in assessing drug efficacy. Exposure units, park settings, and cat rooms better approximate real life by drawing on the natural mode of allergen exposure and delivering the sensitizing allergen to allergic individuals in the ambient air. Park studies make use of allergens in the outdoors, whereas cat rooms and exposure units present the sensitizing allergens indoors, with the latter providing consistent predetermined allergen levels. Exposure unit and park studies are acknowledged for the determination of onset of action and are also suited to the measurement of duration of effect and other measures of efficacy. Onset and duration of effect are 2 important pharmacodynamic properties of antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids as determined by the Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma and the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology workshop group.

CONCLUSIONS

All challenge models serve as important instruments in the evaluation of antiallergic medications and provide additional information to complement traditional studies.

Effect of cetirizine dihydrochloride on the airway response to hypertonic saline aerosol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Hypertonic saline aerosol can elicit airway obstruction in patients with moderate or severe COPD. In the present study we assessed whether cetirizine dihydrochloride is capable of modulating this response. After a screening visit, 20 patients with COPD (mean FEV(1) 49% pred) were treated with cetirizine 10mg daily or placebo over 1 week in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over fashion and measurements performed at the end of treatment periods. At each visit, patients were challenged by 3% saline aerosol (screening: 0.9%) over 5 min after prior inhalation of salbutamol, and 45 min later sputum was obtained after inhalation of 0.9% saline. Lung function was quantified in terms of forced expiratory (FEV(1)) and inspiratory (FIV(1)) volumes. Spirometric values did not differ between visits and salbutamol-induced bronchodilation was not altered by cetirizine. Compared to baseline or post-salbutamol values, the saline-induced fall in FEV(1) was smallest at screening (P<0.01), without a significant difference between treatments. Regarding FIV(1), however, the percent fall from baseline was higher after placebo (Delta=-10.1%; P<0.05) compared to screening (0.4%) or cetirizine (-4.3%). Sputum composition showed no significant differences except for a tendency towards reduced concentrations of alpha(2)-macroglobulin after cetirizine compared to placebo (P=0.045). The present data indicate some, though small, effects of the H1 receptor antagonist cetirizine on hypertonic saline-induced airway obstruction in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. In view of the mechanisms involved, it is an open question whether stronger effects can be elicited with higher doses and whether such effects would translate into clinical benefits, e.g. during exacerbations.

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.

Urticaria

Urticaria has been known as a disease since antiquity. However, in the last decades an increasing understanding of the mechanisms involved in its pathogenesis has shown the high heterogeneity of different urticaria subtypes. Clear distinction of the subtypes is required not only to choose the correct measures in diagnosis and management, but also to interpret the available data in research. The subtypes can be grouped into spontaneous urticaria, which includes acute urticaria and chronic urticaria, the physical urticarias, special types of urticaria including, e.g. contact urticaria, and diseases related to urticaria for historical reasons, e.g. urticaria pigmentosa. Most urticaria subtypes have a profound impact on the quality of life and effective treatment is thus required in case the diagnostic procedures do not reveal a cause which can be treated. Although, for symptomatic relief, nonsedating H1-antihistamines are the first choice in most subtypes of urticaria, double-blind controlled studies have shown that dosages required may exceed those recommended for other diseases, e.g. allergic rhinitis. Alternative treatments should be reserved for unresponsive patients.

Efficacy of ebastine, cetirizine, and loratadine in histamine cutaneous challenges

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared the antihistaminic effect of ebastine at 20 mg/day (maximal recommended daily dose) with the effect found for other antihistamines in human pharmacologic models.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the inhibition of the histamine-induced skin reaction produced by ebastine (20 mg/day) with that produced by cetirizine (10 mg/day), loratadine (10 mg/day), or placebo in a double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

METHODS

Twenty volunteers (10 men and 10 women) received the four treatments once daily for 7 days, with a mean 7-day washout period between treatments. Three intradermal histamine challenges (0.05 mL of a 100 microg/mL histamine solution at 4, 8, and 24 hours after drug administration) were performed at baseline, day 1 (single dose), and day 7 (multiple doses). Wheal and flare areas were measured after 15 minutes.

