Nonsedating histamine H1-receptor antagonists

The chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, and dosages of the nonsedating histamine H1-receptor antagonists terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine, and acrivastine are reviewed. Terfenadine and astemizole are chemically unrelated to histamine H1-receptor antagonists such as diphenhydramine and chlorpheniramine. Loratadine is structurally related to the antihistamine azatadine, and acrivastine is a side-chain-reduced metabolite of the antihistamine triprolidine. Like other histamine H1-receptor antagonists, they competitively block histamine receptor sites rather than inhibiting histamine release. All four drugs have relatively long half-lives and are rapidly absorbed after oral administration. Terfenadine, astemizole, and loratadine are metabolized extensively in the liver; terfenadine and astemizole are both 97% protein bound. Terfenadine 60 mg twice daily has been shown to be as effective as conventional antihistamines for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. In clinical trials, astemizole 10 mg daily was comparable to or better than chlorpheniramine for treatment of chronic rhinitis. Both terfenadine and astemizole were effective for treatment of chronic urticaria. For treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, loratadine combined with pseudoephedrine may be preferable to triprolidine-pseudoephedrine and acrivastine-pseudoephedrine combinations that require more frequent dosing. Acrivastine must be administered more frequently than the other nonsedating antihistamines. None of these four agents impairs psychomotor activity. Infrequently reported adverse effects include dry mouth, skin reactions, and weight gain. The absence of substantial sedative effects and the less-frequent dosing schedules make these agents good alternatives to the classic antihistamines for treatment of seasonal and chronic rhinitis and chronic urticaria.     

Are terfenadine and astemizole non-sedative antihistamine compounds? A meta-analysis

Objective: To assess the likelihood of astemizole and terfenadine inducing drowsiness compared with placebo in the light of recent reports that these antihistamines are not necessarily drowsiness-free. Method: Meta-analysis was used to analyse data obtained from a search of the reports of trials of terfenadine, astemizole and chlorpheniramine. The latter was included as a positive control. Results: Of the 284 trials screened, 229 were unsuitable for detailed analysis for various reasons, including use of concomitant medication, lack of pertinent information and duplicate publication. Fifty five trials contained the necessary details, 18 of these were cross-over trials and 37 parallel group trials. Our analyses suggest that the design used had an effect on the incidence of drowsiness reported. Both astemizole and terfenadine were no more likely than placebo to induce drowsiness. The Mantel-Haenszel pooled odds ratio (OR_MH) and confidence interval (CI) for terfenadine were OR_MH = 1.01; CI = [0.64, 1.57] for the parallel group trials. The astemizole data were too sparse for pooling with largely zero incidence rates. Chlorpheniramine was clearly sedative (OR_MH = 4.07; CI = [2.25, 7.36] 95%). In the cross-over trials, none of the three antihistamines induced more drowsiness than a placebo, thus suggesting that such trials may mask potential subjective adverse effects. Conclusion: Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that astemizole and terfenadine are essentially non-sedative antihistamine compounds, while chlorpheniramine is sedative. Care should be exercised when evaluating potentially subjective adverse effects and trial design should be considered as a possible confounding factor.     

Performance studies with the H1-histamine receptor antagonists, astemizole and terfenadine.

1 Effects of the antihistamines, terfenadine (60 mg) and astemizole (10 and 20 mg), on performance (visuo-motor coordination, arithmetical ability and digit symbol substitution) and on mood were studied in six healthy adult females. The study was double-blind, placebo controlled and included an antihistamine with known central effects (triprolidine 10 mg in sustained release form). 2 There were no changes in performance after terfenadine (60 mg) and astemizole (10 and 20 mg). Triprolidine (10 mg) caused a decrement in visuo-motor coordination (P less than 0.01) 0.5 h after ingestion which lasted until 3.5 h (P less than 0.001). The subject assessed their performance as impaired from 1.5-3.5 h (P less than 0.05) with triprolidine (10 mg), and their mood assessments were also altered. 3 Terfenadine (60 mg) and astemizole (10 and 20 mg) are likely to prove useful antihistamines for those involved in skilled activity.     

