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.     

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.     

Evaluation of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine and levocetirizine during a 24‐h period: A double‐blind,randomized, cross‐over,placebo‐controlled comparison in skin responses induced by histamine iontophoresis

The antihistamine effects of olopatadine and levocetirizine, in standard‐dose application described in their information (5 mg twice a day for olopatadine; 5 mg once daily for levocetirizine), were examined from 11.5 to 24 h after application. The test was designed in a double‐blind, randomized, cross‐over, placebo‐controlled study of 12 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. Both drugs inhibited flare induced by histamine iontophoresis almost completely until 24 h after the first administration. Suppression of the 0.2‐mA‐induced wheal response by levocetirizine, taken once daily, decreased with time, although 0.1‐mA‐induced flare was almost completely suppressed by the drug. Olopatadine completely suppressed even the wheal response induced by a 0.2‐mA histamine iontophoresis. Compared with the placebo, the two drugs significantly suppressed the subjective itching assessed by visual analog scale at all intervals. There were no significant differences in subjective drowsiness and objective cognitive function between drug‐ and placebo‐treated subjects. These results demonstrate that olopatadine seems to be more potent than levocetirizine when administrated in a standard dose. In conclusion, mild to moderate urticaria could be controlled by standard application as described in their information. On the other hand, severe urticaria could be managed by a standard application of olopatadine, but levocetirizine may need an additional dose to control severe urticaria.     

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.     

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.     

Double-blind, crossover comparison of olopatadine and cetirizine versus placebo: suppressive effects on skin response to histamine iontophoresis

Olopathadine, a newly developed histamine H1-receptor antagonist, was compared with cetirizine in its suppressive effects on histamine-induced wheal and flare reaction using an iontophoresis technique in a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled fashion. As a result, olopathadine was found to have effects comparable to cetirizine. This finding may predict the efficacy of this new H1-antagonist in treating pruritic skin diseases.     

Addition of fexofenadine to a topical corticosteroid reduces the pruritus associated with atopic dermatitis in a 1-week randomized,multicentre, double-blind,placebo-controlled,parallel-group study

BACKGROUND: Fexofenadine, a nonsedating, H1-receptor selective antihistamine, exhibits consistent efficacy and safety in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria. The pruritus associated with atopic dermatitis is considered to be induced, in part, by histamine. Therefore, we thought that fexofenadine may be useful in the relief of pruritus associated with atopic dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of twice-daily fexofenadine hydrochloride (HCl) 60 mg vs. placebo in reducing the pruritus associated with atopic dermatitis. METHODS: In this randomized, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients (aged >or= 16 years) with atopic dermatitis underwent a 1-week placebo lead-in period, followed by randomization to fexofenadine HCl 60 mg twice daily or placebo for 1 week. All patients also received topical treatment with 0.1% hydrocortisone butyrate twice daily throughout the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in pruritus score from baseline. Patients reflectively recorded pruritus scores twice daily (day and night) using a five-point scale (0 = none; 4 = very severe). RESULTS: Fexofenadine (n = 201) significantly decreased the severity of pruritus compared with placebo (n = 199) (mean change in score -0.75 (unadjusted 95% confidence interval [-0.88, -0.62]) vs. -0.5 [-0.62, -0.38], respectively; P = 0.0005). This improvement was seen after just 1 day of treatment (P = 0.039) and was maintained throughout the treatment period (P = 0.019). Compared with placebo, fexofenadine significantly improved both diurnal (P = 0.0001) and nocturnal pruritus (P = 0.013). In addition, significantly more patients in the fexofenadine group experienced a reduction in the ratio of pruritus area to body surface area compared with those in the placebo group (P = 0.007). The incidence of adverse events was low and similar across all treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fexofenadine HCl 60 mg twice daily demonstrated a rapid, significant improvement in the pruritus associated with atopic dermatitis, with a safety profile equivalent to that of placebo.     

