Effects of single therapeutic doses of promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine on psychomotor function and histamine-induced wheal- and flare-responses: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study in healthy volunteers

Since most first-generation antihistamines have undesirable sedative effects on the central nervous systems (CNS), newer (second-generation) antihistamines have been developed to improve patients’ quality of life. However, there are few reports that directly compare the antihistaminic efficacy and impairment of psychomotor functions. We designed a double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study to concurrently compare the clinical effectiveness of promethazine, a first-generation antihistamine, and fexofenadine and olopatadine, second-generation antihistamines, by measuring their potency as peripheral inhibitors of histamine-induced wheal and flare. Further, we investigated their sedative effects on the CNS using a battery of psychomotor tests. When single therapeutic doses of fexofenadine (60 mg), olopatadine (5 mg) and promethazine (25 mg) were given in a double-blind manner to 24 healthy volunteers, all antihistamines produced a significant reduction in the wheal and flare responses induced by histamine. In the comparison among antihistamines, olopatadine showed a rapid inhibitory effect compared with fexofenadine and promethazine, and had a potent effect compared with promethazine. In a battery of psychomotor assessments using critical flicker fusion, choice reaction time, compensatory tracking, rapid visual information processing and a line analogue rating scale as a subjective assessment of sedation, promethazine significantly impaired psychomotor function. Fexofenadine and olopatadine had no significant effect in any of the psychomotor tests. Promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine did not affect behavioral activity, as measured by wrist actigraphy. These results suggest that olopatadine at a therapeutic dose has greater antihistaminergic activity than promethazine, and olopatadine and fexofenadine did not cause cognitive or psychomotor impairment.     

Use and safety of antihistamines in children

ABSTRACT: Although first-generation antihistamines remain popular for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and urticaria in children, second- and third-generation antihistamines hold clear advantages over the first-generation agents, especially for the pediatric patient. The less frequent dosing schedule of the second- and third-generation agents makes administration easier for the parent. With less sedation and lower risk of adverse effects, the safety profile of second- and third-generation agents appears superior to that of first-generation agents. After briefly discussing the use of first-generation antihistamines, the pharmacokinetics, safety, and use of the newer antihistamines loratadine, cetirizine, and fexofenadine in the pediatric patient are reviewed.     

Suppression of wheal and flare in histamine test by the main H1 antihistamines commercialized in Brazil

Background:Several dermatoses are mediated by histamine, such as urticaria, angioedema, and papular urticaria. There are no Brazilian studies comparing the potency of antihistamines.Objectives:To evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of the main commercial brand and generic H1 antihistamines, regarding the suppression of the wheal and flare to the histamine test.Methods:A quasi-experimental, open study with 10 healthy adults submitted to the histamine test on the ventral aspect of the forearms. After 20 minutes, wheal and flares were measured. The tests were performed after two hours of intake of dexchlorpheniramine, hydroxyzine, levocetirizine, fexofenadine, cetirizine, loratadine, ebastine, desloratadine, epinastine and rupatadine, as well as generics of loratadine, cetirizine and fexofenadine.Results:All antihistamines presented a reduction in the wheal compared to the control (p <0.02), as well as in the flare, except for rupatadine (p = 0.70). In the internal comparison, cetirizine, fexofenadine, epinastine, levocetirizine, dexchlorpheniramine and hydroxyzine were the most potent, with no difference between them (p > 0.1). As for halo, cetirizine, epinastine, hydroxyzine and fexofenadine were the most potent, with no difference between them (p > 0.1). The most common adverse effect was drowsiness, which was more prevalent among first-generation drugs (p < 0.01). Generic loratadine, fexofenadine and cetirizine halos were higher than their controls (p >0.03)..Study limitations:A single-center study evaluating only aspects related to histamine.Conclusions:Brazilian commercial antihistamines presented different profiles of inhibition of wheal and flares in the histamine test, as well as adverse effects. Generic loratadine, fexofenadine and cetirizine presented larger flares than brand drugs.     

Second- and third-generation antihistamines in the treatment of urticaria

ABSTRACT: Chronic urticaria is mainly idiopathic in nature and can be difficult to treat. While less responsive to antihistamine therapy than acute urticaria, antihistamines still play a key role in the management of symptomatology. While many of the antihistamines still commonly used to treat urticaria are first generation H₁ antagonists (e.g., diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine), the more recently developed second-generation agents (e.g., loratadine, cetirizine) and their metabolites—the third-generation antihistamines (e.g., fexofenadine, norastemizole, descarboxyloratadine)—possess many of the desirable clinical effects of the first-generation agents with a more tolerable side effect profile. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each of the various second- and third-generation agents available, and presents some of the data showing the differences among these agents in the treatment of chronic urticaria.     

