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

Cationic amphiphilic drugs induce accumulation of cytolytic lysoglycerophospholipids in the lysosomes of cancer cells and block their recycling into common membrane glycerophospholipids

Lysosomes are acidic organelles responsible for lipid catabolism, and their functions can be disrupted by cationic amphiphilic drugs that neutralize lumenal pH and thereby inhibit most lysosomal hydrolases. These drugs can also induce lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cancer cell death, but the underlying mechanism remains elusive. Here, we uncover that the cationic amphiphilic drugs induce a substantial accumulation of cytolytic lysoglycerophospholipids within the lysosomes of cancer cells, and thereby prevent the recycling of lysoglycerophospholipids to produce common membrane glycerophospholipids. Using quantitative mass spectrometry-based shotgun lipidomics, we demonstrate that structurally diverse cationic amphiphilic drugs, along with other types of lysosomal pH-neutralizing reagents, elevate the amounts of lysoglycerophospholipids in MCF7 breast carcinoma cells. Lysoglycerophospholipids constitute ∼11 mol% of total glycerophospholipids in lysosomes purified from MCF7 cells, compared with ∼1 mol% in the cell lysates. Treatment with cationic amphiphilic drug siramesine further elevates the lysosomal lysoglycerophospholipid content to ∼24 mol% of total glycerophospholipids. Exogenously added traceable lysophosphatidylcholine is rapidly acylated to form diacylphosphatidylcholine, but siramesine treatment sequesters the lysophosphatidylcholine in the lysosomes and prevents it from undergoing acylation. These findings shed light on the unexplored role of lysosomes in the recycling of lysoglycerophospholipids and uncover the mechanism of action of promising anticancer agents.

Current and future management of chronic spontaneous urticaria and chronic inducible urticaria

Background: Chronic urticaria (CU), characterized by ≥6 weeks of intense pruritus, remains a debilitating condition for patients. New and safe treatments are needed to manage CU recalcitrant to standard therapy. Objective: A review of the current literature of standard and novel therapeutics in the management of CU was conducted. Methods: A literature search via a medical literature data base and clinical trial data base was conducted to identify treatment options for CU and current clinical trials. Results: Second-generation antihistamines, omalizumab, and cyclosporine remain the most proven therapeutic options for CU. Dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, tezepelumab, and CDX-0159 are all undergoing clinical trials for CU. Although ligelizumab demonstrated initial promising results, a phase III study was discontinued due to a nonsuperior clinical impact compared with omalizumab. Conclusion: Novel therapies are needed for the treatment of recalcitrant CU. With a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of CU, promising therapeutics are in clinical trials for CU.

Synthesis and crystal structure of ebastinium hydrogen fumarate

Crystals of the title salt are twinned by pseudo-merohedry and the structure shows extensive disorder. A strong N—H⋯O hydrogen bond links the cation and the anion and the anions are linked into [010] chains by O—H⋯O hydrogen bonds.

The structure of ebastinium hydrogen fumarate {systematic name: 1-[4-(4-tert-butyl­phen­yl)-4-oxobut­yl]-4-(di­phenyl­meth­oxy)piperidin-1-ium (E)-3-carb­oxy-1-hy­droxy­prop-2-en-1-olate}, C₃₂H₄₀NO₂⁺·C₄H₃O₄⁻, a 1:1 salt formed in the reaction between ebastine and fumaric acid is presented. All examined crystals were found to be twinned by pseudo-merohedry. The structure is extensively disordered, with over half (20 out of 35) its non-hydrogen atoms modelled as lying over two sets of sites. In the crystal, cation–anion pairs are linked by a strong N—H⋯O hydrogen bond [N⋯O = 2.697 (11) Å]. These units inter­act via weaker C—H⋯O and C—H⋯π contacts to form layers lying parallel to the bc plane. The hydrogen fumarate anions are linked by a very short O—H⋯O hydrogen bond [O⋯O = 2.5402 (17) Å], augmented by weak C—H⋯O contacts into pairs of R²₂(6) ring motifs to form chains that extend parallel to the b-axis direction. Comparisons to similar crystal structures are presented.

