Brain histamine H1 receptor occupancy measured by PET after oral administration of levocetirizine, a non-sedating antihistamine

Why fexofenadine is considered as a truly non-sedating antihistamine with no brain penetration: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Fexofenadine is a second-generation inverse agonist of H1-receptor of histamine which is highly selective with proven efficacy in relieving symptoms associated with allergic conditions. It has an additional benefit of not penetrating the blood-brain barrier and therefore do not induce sedation and not impair the cognitive function/psychomotor performance. This review aimed at providing evidence based on available controlled studies to reinforce the non-sedative property of fexofenadine for treating patients with allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

METHODS

We performed an electronic literature search using keywords such as fexofenadine, drowsiness, somnolence, sedation, fatigue, cognitive, impairment, psychomotor, driving performances, sleep, rapid eye movement, alertness, clinical study, in vitro study, in vivo study, and pharmacodynamics in the Embase search engine. The review included randomized controlled trials, review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, together with post-marketing analysis conducted in healthy subjects and patients with allergy and were focused on comparing the antihistaminic potential or safety of fexofenadine with other antihistamines or placebo.

RESULTS

Positron emission tomography (PET) and proportional impairment ratio (PIR) data along with other objective tests from various studies confirmed the non-sedative property of fexofenadine. Results of brain H1-receptor occupancy (H1RO) obtained from PET showed no H1RO by fexofenadine, the receptor which is known to cause sedation of H1 antihistamines. Most studies calculating PIR value as 0 showed fexofenadine to be a non-impairing oral antihistamine regardless of dose. Clinical trials in adults and children showed fexofenadine to be well tolerated without sedative effect or impairment of cognitive/psychomotor function even at higher than recommended doses.

CONCLUSION

Published literature based on various parameters and clinical trials conducted for evaluating the effect of fexofenadine on sedation and central nervous system shows fexofenadine is both clinically effective and non-sedating.

Insights into urticaria in pediatric and adult populations and its management with fexofenadine hydrochloride

OBJECTIVE

The present narrative review provides a comprehensive update of the current knowledge on urticaria, both in adult and pediatric populations, and on the safety and efficacy of fexofenadine hydrochloride (HCl) as a treatment option.

DATA SOURCE

A literature search was conducted on Embase and Medline.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical studies published in English and published between 1999 and 2020 were selected.

RESULTS

Although the exact pathogenesis of urticaria is not fully understood, multiple pathways of mast cell activation are discussed to explain the existence of phenotypically different clinical manifestations of urticaria. An overview of the worldwide prevalence of chronic urticaria, including disease burden and patient's quality of life is provided. The impact of urticaria on patient's life differs on the basis of whether its form is acute or chronic, but pharmacological approaches are most often needed to control the disabling symptoms. A summary of the current management of urticaria recommended by different guidelines across countries (Global; European; American; Australian; Asian; Japanese) is presented. Non-sedating, second-generation H₁-antihistamines are the preferred choice of treatment across several guidelines worldwide. Herein, the efficacy and safety of fexofenadine HCl, a representative second-generation H₁-antihistamine approved for the treatment of urticaria, is discussed. The occurrence of urticaria manifestations in COVID-19 patients is also briefly presented.

CONCLUSION

The burden of acute and chronic urticaria is high for patients. Second generation anti-histamines such as fexofenadine HCl can help managing the symptoms.

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.

What's New in the Treatment of Urticaria and Angioedema

Chronic urticaria and angioedema are diseases often managed by Allergy and Immunology specialists. Recent international guidelines have outlined a stepwise approach to management of patients using dose escalation of second-generation antihistamines followed by use of omalizumab and finally cyclosporine in more refractory cases. In select patients (those with refractory chronic urticaria), nonbiologic alternative medications with anti-inflammatory or immunosuppressant activity may be considered. Angioedema without wheals may have several different pathophysiologic mechanisms. Optimal management of mast cell-mediated angioedema is less clear but is often managed similar to chronic spontaneous urticaria. Drug-induced angioedema due to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors is a common cause of angioedema in the emergency department. Although bradykinin is thought to be a primary mediator for this type of angioedema, studies of targeted therapies have been generally disappointing. In contrast, several targeted therapies have been proven successful using acute and preventive approaches for management of hereditary angioedema. Further developments, including novel biologics, novel oral therapies, and gene therapy approaches, may hopefully continue to broaden therapeutic options to ensure optimal individual management of patients with hereditary angioedema.

