Fexofenadine in pediatrics: oral tablet and suspension formulations

Bioequivalence of 2 Pediatric Formulations of Fexofenadine Hydrochloride Oral Suspension

Fexofenadine hydrochloride (HCl) is a second-generation, nonsedating, histamine H1-receptor antagonist used to manage seasonal allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. A new oral pediatric suspension of fexofenadine HCl has been developed, with the preservative potassium sorbate replacing parabens. The objective of this phase 1 single-center, open-label, randomized, 2-treatment, full-replicated, 4-period, 2-sequence crossover study in healthy adult volunteers was to assess the bioequivalence of 30 mg of the new oral suspension of fexofenadine HCl (test) versus 30 mg of the marketed pediatric oral suspension of fexofenadine HCl (reference). The replicate design was based on the high intra-individual variability of fexofenadine (>30% on Cmax ). The study comprised 68 randomized and treated volunteers. Plasma concentrations of fexofenadine were similar following the administration of a single dose of each formulation. Cmax , AUClast , AUC, median tmax , and mean t1/2z were similar between administrations of the same fexofenadine formulation and between formulations. A high intra-individual variability was confirmed with both formulations. Bioequivalence of the test and reference fexofenadine HCl formulations was demonstrated as the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric least squares mean ratio for Cmax , AUClast , and AUC of fexofenadine were all within the bioequivalence range of 0.80-1.25. There were no serious adverse events (AEs) or study discontinuations due to treatment-emergent AEs with either fexofenadine HCl formulation. The new paraben-free fexofenadine HCl 30-mg oral suspension and marketed fexofenadine HCl 30-mg pediatric oral suspension are bioequivalent under fasting conditions, with no safety concerns and a safety profile consistent with the known profile of fexofenadine.

Fexofenadine: review of safety, efficacy and unmet needs in children with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common undiagnosed chronic condition in children. Moderate/severe AR symptoms significantly impair quality of life, and cause sleep disruption, absenteeism and decreased productivity. Additionally, untreated AR predisposes children to asthma and other chronic conditions. Although intranasal corticosteroids are the most effective pharmacologic treatment for AR, oral antihistamines are often preferred. First-generation antihistamines may be chosen to relieve AR symptoms as they are inexpensive and widely available; however, they cause sedative and cardiovascular negative effects due to poor receptor selectivity. Therefore, second-generation antihistamines were developed to reduce adverse effects while retaining efficacy. There are fewer clinical trials in children than adults, therefore, efficacy and safety data is limited, particularly in children under 6 years, highlighting the need to generate these data in young children with AR. Fexofenadine, a highly selective second-generation antihistamine, effectively alleviates symptoms of AR, is non-sedating due to decreased blood-brain barrier permeability, and is devoid of cardiovascular side effects. Importantly, fexofenadine relieves the ocular symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, which occur concomitantly with AR, improving quality of life. Overall, fexofenadine displays a favorable safety profile and results in greater treatment satisfaction in children compared with other second-generation antihistamines. This review aimed to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of fexofenadine with other available first- and second-generation antihistamines in children with AR.

Rupatadine is effective in the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria in children aged 2-11 years

BACKGROUND

Recommendations in current guidelines for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in infants and children are mostly based on extrapolation of data obtained in adults. This study reports the efficacy and safety of rupatadine, a modern H1 and PAF antagonist recently authorized in Europe for children with allergic rhinitis and CSU.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre, placebo-controlled compared study to desloratadine was carried out in children aged 2-11 years with CSU, with or without angio-oedema. Patients received either rupatadine (1 mg/ml), or desloratadine (0.5 mg/ml) or placebo once daily over 6 weeks. A modified 7-day cumulative Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) was employed as the primary end-point.

RESULTS

The absolute change of UAS7 at 42 days showed statistically significant differences between active treatments vs. placebo (-5.5 ± 7.5 placebo, -11.8 ± 8.7 rupatadine and -10.6 ± 9.6 desloratadine; p < 0.001) and without differences between antihistamines compounds. There was a 55.8% decrease for rupatadine followed by desloratadine (-48.4%) and placebo (-30.3%). Rupatadine but not desloratadine was statistically superior to placebo in reduction of pruritus (-57%). Active treatments also showed a statistically better improvement in children's quality of life compared to placebo. Adverse events were uncommon and non-serious in both active groups.

CONCLUSION

Rupatadine is effective and well tolerated in the relief of urticaria symptoms, improving quality of life over 6 weeks in children with CSU. This is the first study using a modified UAS to assess severity and efficacy outcome in CSU in children.