Treatment of Urticaria

Urticaria is a cutaneous syndrome characterized by dermal edema (wheal) and erythema (flare) that blanches with pressure. The lesions typically last less than 24 hours and are usually pruritic. In 1983, Christensen and Maibach summarized the theory behind the use of histamine H₁ receptor antagonists (antihistamines) in clinical dermatology. These agents remain the mainstay of treatment for urticaria. This article reviews the medical literature on the effectiveness of antihistamines in urticarial syndromes, including acute, chronic idiopathic and the physical urticarias. Older antihistamines, such as chlorpheniramine and hydroxyzine, are effective in the treatment of urticarias, but they also have marked sedative and anticholinergic effects. Newer nonsedating antihistamines (second-generation antihistamines) have been developed that have reduced adverse effects because they do not cross the blood-brain barrier; these agents (acrivastine, cetirizine, loratadine, mizolastine, fexofenadine, ebastine, azelastine and epinastine) cause significantly less sedation and psychomotor impairment than their older counterparts. A review of the literature reveals that there are few studies which document the efficacy of second-generation antihistamines in the treatment of acute urticaria, a biologic entity that usually resolves within 3 weeks. We did not identify controlled studies that suggested superiority of any antihistamine in the treatment of acute urticaria. Loratadine or cetirizine, and possibly mizolastine, appear to be treatments of choice for chronic idiopathic urticaria. For symptomatic dermatographism, the combination of an antihistamine and an H₂ antagonist, e.g. chlorpheniramine and cimetidine, appears to be effective. Very few studies have been conducted on the use of antihistamines in the treatment of cold, cholinergic, and pressure urticaria. Antihistamines are the mainstay of urticarial therapy. This evidence-based review suggests that there are efficacy differences between newer, nonsedating antihistamines and older agents in some forms of the disorder. Clearly, further well-controlled clinical trials in larger numbers of patients are needed to clarify the role of these agents in the treatment of urticaria.     

Effects of acrivastine, loratadine and cetirizine on histamine-induced wheal and flare responses

It is accepted that studies evaluating histamine-induced wheal and flare reactions in the skin represent a simple and reliable method for demonstrating pharmacodynamic activity and pharmacokinetics of the H1-receptor antagonists. In this study, the effects of single oral doses of acrivastine (8 mg), loratadine (10 mg) and cetirizine (10 mg) on the histamine-induced wheal and flare reactions were compared in 60 healthy volunteers. The wheal and flare responses were produced by prick test using 1% histamine solution. Measurements were performed before the ingestion of antihistamines (baseline values) and afterwards at 15, 30, 90, 240, 360 min and 24 h. The values obtained for each antihistamine were compared with each other and with baseline values. Cetirizine was found to be superior to acrivastine and loratadine for the suppression of wheal and flare responses at 240, 360 min and 24 h (P < 0.05) and acrivastine was superior to the other two antihistamines for the suppression of flare response at 30 min (P < 0.05). Our results indicate that a single dose of cetirizine provides a more effective and long acting suppression on wheal and flare reactions in urticaria when compared to acrivastine and loratadine.     

Inhibitory effects of oral prednisolone and fexofenadine on skin responses by prick tests with histamine and compound 48/80

The prick test is a useful skin test for diagnosing immediate hypersensitivity response. Sometimes it is necessary to perform prick tests on patients who have already received antihistamines or corticosteroids. It is, however, occasionally uncertain whether the results of prick tests are reliable. In this study, the inhibitory effects of prednisolone (10 mg/day) and fexofenadine (120 mg/day) on the response to prick tests induced with histamine and compound 48/80 were examined. During a 7-day-continual drug administration, prick tests were performed 8 h after drug administration. The inhibitory effects of fexofenadine on both the histamine- and compound 48/80-induced skin responses were exhibited on the 1st day and persisted from 24 to 36 h after the final administration. The histamine-induced wheal responses were not inhibited by prednisolone, while the compound 48/80-induced flare and wheal responses were significantly inhibited on the 5th day of drug administration. These responses returned to the baseline level 24 h after the last drug administration. Thus, the results of skin tests performed during administration of antihistamines and corticosteroids should be carefully interpreted.     