Ebastine: an update of its use in allergic disorders

Ebastine is a second-generation antihistamine which undergoes transformation to its active metabolite, carebastine. Its antihistaminic and antiallergic effects have been demonstrated in in vitro and in vivo studies, in addition to data obtained from clinical trials. Patients with allergic rhinitis or chronic idiopathic urticaria experienced significant improvement in their symptoms with ebastine 10 or 20 mg once daily. Some studies in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) have indicated trends towards greater efficacy with the 20 mg than the 10 mg dose, although only 1 study has shown statistically significant benefits. In comparative trials in patients with SAR, ebastine 10 mg was as effective as most other second-generation antihistamines, including astemizole, azelastine, cetirizine, loratadine and terfenadine. Ebastine 20 mg/day was significantly superior to loratadine 10 mg/day in patients with SAR according to effects on secondary efficacy variables in comparative studies; 1 study found significantly greater changes from baseline in mean total symptom score with ebastine 20 mg (-43 vs -36% with loratadine, p = 0.045). In patients with perennial allergic rhinitis, ebastine 10 or 20 mg daily was significantly more effective than loratadine in reducing total symptom scores from baseline 1 comparative study. There have been no reports of serious adverse cardiac effects during ebastine therapy. Increases in corrected QT interval have been observed during clinical trials; however, these have not been considered clinically significant and were generally of similar magnitude to those seen with loratadine. The normal diurnal variation in QTc interval and the problems associated in correcting for changes in heart rate also complicate assessment of this issue. The incidence of adverse events during ebastine treatment is not significantly greater than that observed with placebo or other second-generation antihistamines. Conclusions: Ebastine 10 mg daily is a well tolerated and effective treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. At this dosage, it is as effective as the other second-generation antihistamines against which it has been compared. Ebastine 20 mg has similar tolerability to the 10 mg dose, and trends towards greater efficacy with the higher dose have been shown in some studies. Ebastine does not appear to be associated with any significant cardiac adverse events. Ebastine is a useful treatment option for patients with allergic rhinitis or chronic idiopathic urticaria.     

Onset of action of astemizole.

Astemizole has been described to have a slow onset of action and this has to a large extent been attributed to its unusual pharmacokinetic profile. Yet, pharmacokinetically, there are no reasons why astemizole should not act within the first hours after intake, since plasma levels of unchanged astemizole are maximal within 40 min and there is fast tissue distribution. Animal pharmacology data show effective antihistamine activity with astemizole within 1 h after intake. Clinical data referring to the onset of action of astemizole with regard to symptom relief were available from 27 studies on over 7000 patients. These studies showed astemizole to provide symptom relief within 4 to 6 h of intake in 16-85% of patients, and within 24 h in 42-90% of patients; these figures are comparable to those reported for other new antihistamines. Comparative studies between astemizole and other new antihistamines (terfenadine, loratadine and cetirizine) indicated no or only minor differences in onset of clinical effect. Two recent studies compared astemizole to both terfenadine and loratadine under well-controlled circumstances. One was a pollen challenge study showing all three drugs to be able to reverse the challenge-induced effects within 1-3 h after intake. In the other, the mean time to relief of at least one rhinitis symptom was assessed as 18 min for astemizole, 24 min for terfenadine and 36 min for loratadine. Compared with the systemic decongestant pseudoephedrine, time to first relief of symptoms was similar for astemizole (4 h) and pseudoephedrine (3.5 h). Controlled clinical trials thus show astemizole to provide fast symptom relief. This was confirmed in patient surveys in Canada and Switzerland: over 80% of patients were very satisfied with astemizole and experienced onset of action within hours. In conclusion, astemizole results in symptom relief within hours after its administration. Its onset of action is not different from that of other nonsedating antihistamines and is also similar to that of pseudoephedrine.     

Antihistamines and visual function: studies on dynamic acuity and the pupillary response to light.