Antihistamine safety in older adult dermatologic patients

Twenty percent of Americans will be older than 65 years by 2030, and without a dedicated geriatrics curriculum in many residency trainings programs, dermatologists may be less familiar with age-associated adverse effects of common dermatologic medications. Herein, we provide a practical guide and clinical safety pearls for the use of antihistamines in older adults. This Review aims to address the risks of antihistamines, anticholinergic burden and polypharmacy, pertinent preexisting medical conditions, and safe alternatives for aging adult patients.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of atopic dermatitis 2018

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a disease characterized by relapsing eczema with pruritus as a primary lesion. The current strategies to treat AD in Japan from the perspective of evidence-based medicine consist of three primary measures: (i) the use of topical corticosteroids and tacrolimus ointment as the main treatment for the inflammation; (ii) topical application of emollients to treat the cutaneous barrier dysfunction; and (iii) avoidance of apparent exacerbating factors, psychological counseling and advice about daily life. The guidelines present recommendations to review clinical research articles, evaluate the balance between the advantages and disadvantages of medical activities, and optimize medical activity-related patient outcomes with respect to several important points requiring decision-making in clinical practice.

Antihistamine effects and safety of fexofenadine: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

As a new generation antihistamine, fexofenadine has been widely used in allergic diseases. However, there is still a lack of collective evidence regarding the antihistamine effects and safety profiles of fexofenadine relative to other antihistamine drugs and placebo. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the antihistamine effects and safety of fexofenadine.

Methods

An electronic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed using Embase, Cochrane and PubMed from establishment to January 1st, 2018. RCTs comparing the antihistamine effects or safety (adverse events, sedative effects, and cognitive/psychomotor function) of fexofenadine with either other antihistamines or placebo for healthy subjects and patients with allergy were selected.

Results

Fifty-one studies of 14,551 participants met the inclusion criteria. When compared with the first-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine produced significantly lower adverse events frequency (OR = 0.446; 95% CI: 0.214 to 0.929, P = 0.031), significantly lower sedative effects frequency (OR = 0.265; 95% CI: 0.072 to 0.976, P = 0.046) and significantly less change of all cognitive/psychomotor function. When compared with the second-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine produced significantly marginal sedative effects (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.93; P = 0.02) and significantly less change of most of the cognitive/psychomotor function. When compared with placebo, fexofenadine produced more significant antihistamine effects.

Conclusions

Fexofenadine has a positive antihistamine effect, which is probably no worse than the second-generation antihistamines. Fexofenadine probably has a favorable safety profile, which is more likely better than that of the first-generation antihistamines. There is lack of data to support that fexofenadine has a better overall safety profile compared to the second-generation antihistamines, however, some presently available evidence on sedative effects and certain aspects of cognitive/psychomotor function favors fexofenadine. Therefore, fexofenadine may be worthy of recommendation for safety related workers.

Brain histamine H1 receptor occupancy after oral administration of desloratadine and loratadine