Quantitative time course study of the skin response to histamine and the effect of H1 blockers. A 3-week crossover double-blind comparative trial of cetirizine and terfenadine

A controlled, randomized, double-blind, crossover study was performed in 10 healthy volunteers to compare changes of cutaneous blood flow values (CBFV) determined by laser Doppler flowmetry before and after intake of a capsule containing either 10 mg cetirizine or 60 mg terfenadine. After the determination of the initial response to the anti-H1 agents, drugs were taken daily (cetirizine 10 mg, terfenadine 120 mg) over a 3-week period and the cutaneous response to histamine and saline was evaluated weekly, exactly 4 h after the last drug intake. The following significant variations were observed (analysis of variance for repeated measurements, p less than 0.05): (1) there is a decrease of histamine-induced wheal and flare under antihistamines (anti-H1), cetirizine being more potent than terfenadine; (2) CBFV, measured on the usual flare area, i.e. at 1 cm of the site of agonist injection, decreased after drug intake. There was a gradual increase of the CBFV inhibition over the 3-week follow-up, cetirizine being more effective than terfenadine, and (3) at the site of agonist injection, reduction of the edematous wheal was associated with significant increases of CBFV after drug intake. This quantitative pharmacologic in vivo assay on the agonist action indicates that at lower doses, cetirizine has a significantly higher anti-H1 activity than terfenadine and that this effect is maintained over a 3-week period. There was no tachyphylaxis.     

Rapid effects of olopatadine hydrochloride on the histamine-induced skin responses

Olopatadine hydrochloride is one of the second-generation nonsedating antihistamines that are used for treating allergic disorders such as urticaria, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. We examined the inhibitory effects of this drug on the flare and wheal responses induced by histamine iontophoresis at 30, 60, and 90 min after oral administration in a double-blind, cross-over, and placebo-controlled study. Olopatadine hydrochloride significantly inhibited the histamine-induced flare and wheal responses as early as 60 min after oral administration when compared with placebo. Significant inihibitory effects of olopatadine hydrochloride on the itch responses were seen at 90 min after administration. Thus, olopatadine hydrochloride exhibited a very rapid and potent antihistamine effect on the histamine-induced skin responses.     

Effects of cetirizine and epinastine on the skin response to histamine iontophoresis

Epinastine and cetirizine are second-generation, nonsedating and long-lasting antihistamines that are now frequently used for the allergic disorders. We have examined the inhibitory effects of these two drugs on the histamine-induced flare and wheal responses using iontophoresis at 1, 2, 4, 8 and 24 h after the oral administration by a double-blind, cross-over and placebo-controlled study. Both cetirizine and epinastine significantly inhibited the histamine-induced flare and wheal responses at 2 h after the oral administration when compared with placebo. The inhibitory effects of cetirizine and epinastine on the flare response lasted long until at 24 h, however, epinastine was less potent than cetirizine. The inhibitory effects on the wheal response was also clearly and significantly evident at 2-8 h by cetirizine and epinastine. At 24 h cetirizine only showed the significant inhibition on the histamine-induced wheal response. In contrast, epinastine seemed to exhibit the inhibitory capacity earlier than did cetirizine. The inhibitory action of the drugs on the histamine-induced wheal response peaked at 4 h after the oral administration. The histamine-induced itch sensation was also markedly or completely suppressed at 2-8 h by the drugs. Thus, both drugs exhibited the potent and long-lasting antihistamine activity on the skin responses induced by histamine iontophoresis.     

Efficacy and safety of antihistamines in allergic skin disorders

Background For patients with urticaria, H₁-antihistamines remain the gold standard medical treatment of choice. They act by blocking H₁ receptors on the vascular endothelial cell surface. Newer, non-sedating antihistamines such as loratadine also act to some extent by blocking the release of histamine from mast cells, basophils and human skin tissue. Efficacy All of the newer antihistamines (loratadine, terfenadine, astemizole and cetirizine) have been shown to have comparable efficacy to the classic sedating antihistamines and to be significantly superior to placebo in terms of symptom improvement. Loratadine has been shown to be at least as effective as the other non-sedating agents and cetirizine. Antihistamines also have a potential benefit in the management of patients with atopic dermatitis. In two studies, loratadine was found to be significantly superior to placebo in the reduction of pruritus. Safety In terms of safety, the newer antihistamines have important differences. Cetirizine, for example, causes dose-related sedation and functional impairment compared to placebo. In contrast, loratadine has no such sedative effects. Terfenadine and astemizole have also been shown to be free of sedative effects, but exceeding the recommended dose of either may increase the risk of a serious cardiac arrhythmia, torsades de pointes. Plasma levels of both terfenadine and astemizole may also be increased as a result of interaction with various drugs. In contrast, loratadine has not been shown to induce ECG changes, even at doses of 40 mg o.d. for 90 days.     

