triprolidine and ebastine

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.

Topics: Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Astemizole; Benzimidazoles; Butyrophenones; Cetirizine; Cisapride; Heart Diseases; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Loratadine; Piperidines; Serotonin Receptor Agonists; Terfenadine; Triprolidine

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,

Topics: Astemizole; Benzimidazoles; Butyrophenones; Central Nervous System; Cetirizine; Drug Interactions; Heart; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Loratadine; Piperidines; Potassium Channel Blockers; Terfenadine; Triprolidine

The cognitive and psychomotor effects of 10 mg, 20 mg and 30 mg ebastine, a second generation H1-receptor antagonist, were compared with sustained release triprolidine 10 mg (as a verum) and placebo in 10 healthy volunteers in a double-blind, randomised cross-over study.. Following each dose, subjects were required to perform a series of tests of cognitive function and psychomotor performance at 1 h, 2 h, 4 h and 8 h post-dose on days 1 and 5. The test battery consisted of critical flicker fusion, choice reaction time, simulated car tracking task, Sternberg memory scanning task, assessment of subjective sedation (LARS) and subjective evaluation of sleep (LSEQ).. Ebastine at all doses investigated was not statistically significant from placebo in any of the objective tests used. However, as expected for a positive internal control, a number of objective measures were significantly disrupted by triprolidine (p < 0.05). Triprolidine produced an overall increase of the peripheral reaction time component of the simulated car tracking task (SCTT), the difference with placebo reaching statistical significance on day 1, 8 h post-dose (p < 0.05). The mean tracking accuracy scores were also significantly impaired following the administration of triprolidine after 8h on day 1 (p < 0.05). Triprolidine also produced a clear decrement on the SMST (Sternberg Memory Scanning Task), which was significantly different from placebo, at 4 h and 8 h post-dose on day 1. Subjective reports of sedation (LARS) were significantly greater at 2 h and 4 h following triprolidine administration on day 1 and ebastine (30 mg) was rated as sedative 4 h following administration on day 5. The perceived sedative activity of ebastine 30 mg was also reflected in the subjective reports on the LSEQ on day 1 (p < 0.05).. These results allow the conclusion that ebastine, at its recommended therapeutic doses of 10-20 mg, is demonstrably free from impairment on objective aspects of psychomotor and cognitive function in a study where the psychometric assessments were shown to be sensitive to disruptive effects, as evidenced by the action of the positive control, triprolidine 10 mg.

Topics: Adult; Analysis of Variance; Butyrophenones; Cognition; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Piperidines; Psychomotor Performance; Triprolidine

The review summarizes the major results of eight double-blind, placebo-controlled, volunteer studies undertaken by three independent institutions for showing the effects on actual driving performance of "sedating" and "nonsedating" antihistamines (respectively, triprolidine, diphenhydramine, clemastine and terfenadine, loratadine, cetirizine, acrivastine, mizolastine, and ebastine). A common, standardized test was used that measures driving impairment from vehicular "weaving" (i.e., standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP)). Logical relationships were found between impairment and dose, time after dosing, and repeated doses over 4-5 days. The newer drugs were generally less impairing, but differences existed among their effects, and none was unimpairing at doses 1-2x the currently recommended levels. One or possibly two of the newer drugs possessed both performance-enhancing and -impairing properties, depending on dose, suggesting two mechanisms of action.

Topics: Automobile Driving; Benzimidazoles; Butyrophenones; Cetirizine; Clemastine; Diphenhydramine; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Loratadine; Netherlands; Piperidines; Psychomotor Performance; Terfenadine; Triprolidine

1. The effects of a new antihistamine, ebastine (10, 20 and 30 mg), on several parameters of driving performance in actual traffic were studied in 15 healthy male volunteers. Subjects were treated for 5 days, and their driving performance tested on day 1 and day 5. The study was double-blind, placebo controlled and included the antihistamine triprolidine (10 mg sustained release) as an active drug control. 2. General tolerability was good except in one case following the reference compound triprolidine. No significant changes in driving performance were found with the new antihistamine ebastine at any dosage, on day 1 or day 5. Triprolidine (10 mg) significantly increased both the amount of weaving and the delay in following speed manoeuvres of a leading car, compared with placebo. 3. The results suggest that ebastine in doses up to 30 mg may be relatively safe for use by those who drive motor vehicles while under medication. The results do not warrant such a conclusion for triprolidine 10 mg.

Topics: Adult; Automobile Driving; Butyrophenones; Double-Blind Method; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Piperidines; Psychomotor Performance; Triprolidine