Some histamine H1 receptor (H1R) antagonists induce adverse sedative reactions caused by blockade of histamine transmission in the brain. Desloratadine is a second-generation antihistamine for treatment of allergic disorders. Its binding to brain H1Rs, which is the basis of sedative property of antihistamines, has not been examined previously in the human brain by positron emission tomography (PET). We examined brain H1R binding potential ratio (BPR), H1R occupancy (H1RO), and subjective sleepiness after oral desloratadine administration in comparison to loratadine. Eight healthy male volunteers underwent PET imaging with [11C]-doxepin, a PET tracer for H1Rs, after a single oral administration of desloratadine (5 mg), loratadine (10 mg), or placebo in a double-blind crossover study. BPR and H1RO in the cerebral cortex were calculated, and plasma concentrations of loratadine and desloratadine were measured. Subjective sleepiness was quantified by the Line Analogue Rating Scale (LARS) and the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS). BPR was significantly lower after loratadine administration than after placebo (0.504 ± 0.074 vs 0.584 ± 0.059 [mean ± SD], P < 0.05), but BPR after desloratadine administration was not significantly different from BPR after placebo (0.546 ± 0.084 vs 0.584 ± 0.059, P = 0.250). The plasma concentration of loratadine was negatively correlated with BPR in subjects receiving loratadine, but that of desloratadine was not correlated with BPR. Brain H1ROs after desloratadine and loratadine administration were 6.47 ± 10.5% and 13.8 ± 7.00%, respectively (P = 0.103). Subjective sleepiness did not significantly differ among subjects receiving the two antihistamines and placebo. At therapeutic doses, desloratadine did not bind significantly to brain H1Rs and did not induce any significant sedation.

Antihistamines for Allergic Rhinitis Treatment from the Viewpoint of Nonsedative Properties

Antihistamines targeting the histamine H₁ receptor play an important role in improving and maintaining the quality of life of patients with allergic rhinitis. For more effective and safer use of second-generation drugs, which are recommended by various guidelines, a classification based on their detailed characteristics is necessary. Antihistamines for first-line therapy should not have central depressant/sedative activities. Sedative properties (drowsiness and impaired performance) are associated with the inhibition of central histamine neurons. Brain H₁ receptor occupancy (H₁RO) is a useful index shown to be correlated with indices based on clinical findings. Antihistamines are classified into non-sedating (<20%), less-sedating (20–50%), and sedating (≥50%) groups based on H₁RO. Among the non-sedating group, fexofenadine and bilastine are classified into “non-brain-penetrating antihistamines” based on the H₁RO. These two drugs have many common chemical properties. However, bilastine has more potent binding affinity to the H₁ receptor, and its action tends to last longer. In well-controlled studies using objective indices, bilastine does not affect psychomotor or driving performance even at twice the usual dose (20 mg). Upon selecting antihistamines for allergic rhinitis, various situations should be taken into our consideration. This review summarizes that the non-brain-penetrating antihistamines should be chosen for the first-line therapy of mild allergic rhinitis.

Comparative study of the effect of bilastine and cetirizine on cognitive functions at ground level and at an altitude of 4,000 m simulated in hypobaric chamber: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study

INTRODUCTION

Antihistamines are easily accessible and cover the vast majority of the medical therapy of allergic rhinitis. However, their systemic administration may more frequently associate with their well-known side-effect, sedation, which is a serious problem in persons in safety-critical jobs such as aviation. We have a poor understanding whether a non-sedative antihistamine has an impact on vigilance when hypobaric hypoxia occurs during flight.

METHODS

In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over study the effect of 20 mg bilastine was compared to 10 mg cetirizine and to placebo (20 mg pyridoxine) in 33 individuals at ground level and at 4,000 m altitude simulated in hypobaric chamber. Levels of vigilance, ultrashort memory, combined distributive attention, monotony tolerance and peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SpO₂) were assessed.

RESULTS

Bilastine did not impair the tested abilities in comparison with the control groups either at ground level or hypobaric hypoxia. Administration of cetirizine increased the number of errors at ground level. At the simulated altitude, already impaired results were additionally demonstrated with regards to the distributive attention test.

CONCLUSIONS

From the two examined antihistamines, bilastine should be the preferred medication for by individuals who require constant attention and are exposed to hypobaric hypoxia.