RESULTS

All treatments yielded significant reductions of histamine-induced wheal in comparison to placebo (P < 0.001). Analysis of covariance revealed significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). Ebastine had a significantly greater antihistaminic effect than did cetirizine or loratadine, except at 4 hours after a single dose versus cetirizine. Further, the effect of cetirizine was similar with single or multiple doses after both 4 and 24 hours, whereas the effect of ebastine showed significant increases in wheal reduction with multiple doses (P < 0.05). No serious adverse events or withdrawals occurred during the study.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that ebastine in a 20-mg dose is an effective once-daily antihistamine. Superior efficacy was found in comparison to cetirizine (10 mg) or loratadine (10 mg) on the overall skin wheal response after single and multiple doses.

Comparative activity of cetirizine and mizolastine on histamine-induced skin wheal and flare responses at 24 h

AIMS

The aim of our study was to compare the activity of cetirizine 10 mg with that of mizolastine 10 mg vs placebo at 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled, three-way cross-over study with a wash-out period of 7 +/- 2 days between each period. The study included 36 healthy volunteers (18--50 years, mean age = 32 years; 9 males). The objective measurement was the cutaneous reactivity to increasing concentrations of histamine (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 mg ml(-1)) administered by prick tests. The reactivity was evaluated by the wheal and flare areas (mm2). The AUC (area under curves) values of the wheal and flare areas as a function of the log2 transformed histamine concentration were calculated for each subject and treatment, and compared.

RESULTS

A highly significant treatment effect was evidenced both for wheal and flare responses (P = 0.0001). This indicates the good activity of both cetirizine 10 mg and mizolastine 10 mg in inhibiting skin wheal and flare reactions to histamine. In addition, the mean AUC values significantly differed between cetirizine and mizolastine (64.8 and 117.8 log2 (mg ml(-1)) x mm2 for wheal, and 939.4 and 2340.8 for flare, respectively; P = 0.0001), with a superior activity of cetirizine than mizolastine at 24 h after intake both on wheal and flare responses. The tolerance of cetirizine and mizolastine was good. The severity of the adverse events was never more than 'moderate', 'fatigue' being the most frequent reported symptom [cetirizine (6 subjects), placebo (3), mizolastine (5)], followed by 'somnolence' [cetirizine (0), placebo (1), mizolastine (3)]. There was no serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that cetirizine (10 mg) suppresses skin reactivity to histamine more effectively than mizolastine (10 mg) 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers.

Duration of the antihistaminic effect after discontinuation of ebastine

BACKGROUND

The inhibitory effect of antihistamines on allergen-induced skin reactions can impair the results of allergen skin testing, which are necessary for the diagnosis of atopic diseases. This study was designed to determine the time period required for the inhibitory effect of ebastine on allergen-induced skin reactivity to disappear completely.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study including 23 out of 27 randomized patients. They received either ebastine 20 mg or placebo once daily for 7 days. At the end of treatment, allergen challenge was performed daily for 7 days. Histamine challenge was performed on day 1 (6 and 24 h) and day 5 after treatment. The wheal and flare surface areas were measured and analyzed.

RESULTS

Highly significant inhibition of the wheal and flare response induced by allergen was observed after ebastine treatment on days 1 and 2 as compared with placebo (P < 0.01 for both). The inhibition was reduced, although still significant, by day 3 (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed by day 4 between the ebastine and the placebo groups. The effects of histamine challenge were significantly reduced in the ebastine compared with the placebo group at day 1 (6 and 24 h), and were similar at day 5 after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that the wheal and flare response to allergen after ebastine discontinuation returns to placebo values after 4 days. Therefore, patients using ebastine need to be antihistamine-free for 4 days before the skin prick test. This is valuable information for the allergologist seeking to diagnose allergen sensitivity.