Multiple H1-antihistamine-induced urticaria

H₁‐antihistamines are widely used in the treatment of various allergic diseases. Particularly, a cornerstone of the management of chronic idiopathic urticaria is treatment with H₁‐antihistamines. However, a few cases of H₁‐antihistamine‐induced urticaria have been reported. A 34‐year‐old woman presented with a 4‐month history of recurrent urticaria, which was prominently exacerbated by the administration of H₁‐antihistamines. The patient consented to a provocation test of fexofenadine among drugs including cetirizine and hydroxyzine, which were suspected of inducing severe symptoms in episodes. One hour after challenge with 12 mg fexofenadine (one‐fifth of the therapeutic dose), a urticarial reaction rapidly developed on nearly the entire body with remarkably increased levels of plasma histamine (190 nmol/L) and plasma leukotriene B4 (150 pg/mL). In challenge tests with other antihistamines, generalized urticaria occurred 5 and 1 h after intake of 10 mg loratadine and 10 mg bepotastine, respectively, whereas challenges with chlorpheniramine, mequitazine and azelastine were all negative. Skin prick tests with H₁‐antihistamines used in the challenges were all negative, indicating that the urticarial reactions after challenges with the causative drugs might not be immunoglobulin E‐mediated. Among the causative drugs in our case, cetirizine and hydroxyzine are the piperazine derivatives, whereas fexofenadine, bepotastine, ebastine and loratadine are the piperidine derivatives. The chemical structures of both derivatives are very similar. Therefore, in this case, H₁‐antihistamine‐induced urticaria may have been due to cross‐reactivity between metabolites of these drugs, but not to drugs before metabolization. Hypersensitivity to H₁‐antihistamines should be considered when urticarial lesions worsen after H₁‐antihistamine treatment.     

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.     

苯磺贝他斯汀片治疗慢性荨麻疹的多中心随机双盲对照研究

目的 探讨苯磺贝他斯汀治疗慢性荨麻疹的疗效和安全性。方法 采用多中心、随机双盲对照临床试验。慢性荨麻疹患者随机分为两组,一组接受苯磺贝他斯汀片20 mg/d治疗,另一组接受氯雷他定10 mg/d治疗,共治疗4周。分别在治疗前和治疗后第1周、第2周和第4周随访,对瘙痒、最大风团直径和风团数量进行评价及疗效评估。结果 随机入组240例慢性荨麻疹患者,共227例纳入疗效分析。治疗后4周苯磺贝他斯汀组的总有效率（基愈 + 显效）为74.6%,氯雷他定组的总有效率为77.9%,两组比较差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。苯磺贝他斯汀不良事件发生率为12.8%,氯雷他定组为17.9%,两组差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）,两种药物的不良反应主要为轻至中度嗜睡、口干和头晕。结论 苯磺贝他斯汀治疗慢性荨麻疹安全有效,其疗效和不良反应发生率与氯雷他定差异无统计学意义。     

比拉斯汀在荨麻疹治疗中的应用

比拉斯汀是一种新型的H1受体拮抗剂,口服可治疗过敏性鼻炎和荨麻疹,其吸收较快,但食用食物和果汁后吸收减慢.已有数据证实,相比其他受体,比拉斯汀对H1的亲和力更高,并能降低组胺和细胞因子水平.在由组胺引起的皮肤风团和红斑上,比拉斯汀20 mg与西替利嗪10 mg相比具有等同疗效,可能有更快的抑制作用.比拉斯汀无抗胆碱作用,不影响驾驶,除此之外,比拉斯汀还具备良好的耐受性,无镇静作用、心脏毒性和肝脏毒性等优点.     

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.     

Suppression of histamine-induced pruritus by hydroxyzine and various neuroleptics.

This study evaluates the ability of hydroxyzine and various neuroleptics to suppress histamine-induced pruritus in ten volunteer subjects with the use of a double-blind crossover protocol. The itch threshold was determined in each volunteer by intradermal injection of gradually increasing concentrations of histamine. Volunteers were then given the study drugs and placebo at the same interval of time, under near identical conditions, and the itch threshold was determined. Thiothixene, hydroxyzine hydrochloride, chlorpromazine, thioridazine, and a lactose placebo were evaluated. Compared to other drugs, hydroxyzine alone was more effective in the suppression of histamine-induced itch. Consequently, hydrozyzine may be more effective in histamine-induced pruritus. The neuroleptic drugs used in this study do not significantly suppress histamine-induced pruritus, but they may be beneficial in nonhistamine-induced pruritus or psychogenic pruritus.     

Treatment of chronic urticaria with cetirizine dihydrochloride a non-sedating antihistamine

The efficacy of cetirizine dihydrochloride, a new H₁-antagonist with minimal sedative or anticholinergic side effects was evaluated in 30 patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. In the first part of the study, cetirizine 10 mg and placebo were compared in a double-blind cross-over trial. In the second part, patients who did not respond adequately in the first part were randomized, still double-blind, to receive 10 mg cetirizine either once daily or twice daily. In the first part, treatment was discontinued by 17 patients on placebo and two patients on cetirizine because of lack of efficacy. Cetirizine dihydrochloride was found significantly to reduce occurrence of weals, erythema and pruritus compared with placebo (P <0.001). Twenty-six of the patients improved on cetirizine and two on placebo. Mild sedation was noted by two patients on cetirizine and by one on placebo.     