1 Effects of three antihistamines, triprolidine (10 mg) in a sustained release form, astemizole (10 mg) and terfenadine (60 mg), have been studied on dynamic visual acuity and on the response of the pupil to light, together with critical flicker fusion, digit symbol substitution and cancellation, and subjective assessment of mood. The study was double-blind and effects were observed from 0.5-4.0 h after ingestion. 2 Triprolidine impaired dynamic acuity and reduced the threshold for subjective fusion of a flickering light, but there were no changes with astemizole or terfenadine. The diameter of the pupil and its response to light were not changed by the drugs. 3 Performance on digit symbol substitution and cancellation was not altered by the drugs. 4 Astemizole and terfenadine are promising antihistamines for those involved in skilled activity.     

Therapeutic advantages of third generation antihistamines

A third generation of antihistamines is emerging for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. First generation antihistamines are among the most widely used drugs in the world, and provide symptomatic relief from allergies and the common cold to millions of patients, mainly in OTC combination preparations. Their full potential is limited by the sedation caused by their effects on histamine receptors in the brain. Second generation antihistamines (terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine and cetirizine), which block peripheral H1 receptors without penetrating the blood-brain barrier, were developed and introduced from 1981 onwards to provide comparable therapeutic benefit without the CNS side-effects. Although largely successful in this goal, terfenadine and astemizole were found to cause potentially serious arrhythmias when plasma concentrations became elevated subsequent to impaired metabolism. It was established that the cardiac toxicity was mainly due to the parent drugs. As active metabolites could account for most of the clinical benefit, the goal for the third generation of antihistamines became to develop therapeutically active metabolites that were devoid of cardiac toxicity. The first of these drugs, fexofenadine (the active metabolite of terfenadine), was approved in July 1996, after an unusually rapid development programme. Its introduction set a new standard of safety that led the FDA to request the withdrawal of terfenadine in 1997 on the grounds that a safer version of an equivalent drug was now available. Norastemizole and descarboethoxy loratadine, the metabolites of astemizole and loratadine, respectively, are also in clinical development. These offer comparable or superior clinical benefits.     

Therapeutic advantages of third generation antihistamines

A third generation of antihistamines is emerging for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. First generation antihistamines are among the most widely used drugs in the world, and provide symptomatic relief from allergies and the common cold to millions of patients, mainly in OTC combination preparations. Their full potential is limited by the sedation caused by their effects on histamine receptors in the brain. Second generation antihistamines (terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine and cetirizine), which block peripheral H₁ receptors without penetrating the blood-brain barrier, were developed and introduced from 1981 onwards to provide comparable therapeutic benefit without the CNS side-effects. Although largely successful in this goal, terfenadine and astemizole were found to cause potentially serious arrhythmias when plasma concentrations became elevated subsequent to impaired metabolism. It was established that the cardiac toxicity was mainly due to the parent drugs. As active metabolites could account for most of the clinical benefit, the goal for the third generation of antihistamines became to develop therapeutically active metabolites that were devoid of cardiac toxicity. The first of these drugs, fexofenadine (the active metabolite of terfenadine), was approved in July 1996, after an unusually rapid development programme. Its introduction set a new standard of safety that led the FDA to request the withdrawal of terfenadine in 1997 on the grounds that a safer version of an equivalent drug was now available. Norastemizole and descarboethoxy loratadine, the metabolites of astemizole and loratadine, respectively, are also in clinical development. These offer comparable or superior clinical benefits.     

Further studies on the distinctive sleep-wakefulness profiles of antihistamines (astemizole,ketotifen, terfenadine) in dogs

The effects of the antihistamines astemizole, ketotifen, and terfenadine, given orally at the dose of 10 mg/kg, were investigated on 16-hr sleep-wakefulness patterns in dogs. As determined in the Ascaris allergy test in dogs, this dose had marked antihistaminic activity for at least the total duration of the recording. Using a computerized on-line analysis and automatic sleep classification, a differentiation was made between wakefulness, transition to sleep, slow-wave sleep, and REM (or paradoxical) sleep. Astemizole did not significantly change sleep-wakefulness patterns. Ketotifen significantly increased slow-wave sleep and significantly decreased REM sleep. Terfenadine significantly decreased wakefulness and significantly increased both slow-wave sleep and REM sleep. With both ketotifen and terfenadine, REM latency was prolonged. Two different mechanisms appear to be involved in the REM sleep effects seen with terfenadine: an early REM sleep suppressant effect and a late but large REM sleep-enhancing effect. This study shows central effects of terfenadine that are not completely typical for H₁ antagonists but which are very pronounced at a dose producing much weaker peripheral antihistamine activity than the same dose of ketotifen and astemizole.     