Parkinsonism Attenuation by Antihistamines via Downregulating the Oxidative Stress, Histamine, and Inflammation

Parkinson disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder of the motor activity of the brain, regulated by dopaminergic neurons of substantia nigra, resulting in an increased density of histaminergic fibers. This study was aimed to evaluate the effects of H1 antagonist's ebastine and levocetirizine in PD per se and in combination. Animals were divided into 9 groups (n = 10). Group 1 received carboxymethyl cellulose CMC (1 mL/kg). Group II was treated with haloperidol (1 mg/kg) (diseased group). Group III was treated with levodopa/carbidopa (levo 20 mg/kg). Groups IV and V were treated with ebastine at dose levels of 2 and 4 mg/kg, respectively. Groups VI and VII were treated with levocetirizine at dose levels of 0.5 and 1 mg/kg, respectively. Group VIII was treated with ebastine (4 mg/kg) + levo (20 mg/kg) in combination. Group IX was treated with levocetirizine (1 mg/kg) + levo (20 mg/kg). PD was induced with haloperidol (1 mg/kg iv, once daily for 23 days) for a duration of 30 min. Behavioral tests like rotarod, block and triple horizontal bars, actophotometer, and open field were performed. Biochemical markers of oxidative stress, i.e., SOD, CAT, GSH, MDA, dopamine, serotonin, and nor-adrenaline and nitrite, were determined. Histamine, mRNA expression of α-synuclein, and TNF-α level in the serum and brain of mice were analyzed. Endogenous biochemical markers were increased except mRNA expression of α-synuclein, which was reduced. In combination therapy with the standard drug, ebastine (4 mg/kg) significantly improved the cataleptic state and dopamine levels, but no significant difference in the renal and liver functioning tests was observed. This study concluded that ebastine (4 mg/kg) might work in the treatment of PD as it improves the cataleptic state in haloperidol-induced catalepsy.

Drug repurposing screens reveal cell-type-specific entry pathways and FDA-approved drugs active against SARS-Cov-2

There is an urgent need for antivirals to treat the newly emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). To identify new candidates, we screen a repurposing library of ∼3,000 drugs. Screening in Vero cells finds few antivirals, while screening in human Huh7.5 cells validates 23 diverse antiviral drugs. Extending our studies to lung epithelial cells, we find that there are major differences in drug sensitivity and entry pathways used by SARS-CoV-2 in these cells. Entry in lung epithelial Calu-3 cells is pH independent and requires TMPRSS2, while entry in Vero and Huh7.5 cells requires low pH and triggering by acid-dependent endosomal proteases. Moreover, we find nine drugs are antiviral in respiratory cells, seven of which have been used in humans, and three are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, including cyclosporine. We find that the antiviral activity of cyclosporine is targeting Cyclophilin rather than calcineurin, revealing essential host targets that have the potential for rapid clinical implementation.

Inhibitory effects of bisdemethoxycurcumin on mast cell-mediated allergic diseases

Most allergic reactions are induced by mast cell activation. Mast cells play vital roles in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases. Bisdemethoxycurcumin (BDMC), a natural curcuminoid, has potential anti-allergic effects. Hence, we explored the effect of BDMC on mast cell-mediated allergic diseases. The study proved that BDMC suppresses β-hexosaminidase release, granule release, and membrane ruffling in monoclonal anti-2,4,6-dinitrophenyl-immunoglobulin (Ig) E/human serum albumin (DNP-IgE/HSA)-stimulated rat basophilic leukaemia cells (RBL-2H3 cells), and BDMC suppressed ovalbumin (OVA)-induced allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms and OVA-specific IgE levels in AR mice. Furthermore, BDMC increased the survival of compound 48/80 anaphylaxis shock mice and elevated the decreased rectal temperature in OVA-induced active systemic anaphylaxis mice. These findings indicate that BDMC regulates the degranulation of mast cells, demonstrating its potential in the treatment of mast cell-induced allergic reactions.

A Critical Review of Physicochemical Properties and Analytical Methods Applied to Quantitative Determination of Ebastine

Allergic diseases are the most common conditions in children and the second most frequent in adults. Currently, there are two well-defined generations of antihistamines, those belonging to first generation, with inherent side effects such as drowsiness and anticholinergic effects. These side effects are often attributed to their high lipophilicity and high affinity for brain H1 receptors. The ebastine is a modern antihistaminic drug belongs to the second generation and has lower lipophilicity, which diminish the undesirable side effects. To ensure the quality, efficacy, safety, and effectiveness of ebastine drug products, efficient and reliable analytical methods are mandatory. Besides official compendial methods, alternative methods are often developed and used in quality control of pharmaceuticals as well as in pharmacokinetic studies. In this work, we present a critical review on characteristics, physicochemical properties, and analytical methods applied in the analysis of ebastine.