Antipruritic effects of two different 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and an antihistamine in haemodialysis patients

Pruritus is the most distressing symptom in haemodialysis (HD) patients. Its aetiology has not yet been delineated, and thus there are no good therapeutical options. Case reports and series attribute antipruritic potency to the serotonin receptor antagonists of the 5-HT3 type in renal pruritus. It was the aim of this study to investigate the antipruritic effect of two different 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and an antihistamine in 11 patients undergoing HD. Pruritus was induced by iontophoresis with serotonin and histamine and recorded before and after HD. These data were compared to those obtained after oral pretreatment with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists tropisetron 5 mg and ondansetron 8 mg and the antihistamine cetirizine 10 mg. Ten healthy volunteers served as a control group. Vasocutaneous parameters (wheal and flare), skin temperature and alloknesis were also determined. Itching in HD patients and controls was not significantly diminished by oral pretreatment with the serotonin receptor antagonists. In controls, but not in HD patients, cetirizine significantly reduced itching, skin temperature and vasocutaneous parameters. Our data additionally demonstrate that there are no significant differences in vasocutaneous parameters, itching and alloknesis in HD patients before and after dialysis. We conclude that 5-HT3 receptor blockers such as tropisetron and ondansetron and the antihistamine cetirizine do not sufficiently reduce serotonin- and histamine-induced itching in haemodialyis patients.     

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.     

The effect of terfenadine on dermographic wealing

A double-blind comparison of terfenadine with placebo showed a reduction in potency of measured dermographic force-response of 67%, which is similar to that for inhibition of histamine weals by terfenadine. This and the parallel displacement of the force-response curves indicates that histamine is the main cause of dermographic wealing. Dermographic threshold and itch change together and appear to be the main determinant of the patients' subjective response. Dermographism relapsed towards its pre-treatment state during the 3 days after treatment was stopped. There was a small decrease in effect after administration of 60 mg b.d. for 47-84 days and a further small increase in response when the dose was increased to 120 mg t.d.s., but neither change was significant. None of the patients had a sedative response to the drug and terfenadine should prove useful in the treatment of wealing disorders.     

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.     

Desloratadine for Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria

Chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) is a disabling affliction that considerably limits patients' daily activities and interferes with sleep. Clinical studies have shown that histamine H1-receptor antagonists (antihistamines) are highly effective for inhibiting the hives/wheals and pruritus associated with CIU, as well as improving patients' quality of life. Desloratadine is a rapid-acting, once-daily, nonsedating selective H1-receptor antagonist/inverse receptor agonist with proven clinical efficacy in patients with CIU. It has 10-20 times the in vivo H1 receptor-binding affinity of loratadine, its parent compound, and 52-194 times the H1 receptor-binding affinity of cetirizine, ebastine, loratadine, and fexofenadine. Desloratadine displays linear pharmacokinetics after oral administration. Age and sex have no apparent effect on the drug's metabolism and elimination, and food does not affect its bioavailability or absorption. Desloratadine also exerts anti-inflammatory effects via mechanisms that are independent of H1-receptor antagonism. Results from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of 6 weeks' duration in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe CIU indicate that desloratadine significantly minimizes the severity of pruritus, reduces the number and size of hives, and improves disease-impaired sleep and daily activities. Improvements were noted after a single dose of desloratadine and were maintained over 6 weeks of treatment. Desloratadine was safe and well tolerated in clinical trials of patients with CIU. The adverse effect profile of desloratadine in adults, as well as in children aged from 6 months to 11 years, is comparable to that of placebo. Evaluations of cognitive and psychomotor performance in adults indicate no impairment of function with dosages of desloratadine 5 mg/day. In conclusion, desloratadine is an important therapeutic option for prompt and enduring symptom relief in patients with moderate-to-severe CIU. In addition to efficacy and safety, desloratadine affords a convenient administration regimen, rapid onset of action, and an absence of drug-drug or drug-food interactions. Other important prescribing considerations are that, unlike all first-generation and some second-generation antihistamines, desloratadine is nonsedating at its clinically approved dosage and does not impair psychomotor function.     

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.