Comparative tolerability of second generation antihistamines.

Second generation histamine H1 receptor antagonists, the so-called 'nonsedating' antihistamines, have high potency and additional antiallergic properties as well as H1 antagonism and are associated with fewer adverse effects compared with the first generation antihistamines. A number of drugs in this class are approved for use: acrivastine, astemizole, azelastine, cetirizine, ebastine, fexofenadine, loratadine, mizolastine and terfenadine. All of them have a more favourable risk-benefit ratio with regard to the CNS adverse effects. Even those second generation antihistamines that are not actually 'nonsedating' are less impairing than their predecessors, but not one of them is entirely devoid of CNS activity. Under certain circumstances some antihistamines may affect cardiac repolarisation resulting in cardiovascular adverse effects. Serious cardiovascular effects have been reported with terfenadine and astemizole when they are used in high dosages or when they are given to 'at risk' patients. Animal models indicate that there might be a potential risk of cardiovascular adverse effects with other antihistamines as well. However, up to now there is no clinical evidence for this assumption, despite some confusing reports. Likewise there has been much discussion about a link between these agents and carcinogenicity. However, there is no evidence that any of the second generation antihistamines increase the risk of tumour growth in humans. Small children, elderly patients and persons with chronic renal or liver impairment are special groups in which the individual adverse effects of the second generation antihistamines must be kept in mind. The dosage for an individual has to be modified with respect to their metabolic situation. Despite the fact that some of the second generation antihistamines are listed in the US Food and Drug Administration pregnancy risk classification as class B, the use of second generation antihistamines should be avoided during pregnancy and they should never be administered to nursing mothers. Taking into account their negligible CNS activity, the low incidence of cardiovascular adverse effects, their lack of anticholinergic effects and other benefits, this class of antiallergic drugs represents a definite advance in therapy.     

Cardiotoxicity of new antihistamines and cisapride

Although the new second-generation nonsedative antihistamines terfenadine and astemizole were launched as highly selective and specific H(1)-receptor antagonists, they were later found to cause prolongation of the QT-interval and severe cardiac arrhythmias. The prolongation of the QT-interval is caused by the blockade of one or more of the cardiac potassium channels, among which the delayed rectifier I(Kr), encoded by the HERG-gene, appears to be the most significant. The potency of the prokinetic drug cisapride to block I(Kr) appears to be similar to that of terfenadine (IC(50) about 50 nmol/l). These drugs cause problems when overdosed, used in combination with inhibitors of their CYP3A4-mediated metabolism, or when given to individuals with altered drug kinetics (the aged) or patients with existing cardiac disease (congenitally long QT). Moreover, interactions with other QT-interval prolonging drugs require special attention. Active hydrophilic metabolites of the second-generation antihistaminic compounds (ebastine-carebastine, loratadine-desloratadine, terfenadine-fexofenadine, astemizole-norastemizole) are new compounds with probably reduced risk for drug interactions and cardiac toxicity.     

Safety of antihistamines in children.