Crystal structure of ebastinium 3,5-di-nitro-benzoate

Ebastine, 4-(benzhydr-yloxy)-1-[4-(4-tert-butyl-phen-yl)-4-oxobut-yl]piperidine, reacts with 3,5-di-nitro-benzoic acid in methanol solution to give the title 1:1 salt, ebastinium 3,5-di-nitro-benzoate, C32H40NO2+·C7H3N2O6-. In the cation, the disubstituted aryl ring exhibits orientational disorder over two sets of atomic sites having occupancies 0.706 (4) and 0.294 (6), with a dihedral angle of 41.2 (5)° between the two orientations: the bulky Ph2CH-O- substituent occupies an axial site on the piperidine ring. The two ions in the selected asymmetric unit are linked by a nearly linear N-H⋯O hydrogen bond and this, in combination with two C-H⋯O hydrogen bonds, links the ions into complex sheets.

H1-antihistamines for chronic spontaneous urticaria

Background Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterised by the development of crops of red, itchy, raised weals or hives with no identifiable external cause.Objectives To assess the effects of H1-antihistamines for CSU.Search methods We searched the following databases up to June 2014: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE(from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and PsycINFO (from 1806). We searched five trials registers and checked articles for references to relevant randomised controlled trials.Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of H1-antihistamines for CSU. Interventions included single therapy or a combination of H1-antihistamines compared with no treatment (placebo) or another active pharmacological compound at any dose.Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.Our primary outcome measures were proportion of participants with complete suppression of urticaria: 'good or excellent' response,50% or greater improvement in quality of life measures, and adverse events.We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs). Main results We identified 73 studies (9759 participants); 34 studies provided data for 23 comparisons. The duration of the intervention was up to two weeks (short-term) or longer than two weeks and up to three months (intermediate-term).Cetirizine 10mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term led to complete suppression of urticaria by more participants than was seen with placebo (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.91). For this same outcome, comparison of desloratadine versus placebo in the intermediate term (5 mg) (RR 37.00, 95% CI 2.31 to 593.70) and in the short term (20 mg) (RR 15.97, 95% CI 1.04 to 245.04)favoured desloratadine, but no differences were seen between 5 mg and 10 mg for short-term treatment.Levocetirizine 20 mg per day (short-term) was more effective for complete suppression of urticaria compared with placebo (RR 20.87,95% CI 1.37 to 317.60), and at 5 mg was effective in the intermediate term (RR 52.88, 95% CI 3.31 to 843.81) but not in the shortterm, nor was 10 mg effective in the short term.Rupatadine at 10 mg and 20 mg in the intermediate term achieved a 'good or excellent response' compared with placebo (RR 1.35,95% CI 1.03 to 1.77).Loratadine (10 mg) versus placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.79) and loratadine (10 mg) versus cetirizine (10 mg) (RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.43) over short-term and intermediate-term treatment showed no significant difference for 'good or excellent response' or for complete suppression of urticaria, respectively.Loratadine (10 mg) versus desloratadine (5 mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71). For loratadine(10 mg) versus mizolastine (10 mg) (intermediate-term), no statistically significant difference was seen for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42).Loratadine (10mg) versus emedastine (2mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression(RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24); the quality of the evidence was moderate for this comparison.No difference in short-term treatment was noted between loratadine (10mg) and hydroxyzine (25mg) in terms of complete suppression(RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10).When desloratadine (5 to 20 mg) was compared with levocetirizine (5 to 20 mg), levocetirizine appeared to be the more effective (P value < 0.02).In a comparison of fexofenadine versus cetirizine, more participants in the cetirizine group showed complete suppression of urticaria(P value < 0.001).Adverse events leading to withdrawals were not significantly different in the following comparisons: cetirizine versus placebo at 10 mg and 20 mg (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 13.22); desloratadine 5 mg versus placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.10); loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.60); loratadine 10mg versus emedastine 2mg (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.07 to 17.14);cetirizine 10 mg versus hydroxyzine 25 mg (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.45); and hydroxyzine 25 mg versus placebo (RR 3.64, 95%CI 0.77 to 17.23), all intermediate term.No difference was seen between loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg in the proportion of participants with at least 50%improvement in quality of life (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.32 to 32.33).Authors' conclusions Although the results of our review indicate that at standard doses of treatment, several antihistamines are effective when compared with placebo, all results were gathered from a few studies or, in some cases, from single-study estimates. The quality of the evidence was affected by the small number of studies in each comparison and the small sample size for many of the outcomes, prompting us to downgrade the quality of evidence for imprecision (unless stated for each comparison, the quality of the evidence was low).No single H1-antihistamine stands out as most effective. Cetirizine at 10 mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term was found to be effective in completely suppressing urticaria. Evidence is limited for desloratadine given at 5 mg once daily in the intermediate term and at 20 mg in the short term. Levocetirizine at 5 mg in the intermediate but not short term was effective for complete suppression. Levocetirizine 20 mg was effective in the short term, but 10 mg was not. No difference in rates of withdrawal due to adverse events was noted between active and placebo groups. Evidence for improvement in quality of life was insufficient.