Effects of levocetirizine and diphenhydramine on regional glucose metabolic changes and hemodynamic responses in the human prefrontal cortex during cognitive tasks

OBJECTIVE

Antihistamines often have sedative side effects. This was the first study to measure regional cerebral glucose (energy) consumption and hemodynamic responses in young adults during cognitive tests after antihistamine administration.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover study, 18 healthy young Japanese men received single doses of levocetirizine 5 mg and diphenhydramine 50 mg at intervals of at least six days. Subjective feeling, task performances, and brain activity were evaluated during three cognitive tests (word fluency, two-back, and Stroop). Regional cerebral glucose consumption changes were measured using positron emission tomography with [¹⁸ F]fluorodeoxyglucose. Regional hemodynamic responses were measured using near-infrared spectroscopy.

RESULTS

Energy consumption in prefrontal regions was significantly increased after antihistamine administration, especially diphenhydramine, whereas prefrontal hemodynamic responses, evaluated with oxygenated hemoglobin levels, were significantly lower with diphenhydramine treatment. Stroop test accuracy was significantly impaired by diphenhydramine, but not by levocetirizine. There was no significant difference in subjective sleepiness.

CONCLUSIONS

Physiological "coupling" between metabolism and perfusion in the healthy human brain may not be maintained under pharmacological influence due to antihistamines. This uncoupling may be caused by a combination of increased energy demands in the prefrontal regions and suppression of vascular permeability in brain capillaries after antihistamine treatment. Further research is needed to validate this hypothesis.

Allergy, Histamine and Antihistamines

This chapter concentrates on the role in allergic disease of histamine acting on H₁-receptors. It is clear that allergy has its roots in the primary parasite rejection response in which mast cell-derived histamine creates an immediate hostile environment and eosinophils are recruited for killing. This pattern is seen in allergic rhinitis where the early events of mucus production and nasal itching are primarily histamine mediated whereas nasal blockage is secondary to eosinophil infiltration and activation. In asthma, the role of histamine is less clear. Urticaria is characterized by mast cell driven pruritic wheal and flare-type skin reactions that usually persist for less than 24 h. Although the events leading to mast cell degranulation have been unclear for many years, it is now becoming evident that urticaria has an autoimmune basis. Finally, the properties of first- and second-generation H₁-antihistamines and their role in allergic is discussed.

Fexofenadine Suppresses Delayed-Type Hypersensitivity in the Murine Model of Palladium Allergy

Palladium is frequently used in dental materials, and sometimes causes metal allergy. It has been suggested that the immune response by palladium-specific T cells may be responsible for the pathogenesis of delayed-type hypersensitivity in study of palladium allergic model mice. In the clinical setting, glucocorticoids and antihistamine drugs are commonly used for treatment of contact dermatitis. However, the precise mechanism of immune suppression in palladium allergy remains unknown. We investigated inhibition of the immune response in palladium allergic mice by administration of prednisolone as a glucocorticoid and fexofenadine hydrochloride as an antihistamine. Compared with glucocorticoids, fexofenadine hydrochloride significantly suppressed the number of T cells by interfering with the development of antigen-presenting cells from the sensitization phase. Our results suggest that antihistamine has a beneficial effect on the treatment of palladium allergy compared to glucocorticoids.

Bilastine: a new H1 -antihistamine with an optimal profile for updosing in urticaria

This review set out to examine published papers detailing the efficacy of bilastine in skin models and urticaria to assess whether it meets the optimal profile for updosing in urticaria, that is, strong clinical efficacy and freedom from unwanted side effects, particularly sedation. Bilastine is a highly effective H₁ -antihistamine even when used at the basic dose of 20 mg daily. Its facilitated uptake after oral dosage gives it a rapid onset and long duration of action. In both wheal and flare studies and in urticaria updosing fourfold showed increased effectiveness. With respect to somnolence, bilastine is a substrate for P-glycoprotein, a membrane pump which prevents it crossing the blood-brain barrier. Consequently, bilastine is a practically 'non-sedating' H₁ -antihistamine. In conclusion, the excellent profile of bilastine in both efficacy and safety make it the ideal H₁ -antihistamine for updosing the daily dose fourfold in difficult-to-treat urticaria as recommended by the EAACI/GA² LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the management of urticaria.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Atopic Dermatitis 2016