The histamine H1 receptor antagonists (antihistamines) are an important class of medications used for the relief of common symptoms associated with hyperhistaminic conditions occurring in children and adults. This group of drugs may be subdivided into 3 classes, or generations, based upon their propensity to induce sedation and cardiotoxicity. The first generation (classical) antihistamines are highly effective in treating hyperhistaminic conditions. However, they frequently induce sedation and may adversely affect a child's learning ability. First generation antihistamine-induced sedation has been described to occur in more than 50% of patients receiving therapeutic dosages. Serious adverse events are unusual following overdoses of first generation antihistamines although life-threatening adverse events have been described. When the so-called 'second generation' antihistamines terfenadine and astemizole were introduced they were widely embraced and quickly used by clinicians of all specialities, including paediatricians, as nonsedating alternatives to the first generation compounds. These new agents were found to be equally or more effective than first generation antihistamines in relieving symptoms associated with hyperhistaminic conditions without the soporific effects of the first generation agents. Unfortunately, after approximately 10 years of widespread clinical use, disturbing reports of potentially life-threatening dysrhythmias, specifically torsades de pointes, were described. Both terfenadine and astemizole have been shown in vitro to inhibit several ion channels, and in particular the delayed outward rectifier potassium channel in the myocardium, predisposing the heart to dysrhythmias. The potential life-threatening cardiotoxicities of the second generation antihistamines led to the search for noncardiotoxic and nonsedating agents. Loratadine, fexofenadine, mizolastine, ebastine, azelastine and cetirizine are the first of the new third generation antihistamines. These drugs have been shown to be efficacious with few adverse events including no clinically relevant cytochrome P450 mediated metabolic-based drug-drug interactions or QT interval prolongation/cardiac dysrhythmias. Appropriate treatment of an antihistamine overdose depends upon which class of compound has been ingested. There is no specific antidote for antihistamine overdose and treatment is supportive particularly for ingestions of first generation compounds. Ingestion of excessive doses of terfenadine or astemizole requires immediate medical attention. Children who accidentally ingest excessive doses of a third generation compound may usually be adequately managed at home. However, patients ingesting large amounts (approximately >3 to 4 times the normal therapeutic daily dose) should receive medical attention. These patients should be monitored for 2 to 3 hours after the ingestion and patients ingesting cetirizine should be advised about the potential for sedation. The availability of newer generation antihistamine compounds has clearly added to the clinical effectiveness and patient tolerance of a widely prescribed class of drugs. These advances have also been accompanied by improved safety profiles, particularly in the case of third generation antihistamine overdose.     

Pharmacokinetic optimisation of histamine H1-receptor antagonist therapy.

Second-generation, relatively nonsedating histamine H1-receptor antagonists (H1-RA) are extensively used worldwide for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria. Information about the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these medications, while still incomplete, is now sufficient to permit optimisation of therapy. Published pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information on these H1-RA is summarised here, and areas where more data are required are delineated. Serum concentrations of most second-generation H1-RA are relatively low, and are usually measured by radioimmunoassay. After oral administration, peak concentrations are observed within 2 or 3 h. Bioavailability has not been well studied, due to the lack of intravenous formulations. Most H1-RA are metabolised in the hepatic cytochrome P450 system: terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine, azelastine, and ebastine have 1 or more active metabolites which are present in serum in higher concentrations than the respective parent compound, and therefore can be measured by high performance liquid chromatography. Cetirizine, an active metabolite of the first generation H1-receptor antagonist hydroxyzine, is not further metabolised to any great extent in vivo, and is eliminated via renal excretion. Levocabastine is also eliminated primarily by excretion. Serum elimination half-life values differ greatly from 1 H1-RA to another, and are 24 h or less for terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine, cetirizine, azelastine and ebastine, and the active metabolites of terfenadine, loratadine and ebastine. The active metabolite of azelastine (demethylazelastine) has a serum elimination half-life value of about 2 days, while that of astemizole (demethyl-astemizole) has a value of 9.5 days. From the few published studies in which the apparent volumes of distribution of the second-generation H1-RA have been calculated, it appears that tissue distribution is extensive. In children, the half-lives of H1-RA are generally shorter than are found in adults; there is no published information on the pharmacokinetics of astemizole, loratadine, azelastine, or ebastine in children. In some elderly adults, terfenadine, loratadine and cetirizine may have longer half-lives than in young healthy adults. There is little published data on the pharmacokinetics of the second-generation H1-RA in patients with impaired hepatic function. The half-life of cetirizine is prolonged in those with impaired renal function. There is a paucity of information on the pharmacokinetics of H1-RA in neonates, in pregnancy or during lactation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Second generation antihistamines in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis due to parietaria and cypress pollen

Second generation antihistamines have been employed in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis for many years. However, their effects on two distinctive Mediterranean allergic conditions, viz. Parietaria pollinosis and cypress pollinosis, have been scarcely investigated, so far. A comparative efficacy and side effect trial of astemizole and terfenadine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis due to either Parietaria or cypress pollen was carried out in 27 adult patients, according to a double-blind, double-dummy parallel-group design. Airborne pollen monitoring allowed comparison of symptom scores with pollen counts. Seven patients (26%) withdrew, due to poor symptom control. In contrast, in a subset of 15 patients who completed the trial, treatment led to a substantial and statistically significant decline in symptom severity in both the astemizole and the terfenadine study group. However, no statistically significant inter-group differences could be detected.     