Detection of phospholipidosis induction: a cell-based assay in high-throughput and high-content format

Drug-induced phospholipidosis is characterized by the accumulation of intracellular phospholipids in cells exposed to cationic amphiphilic drugs. The appearance of unicentric or multicentric multilamellar bodies viewed under an electron microscope (EM) is the morphological hallmark of phospholipidosis. Although the EM method is the gold standard for detecting cellular phospholipidosis, this method has its drawbacks, including low throughput, high cost, and unsuitability for screening a large chemical library. In this study, a cell-based phospholipidosis assay has been developed using the LipidTOX Red reagent in HepG2 cells and miniaturized into a 1536-well plate format. To validate this assay for high-throughput screening (HTS), the LOPAC library of 1280 compounds was screened using a quantitative HTS platform. A group of known phospholipidosis inducers, such as amiodarone, propranolol, chlorpromazine, desipramine, promazine, clomipramine, and amitriptyline, was identified by the screen, consistent with previous reports. Several novel phospholipidosis inducers, including NAN-190, ebastine, GR127935, and cis-(Z)-flupentixol, were identified in this study and confirmed using the EM method. These results demonstrate that this assay can be used to evaluate and profile large numbers of chemicals for drug-induced phospholipidosis.

Stress-induced visceral hypersensitivity in maternally separated rats can be reversed by peripherally restricted histamine-1-receptor antagonists

Background

The histamine-1 receptor (H1R) antagonist ketotifen increased the threshold of discomfort in hypersensitive IBS patients. The use of peripherally restricted and more selective H1R antagonists may further improve treatment possibilities. We examined the use of fexofenadine and ebastine to reverse post-stress visceral hypersensitivity in maternally separated rats.

Methods

The visceromotor response to colonic distension was assessed in adult maternally separated and nonhandled rats pre- and 24 hours post water avoidance. Subsequently rats were treated with vehicle alone or different dosages of fexofenadine (1.8 and 18 mg/kg) or ebastine (0.1 and 1.0 mg/kg) and re-evaluated. Colonic tissue was collected to assess relative RMCP-2 and occludin expression levels by Western blot and histamine-1 receptor by RT-qPCR. β-hexosaminidase release by RBL-2H3 cells was used to establish possible mast cell stabilizing properties of the antagonists.

Key results

Water avoidance only induced enhanced response to distension in maternally separated rats. This response was reversed by 1.8 and 18 mg/kg fexofenadine. Reversal was also obtained by 1.0 but not 0.1 mg/kg ebastine. RMCP-2 expression levels were comparable in these two ebastine treatment groups but occludin was significantly higher in 1.0 mg/kg treated rats. There were no differences in histamine-1 receptor expression between nonhandled and maternally separated rats. Fexofenadine but not ebastine showed mast cell stabilizing quality.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that the peripherally restricted 2^nd generation H1-receptor antagonists fexofenadine and ebastine are capable of reversing post stress visceral hypersensitivity in rat. These data justify future IBS patient trials with these well tolerated compounds.

Itraconazole and rifampin alter significantly the disposition and antihistamine effect of ebastine and its metabolites in healthy participants

The present study was performed to elucidate the effects of itraconazole and rifampin on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ebastine, a nonsedative H1 receptor antagonist. In a 3-way crossover sequential design with 2-week washouts, 10 healthy participants were pretreated with itraconazole for 6 days, rifampin for 10 days, or neither. After oral administration of 20 mg ebastine, blood and urine samples were collected for 72 and 24 hours, respectively, and histamine-induced wheal and flare reactions were measured to assess the antihistamine response for 12 hours. Itraconazole pretreatment decreased the oral clearance of ebastine to 10% (P < .001) and increased the AUC(infinity) of the active metabolite, carebastine, by 3-fold (P < .001). On the other hand, rifampin pretreatment decreased the AUC(infinity) of carebastine to 15% (P < .001), with an enormous reduction in the oral bioavailability of ebastine and significantly reduced histamine-induced skin reactions. From these results, the disposition of ebastine and carebastine seems to be significantly altered by coadministration of itraconazole or rifampin. The antihistamine response after ebastine dosing would be decreased following rifampin pretreatments.

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.

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.