Start and end of the effects of terfenadine and astemizole on histamine-induced wheals in human skin

A study was made of effects of two antihistamines, terfenadine (60 mg twice daily) and astemizole (10 mg once daily) on wheals induced by histamine dihydrochloride (10 mg/ml) in the prick test on the upper back of 15 healthy students. The suppressive effects of terfenadine on the histamine wheal appeared earlier (2 h), and disappeared earlier (within 1 day) than those of astemizole (3 days and 28 days, respectively). No difference between the maximal effects of the two drugs was seen.     

Review of H1 antihistamines in the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria

Chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) can have a profound effect on patient quality of life (QOL). Ideally, any therapy used to treat CIU should be effective across a wide range of doses without causing unwanted side effects; a wide therapeutic window allows the physician to tailor treatment to the individual. Oral H1 antihistamines are the mainstay of therapy for CIU, but agents within this class diverge in their individual therapeutic indices. The literature was reviewed to compare the currently available oral H1 antihistamines regarding their efficacy and safety at a wide range of doses. If sedation and cognitive impairment are considered relevant to treatment selection due to their effect on QOL and safety, then newer-generation agents should be selected over older-generation antihistamines. There are few well-controlled clinical studies in which newer-generation agents have been directly compared. Moreover, there are no evidence-based data demonstrating statistical superiority of one newer-generation agent over another in the treatment of CIU. However, of the newer agents, those that are labelled nonsedating at recommended doses (fexofenadine, loratadine, and desloratadine) should be selected over cetirizine. In cases where the physician judges that a higher-than-recommended dose should be prescribed, or when the patient is likely to take a higher dose, the relative safety profile of these agents demands detailed consideration.     

Comparative biorelease study of fluticasone in combination with antibacterial (Neomycin) and or antifungal (coltrimazol, miconazole) agents by histamine percutaneous reaction method in healthy volunteers

Fluticasone propionate is a novel, potent and topically active synthetic corticosteroid preparation with a much reduced potential, in relation to its anti-inflammatory potency, for unwanted systemic side effects. It is indicated for the treatment of eczema, dermatitis etc. The objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare the biorelease of fluticassone with placebo (base formulation); its combination with antifungal (miconazole, clotrimazole) and / or antibacterial agents based on the attenuation of histamine induced wheal and flare reaction and flare intensity (on visual analouge scale) by McNemar test. In the present study, fluticasone alone and in combination with clotrimazole, miconazole and neomycin significantly reduced the wheal and flare response of histamine prick test. The flare intensity response was also significantly inhibited by these treatments. Furthermore, there was no difference in the anti-inflammatory activity of various treatment groups. It may, therefore, be concluded that antibacterial (neomycin) and / or antifungal (miconazole, clotrimazole) agents in combination with steroid (fluticasone) do not alter the pharmacodynamic response of the latter.     

Evaluation of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine,cetirizine and fexofenadine during a 24 h period: a double-blind,randomized, crossover,placebo-controlled comparison in skin responses induced by histamine iontophoresis

Potency of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine, cetirizine and fexofenadine in standard-dose application were compared from 11.5 to 24 h after application. The test was designed in a double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled study of ten healthy volunteers on histamine-induced flare and wheal response using an iontophoresis technique. The suppressive effect of olopatadine on the wheals induced by a 0.1-mA histamine iontophoresis lasted for 24 h after dosing. Fexofenadine administered using the same regimen was the least effective among three drugs tested. Suppression of the wheal response by cetirizine, taken once-daily, decreased with time. Olopatadine completely suppressed even the wheal response induced by a 0.2-mA histamine iontophoresis, although fexofenadine and cetirizine were less effective on the wheals induced by the same histamine challenge. There were no significant differences in subjective drowsiness and objective cognitive function between drug- and placebo-treated subjects. These results demonstrate that olopatadine is the most potent antihistamine among the three H(1)-blockers when administered in a standard dosage.     