Variations among non-sedating antihistamines: are there real differences?

Most of the modern non-sedating H₁ receptor antagonists (antihistamines) penetrate the brain poorly, allowing the use of doses large enough to counteract allergic processes in peripheral tissues without important central effects. The antihistamines reviewed here are acrivastine, astemizole, cetirizine, ebastine, fexofenadine, loratadine, mizolastine, and terfenadine. However, these drugs are not entirely free from central effects, and there are at least quantitative differences between them. Although psychomotor and sleep studies in healthy subjects in the laboratory may predict that an antihistamine does not cause drowsiness, the safety margin can be narrow enough to cause a central sedating effect during actual treatment. This might result from a patient's individual sensitivity, disease-induced sedation, or drug dosages that are for various reasons relatively or absolutely larger (patient's weight, poor response, reduced drug clearance, interactions). Mild to even moderate sedation is not necessarily a major nuisance, particularly if stimulants need be added to the regimen (e.g. in perennial rhinitis). Furthermore, patients can adjust doses themselves if needed. Sedating antihistamines are not needed for long-term itching, because glucocorticoids are indicated and more effective. It is wise to restrict or avoid using antihistamines (astemizole, terfenadine) that can cause cardiac dysrhythmias, because even severe cardiotoxicity can occur in certain pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. Histamine H₁ receptor antagonists (antihistamines) are used in the treatment of allergic disorders. The therapeutic effects of most of the older antihistamines were associated with sedating effects on the central nervous system (CNS) and antimuscarinic effects causing dry mouth and blurred vision. Non-specific “quinidine-like” or local anaesthetic actions often led to cardiotoxicity in animals and man. Although such adverse effects varied from drug to drug, there was some degree of sedation with all old antihistamines. Non-sedating antihistamines have become available during the past 15 years. Some of them also have antiserotonin or other actions that oppose allergic inflammation, and they are not entirely free from sedative effects either. In small to moderate “clinical” concentrations they are competitive H₁ receptor antagonists, although large concentrations of some of them exert non-competitive blockade. Daytime drowsiness and weakness are seldom really important, and they restrict patients' activities less than the old antihistamines. Some new antihistamines share with old antihistamines quinidine-like effects on the cardiac conducting tissues, and clinically significant interactions have raised the question of drug safety [1]. This prodysrhythmic effect has also been briefly mentioned in comparisons of non-sedative H₁ antihistamines.     

Inhibition of depolarization-induced [3H]noradrenaline release from SH-SY5Y human neuroblastoma cells by some second-generation H(1) receptor antagonists through blockade of store-operated Ca(2+) channels (SOCs).