Double-blind placebo-controlled study of bepotastine besilate in pediatric patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Although second-generation antihistamines, such as bepotastine besilate, are recommended as a first-line treatment option for adult perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR), few non-sedating second-generation antihistamines are safe for children.

OBJECTIVE

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, comparative study of 473 pediatric PAR patients (7 - 15 years old) to determine the superiority and safety of bepotastine besilate (10 mg twice daily) relative to placebo for improved total and individual nasal symptom scores compared with baseline.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Subjects were randomized to placebo (n = 233) or bepotastine besilate (n = 240, 10 mg orally twice daily for 2 weeks). Interference of daily life by PAR was assessed by measuring change in individual nasal symptom scores from baseline.

RESULTS

Bepotastine besilate was superior to placebo in terms of total nasal symptom scores, with improved overall nasal symptoms of PAR compared with baseline values. Subgroup analyses demonstrated bepotastine besilate was effective irrespective of age, sex or body weight. No clinically significant adverse drug reactions often observed with first-generation antihistamines were reported and no difference in adverse events between groups was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Bepotastine besilate is effective and safe for pediatric PAR patients aged 7 - 15 years, and has a significant clinical impact on PAR.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01861522 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01861522 ).

Chronic spontaneous urticaria in children: itching for insight

While there is increasing information about the pathogenesis and treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (csU) in adults, there is little published information about csU in children. Consequently, most of the recommendations contained in current guidelines for the prevention and treatment of csU in infants and children is based on extrapolation of data obtained in adults. To rectify this, this review points out critical gaps in our knowledge and suggests strategies which may help us to improve our understanding of this condition. How common is csU in children? What do we know about its clinical presentation and the presence of useful biomarkers? What are its common underlying causes? What is the course of csU in children? How does csU affect the everyday life of children? What treatment options are available for children? To answer these questions, two separate types of information are required. The first is information about the prevalence of the condition in the community at large and how csU affects the everyday life of both the child-patient and the parent or carer. Because most csU cases in infants and children do not come to specialists but are treated by general practitioners or by parents using over-the-counter medications, these questions may be answered only by general population surveys or schools programmes. The second is clinical information including family history and disease presentation, the presence of biomarkers and comorbidities, objective measures of severity, frequency and duration of exacerbations, the response to therapy and the time to remission. Targeted questionnaires need to be developed and validated for these investigations. This has already begun in Germany with the establishment of the CU-KID Netzwerk (Email address: cu-kid@charite.de), the aim of which is to identify clinical centres and colleagues who treat children with urticaria and to initiate the information gathering described above.

Anti-histamines for prolonged non-specific cough in children

BACKGROUND

Non-specific cough is defined as non-productive cough in the absence of identifiable respiratory disease or known aetiology. It is commonly seen in paediatric practice. These children are treated with a variety of therapies including anti-histamines. Also, anti-histamines are advocated as an empirical treatment in adults with chronic cough.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of anti-histamines in treating children with prolonged non-specific cough.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The latest searches were performed in November 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing anti-histamines with a placebo or placebo-like medication with cough as an outcome, where cough is not primarily related to an underlying respiratory disorder such as cystic fibrosis, asthma, or suppurative lung disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Three included therapeutic studies had 182 randomised participants with 162 completing the trials although in one study, children with recurrent wheeze were also included. The two included safety evaluation studies randomised 963 participants with 793 completing the trials. Clinical heterogeneity was evident and limited data prevented combining data for meta-analysis. The two larger therapeutic studies described significant improvement in both the intervention and the placebo/placebo-like arms with no significant difference between the two groups. In the study with the smallest sample size, cetirizine (a second generation anti-histamine) was significantly more efficacious than placebo in reducing chronic cough in children associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis, and the effect was seen within two weeks of therapy. Combined data from the safety evaluation studies revealed a non-significant difference between groups (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.7 to 3.82) for cough as an adverse event but the trend favoured the placebo arm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has significant limitations. However, our finding of uncertain efficacy of anti-histamines for chronic cough are similar to that for acute cough in children. In contrast to recommendations in adults with chronic cough, anti-histamines cannot be recommended as empirical therapy for children with chronic cough. If anti-histamines were to be trialled in these children, current data suggest a clinical response (time to response) occurs within two weeks of therapy. However the use of anti-histamines in children with non-specific cough has to be balanced against the well known risk of adverse events especially in very young children.