组胺和抗组胺药的研究进展

组胺与H1受体结合可增强抗原提呈细胞的能力,促进肥大细胞和嗜碱性粒细胞中组胺和其他介质的释放,在荨麻疹等过敏性疾病的发病中起着作用。第一代川抗组胺药由于相对分子质量小,嗜脂性,易通过血脑屏障,临床应用可产生较多不良反应,尤其是对警觉性、认知等的影响。第二代H1抗组胺药相对分子质量大,受体专一性强、亲和力高,抗组胺活性更强,安全性更好,国外指南均推荐作为荨麻疹的一线治疗药物,治疗剂量可增至标准剂量的4倍以提高疗效,仍具有很好的安全性。H3、H4抗组胺药也已进入临床试验,有望治疗过敏性疾病及瘙痒症。     

Effects of H1- and H2-antihistamines on platelet-activating factor and bradykinin-induced inflammatory responses in human skin

Previous studies show that oral antihistamines affect the Weal and flare response to intradermal injections of the inflammatory mediators platelet-activating factor (PAF) and bradykinin (BK). The aim of this study was to compare the effects of terfenadine (an H₂-antagonist) and cimetidine (an H₂-antagonist) on weal and Hare responses to PAF and BK in healthy non-atopic human volunteers. The effects of doxepin on PAF responses were investigated, as there is evidence that doxepin may have direct anti-PAF ejects in addition to its known antihisiaminic actions.     

Efficacy measurement of topical antihistamines: a review

More and more antihistamines are used in gels or ointments for local antipruritic therapy. Among other factors, the efficacy is dependent on the penetration properties of the respective agents and the optimal choice of vehicle substances. To avoid expensive treatment with unsatisfying success, a reliable efficacy measurement would be desirable prior to the admission of new topical antihistamine preparations. Therefore we reviewed the literature for common methods to assess the efficacy of local antihistamines in healthy volunteers. The principle is to apply the test substance to marked test areas and to challenge the skin after a certain time with a standardised amount of histamine, allergens or mast-cell-degranulating substances. For the test evaluation, the areas of wheal, flare and itch are measured and compared between antihistamine-treated and control fields. Challenge models and most of the described evaluation methods are suited for the preliminary efficacy measurement of antihistamines. However, to be able to compare the results, a standardised procedure used by all investigators would be desirable.     

Pharmacology of Antihistamines

H_1-antihistamines, the mainstay of treatment for urticaria, were developed from anticholinergic drugs more than 70 years ago. They act as inverse agonists rather than antagonists of histamine H₁-receptors which are members of the G-protein family. The older first generation H_1-antihistamines penetrate readily into the brain to cause sedation, drowsiness, fatigue and impaired concentration and memory causing detrimental effects on learning and examination performance in children and on impairment of the ability of adults to work and drive. Their use should be discouraged. The newer second-generation H₁-antihistamines are safer, cause less sedation and are more efficacious. Three drugs widely used for symptomatic relief in urticaria, desloratadine, levocetirizine and fexofenadine are highlighted in this review. Of these levocetirizine and fexofenadine are the most potent in humans in vivo. However, levocetirizine may cause somnolence in susceptible individuals, whereas fexofenadine has a relatively short duration of action and may be required to be given twice daily for all round daily protection. Although desloratadine is less potent, it has the advantages of rarely causing somnolence and having a long duration of action.     

Mizolastine in primary acquired cold urticaria

BACKGROUND: Treatment of primary acquired cold urticaria (CU) is quite difficult because of variable clinical effectiveness and side effects of classic antihistamines. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mizolastine, an antihistaminic with antiallergic properties, versus placebo in primary acquired CU. METHODS: This study was a phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study of mizolastine (10 mg, once daily) versus placebo in 28 patients with primary acquired CU. Efficacy was measured by the cold-stimulation time test, the wheal response, and pruritus intensity after an ice-cube test. RESULTS: Mizolastine delayed the cold-induced wheal reaction, reduced wheal response at 3 and 10 minutes, and reduced pruritus intensity. Statistically significant differences were observed versus placebo for the cold-stimulation time test, wheal response at 3 and 10 minutes, and pruritus intensity (P =.006,.015,.009, and.005, respectively). No clinically relevant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Mizolastine (10 mg, once daily) was shown to be superior to placebo for both delaying and reducing the cold-induced wheal reaction without significant adverse events. Results suggest that mizolastine may be effective in the treatment of CU.