In the present study, the effect of the blockade of membrane calcium channels activated by intracellular Ca(2+) store depletion on basal and depolarization-induced [3H]norepinephrine ([3H]NE) release from SH-SY5Y human neuroblastoma cells was examined. The second-generation H(1) receptor blockers astemizole, terfenadine, and loratadine, as well as the first-generation compound hydroxyzine, inhibited [3H]NE release induced by high extracellular K(+) concentration ([K(+)](e)) depolarization in a concentration-dependent manner (the IC(50)s were 2.3, 1.7, 4.8, and 9.4 microM, respectively). In contrast, the more hydrophilic second-generation H(1) receptor blocker cetirizine was completely ineffective (0.1-30 microM). The inhibition of high [K(+)](e)-induced [3H]NE release by H(1) receptor blockers seems to be related to their ability to inhibit Ca(2+) channels activated by Ca(i)(2+) store depletion (SOCs). In fact, astemizole, terfenadine, loratadine, and hydroxyzine, but not cetirizine, displayed a dose-dependent inhibitory action on the increase in intracellular Ca(2+) concentrations ([Ca(2+)](i)) obtained with extracellular Ca(2+) reintroduction after Ca(i)(2+) store depletion with thapsigargin (1 microM), an inhibitor of the sarcoplasmic-endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase (SERCA) pump. The rank order of potency for SOC inhibition by these compounds closely correlated with their inhibitory properties on depolarization-induced [3H]NE release from SH-SY5Y human neuroblastoma cells. Nimodipine (1 microM) plus omega-conotoxin (100 nM) did not interfere with the present model for SOC activation. In addition, the inhibition of depolarization-induced [3H]NE release does not seem to be attributable to the blockade of the K(+) currents carried by the K(+) channels encoded by the human Ether-a-Gogo Related Gene (I(HERG)) by these antihistamines. In fact, whole-cell voltage-clamp experiments revealed that the IC(50) for astemizole-induced hERG blockade is about 300-fold lower than that for the inhibition of high K(+)-induced [3H]NE release. Furthermore, current-clamp experiments in SH-SY5Y cells showed that concentrations of astemizole (3 microM) which were effective in preventing depolarization-induced [3H]NE release were unable to interfere with the cell membrane potential under depolarizing conditions (100 mM [K(+)](e)), suggesting that hERG K(+) channels do not contribute to membrane potential control during exposure to elevated [K(+)](e). Collectively, the results of the present study suggest that, in SH-SY5Y human neuroblastoma cells, the inhibition of SOCs by some second-generation antihistamines can prevent depolarization-induced neurotransmitter release.     

Next generation antihistamines: therapeutic rationale,accomplishments and advances

Antihistamines, among the most commonly prescribed drugs in the world, have evolved considerably since the first generation was introduced > 50 years ago. The first generation antihistamines (e.g., chlorpheniramine, diphenhydramine, promethazine and hydroxyzine) are still widely available and in use today. These drugs have considerable sedative effects caused by their ability to cross the blood–brain barrier. The next generation of antihistamines to emerge in the market were devoid of these sedative effects; however, two (terfenadine and astemizole) have shown rare but lethal cardiotoxic side effects. The third generation antihistamines, metabolites of the earlier drugs, have demonstrated no cardiac effects of the parent drugs and are at least as potent. Many have exhibited superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacological profiles, including an improved onset of action and duration of effect. The clinical benefit of these newer oral antihistamines will clearly help improve the quality of life of patients with chronic allergies.     

Next generation antihistamines: therapeutic rationale,accomplishments and advances

Antihistamines, among the most commonly prescribed drugs in the world, have evolved considerably since the first generation was introduced >50 years ago. The first generation antihistamines (e.g., chlorpheniramine, diphenhydramine, promethazine and hydroxyzine) are still widely available and in use today. These drugs have considerable sedative effects caused by their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. The next generation of antihistamines to emerge in the market were devoid of these sedative effects; however, two (terfenadine and astemizole) have shown rare but lethal cardiotoxic side effects. The third generation antihistamines, metabolites of the earlier drugs, have demonstrated no cardiac effects of the parent drugs and are at least as potent. Many have exhibited superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacological profiles, including an improved onset of action and duration of effect. The clinical benefit of these newer oral antihistamines will clearly help improve the quality of life of patients with chronic allergies.     

阿司咪唑上市后心血管系统安全性评价

阿司咪唑(第2代抗过敏药)因其不良反应逐渐引起了人们的关注,特别是潜在心脏方面的毒性。在现有的国外文献中,对于阿司咪唑的心脏毒性持有争议。有学者认为,阿司咪唑在心脏方面毒性反应罕见且危险性较小;也有学者认为,阿司咪唑在心脏方面毒性可致命且危险性高。阿司咪唑的心脏毒性表现为尖端扭转型室性心动过速、室性心动过速、房室传导阻滞和QT间期延长。临床心脏毒性的发生与阿司咪唑剂量过大或合用CYP3A4抑制剂密切相关。