Meta-analysis of the efficacy of ebastine 20 mg compared to loratadine 10 mg and placebo in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

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.

The effectiveness of modern antihistamines for treatment of allergic rhinitis - an IPD meta-analysis of 140,853 patients

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis represents a worldwide health problem. The prevalence is increasing. The aim of this study was to analyse the correlation between the severity of allergic rhinitis and an adequate treatment dose of modern oral antihistamines.

METHODS

From a comprehensive databank containing data from ten different open-label prospective observational studies including raw data of 140,853 patients with allergic rhinitis, symptomatology variables were analysed and scored to study the effects of treatment with four antihistamines (Desloratadine, Ebastine, Fexofenadine, Levocetirizine) alone or in combination with intranasal corticosteroids. The patient data were collected in 23,606 study centres from Germany, mostly medical specialist and some primary care physicians in private practice. The analyses were performed via individual patient data meta-analysis techniques.

RESULTS

Finally 92,900 patient data from nine of ten studies could be analysed. One study with data of 47,953 patients was excluded due to incomplete treatment documentation. Both monotherapy analysis subgroups (Total Symptom Score and Total Nasal Symptom Score) were significantly better than those of their combinations with intranasal steroids. Monotherapy with levocetirizine was determined to be significantly more effective in lowering the Total Symptom Score (p < 0.001) and the Total Nasal Symptom Score (p < 0.05) than the other antihistamines. In the next stage, a greater positive effect of levocetirizine was demonstrated in relation to the severity of the clinical symptoms of allergic rhinitis (Total Nasal Symptom Score in cases with severe symptomatology [effect size = -0.09]).

CONCLUSIONS

Levocetirizine asserted itself as the only antihistamine compared with the others as significant in this analysis. The study authors recommend monotherapy with the new-generation antihistamine levocetirizine, especially in severe cases of allergic rhinitis.

Improving SAR symptoms with levocetirizine: evaluating active and placebo effects in pollen challenge vs. natural exposure studies

OBJECTIVE

Despite a plethora of published data on levocetirizine, no meta-analyses exist on the effect of study design, and covariates like age, gender, and baseline symptom severity on treatment response. The objective of this study was the efficacy of levocetirizine 5  mg tablets and matching placebo at reducing allergy symptoms in adult subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis under various pollen exposure study conditions and by age, gender and baseline symptom severity.

METHODS

This was a meta-analysis of original reports from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Clinical studies without detailed reports, open-label, non-randomized and non-controlled studies, or paediatric studies, were excluded. Study subjects were divided into an environmental exposure (EE) group or a natural exposure (NE) group.

RESULTS

Data from 3640 subjects were analysed (n = 2174 for levocetirizine, n = 1466 for placebo). The overall results confirmed the efficacy of levocetirizine 5  mg, with an approximately 40% symptom score improvement from baseline, in both the EE and NE groups. While levocetirizine showed no gender- or age-related differences in efficacy, female subjects responded better to placebo in the EE, but not in the NE group; younger subjects (<30 years of age) responded less favourably to placebo compared with older subjects (≥ 50 years of age). Levocetirizine was consistently superior to placebo regardless of baseline symptom score levels. The highest significance levels between the active and placebo groups were observed in subjects sensitized to animal dander and grass.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between an oral antihistamine and placebo in clinical studies of allergic rhinitis might be due to a different response to placebo rather than to the active drug. Levocetirizine seems to have consistent efficacy regardless of age, gender, and baseline scores.

Clinical utility and patient adherence with ebastine for allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a high prevalence disease, affecting 10%-20% of the general population. AR is sustained by an IgE-mediated reaction, and by a complex inflammatory network of cells, mediators, and cytokines, becoming chronic when exposure to allergen persists. A Th2-biased immune response is the basis for the allergic inflammation. Histamine plays a relevant role in symptom occurrence. Therefore, antihistamine use represents a cornerstone in AR management. Ebastine, a novel antihistamine, is effective overall in controlling symptoms, and its safety profile is good. Recently, a new formulation has been developed, ie, a fast-dissolving tablet. Several studies have demonstrated its favorable characteristics. In conclusion, ebastine is an effective and well tolerated antihistamine that may be prescribed for the treatment of AR. The fast-dissolving tablet formulation provides a new option which may be particularly convenient for the patient.

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.

[Antihistamines in allergic rhinitis]

Antihistamines are the first line of pharmacotherapy in allergic diseases, especially in allergic rhinitis. The article also presents the interesting 2005-2007 publications on the use of antihistamine in practical point of view, especially the newly introduced ones (desloratadine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine) and those which are to be introduced soon (rupatadine). The efficacy in skin histamine provocation model and various clinical model were discussed.

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.

Mono- oder Kombinationstherapie mit einem Antihistaminikum

BACKGROUND

The guidelines of German and European associations of allergology recommend the treatment of severe allergic rhinitis with a combination of oral antihistamines and nasal steroids. Many patients face this option rather skeptically, so that ENT specialists mostly use antihistamine monotherapy with a higher dosage. This increased dose may cause drowsiness, as has been demonstrated for cetirizine and loratadine. However, ebastine is a non-sedating antihistamine. Furthermore, it has been shown that improved clinical efficacy can be attained with an increased dosage of 20 mg daily in comparison to the usual dosage of 10 mg/day without increasing the rate of side effects.

METHODS

In this prospective post-marketing survey, the treatment of 4,307 patients with allergic rhinitis was documented during the pollen season 2005. The severity of rhinitis symptoms and satisfaction with the treatment were recorded.

RESULTS

Treatment with 20 mg ebastine daily as monotherapy led to a significantly greater reduction in symptoms (P=0.002) than the combination therapy.

CONCLUSION

This outcome could be attributed to an assumed better compliance in patients with monotherapy.