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a disease characterized by relapsing eczema with pruritus as a primary lesion. Most patients have an atopic predisposition. The definitive diagnosis of AD requires the presence of all three features: (i) pruritus; (ii) typical morphology and distribution of the eczema; and (iii) chronic and chronically relapsing course. The current strategies to treat AD in Japan from the perspective of evidence-based medicine consist of three primary measures: (i) the use of topical corticosteroids and tacrolimus ointment as the main treatment for the inflammation; (ii) topical application of emollients to treat the cutaneous barrier dysfunction; and (iii) avoidance of apparent exacerbating factors, psychological counseling and advice about daily life. The guidelines present recommendations to review clinical research articles, evaluate the balance between the advantages and disadvantages of medical activities, and optimize medical activity-related patient outcomes with respect to several important points requiring decision-making in clinical practice.

The clinical pharmacology of non-sedating antihistamines

We previously reported on brain H₁ receptor occupancy measurements of antihistamines in human brain using [¹¹C]doxepin and positron emission tomography (PET). We proposed the use of brain H₁ receptor occupancy to classify antihistamines objectively into three categories of sedating, less-sedating, and non-sedating antihistamines according to their sedative effects. Non-sedating antihistamines are recommended for the treatment of allergies such as pollinosis and atopic dermatitis because of their low penetration into the central nervous system. Physicians and pharmacists are responsible for fully educating patients about the risks of sedating antihistamines from pharmacological points of view. If a sedating antihistamine must be prescribed, its sedative effects should be thoroughly considered before choosing the drug. Non-sedating antihistamines should be preferentially used whenever possible as most antihistamines are equally efficacious, while adverse effects of sedating antihistamines can be serious. This review summarizes the pharmacological properties of clinically useful non-sedating antihistamines from the perspective of histamine function in the CNS.

Allergic rhinitis: pharmacotherapy in pregnancy and old age

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 20-30% of women in reproductive age and may worsen during pregnancy. About 10% of the elderly suffer from AR, and it could be under-diagnosed in these patients. Many drugs are currently available, however AR treatment during pregnancy and old age represents a challenging issue.

AREAS COVERED

A review of the literature on the topic has been performed. Expert commentary: In pregnancy, drug avoidance should be carefully balanced with the need for AR optimal control. Topical drugs are suggested as a first approach. The safety and tolerability profile of second-generation antihistamines is well supported. If allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is ongoing and well tolerated, there is no reason for stopping it. AIT initiation in pregnancy is not recommended. For elderly patients, no specific concerns have been highlighted regarding topical treatments, except from nasal decongestionants. Second generation antihistamines are generally well tolerated. Old age should not preclude AIT.

A simulated car-driving study on the effects of acute administration of levocetirizine, fexofenadine, and diphenhydramine in healthy Japanese volunteers

OBJECTIVE

Antihistamines are often used for treating allergic rhinitis. However, many older antihistamines cause sedative side effects. The sedative effects of antihistamines on car-driving have been investigated. This has not been investigated for levocetirizine, a new-generation antihistamine, in Asian populations, and so we evaluated its sedative effects in healthy Japanese subjects.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study, healthy volunteers received single doses of levocetirizine 5 mg, fexofenadine 60 mg, diphenhydramine 50 mg, and placebo at intervals of at least 6 days. Simple brake reaction time and choice brake reaction time task (CBRT), a lateral tracking (LT) task, and a multiple task, a mixture of CBRT and LT task, were used to compare driving performance between the four drugs. Subjective sedation was also assessed.

RESULTS

The simple brake reaction time and CBRT, and the CBRT component of the multiple task, did not show any significant differences between the drugs. In contrast, the LT, both as a single parameter and as a component of the multiple task, showed significant differences between diphenhydramine and the newer-generation antihistamines in a manner that corresponds with subjective sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Levocetirizine and fexofenadine did not impair psychomotor performance in subjects performing simulated car-driving tasks, while diphenhydramine did impair psychomotor performance in the subjects. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.