Study of relationship between antihistaminic, anticholinergic and central depressant properties of various antihistaminics.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Animals↗
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “ANTIHISTAMINICS”
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
[Clinical evaluation of the antihistaminic activity of a new antihistaminic product with selective and non hypnotic action (HS 592)].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Histamine H1 Antagonists↗
Investigation of histamine-antihistamine differentiation ability of Tetrahymena receptors, by means of lectins and antihistamine antibodies.
Histamine antagonists bind to the histamine receptors of Tetrahymena, and their presence can be shown by immunocytofluorimetry. The binding of histamine is inhibited by antagonists structurally similar to histamine, regardless whether they bind to H1 or H2 receptors, but it is not inhibited by phenindamine, a compound structurally highly different from histamine. That part of H1 receptor which binds to both concanavalin A (con-A) and histamine probably contains primarily simple sugars, and secondly, glycosamine oligomers. At the H2 binding sites, on the other hand, acetylgalactosamine and its derivatives dominate. The present findings in the light of earlier functional experiments, suggest that in Tetrahymena, binding and effect are separated from each other to a certain degree.
Animals↗
An antihistamine antagonises emesis due to an antihistamine.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Animals↗
I've been using antihistamine tablets for my allergies, but my pharmacist told me that an antihistamine nose spray is now available. Should I switch to the spray?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Administration, Intranasal↗
Evaluation of the efficacy of antihistamines using human monocyte-derived dendritic cells stimulated with histamine.
BACKGROUND: It has been reported that histamine induces CD86 expression and chemokine production in human immature monocyte-derived dendritic cells (MoDCs), which can be blocked by both H(1)- and H(2)-receptor antagonists. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine whether the efficacy of H(1)-type antihistamines can be assessed by using MoDCs. METHODS: We examined the suppressive effects of 1 H(2)-type antihistamine (cimetidine) and 5 different H(1)-type antihistamines (cetirizine, diphenhydramine, ketotifen, olopatadine, and emedastine) on the induction of CD86 and IL-8 production by MoDCs from 23 healthy individuals stimulated with histamine. We also examined the responses of MoDCs from 13 patients with chronic urticaria to these antihistamines, and compared the in vitro efficacy with the actual clinical response to antihistamines evaluated by patient and physician assessments. RESULTS: All the antihistamines we examined suppressed the increase of CD86(+) cells after histamine stimulation in a dose-dependent fashion, and all H(1)-type antihistamines were more efficacious than cimetidine. IL-8 production stimulated with histamine was also suppressed by cetirizine, ketotifen, and olopatadine. Unexpectedly, the suppressive effect of these antihistamines on the CD86 augmentation was highly variable among different healthy control participants. Interestingly, in 10 of 13 cases of chronic urticaria, this in vitro analysis of antihistamines correlated with the clinical response to antihistamines. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the evaluation of antihistamines using MoDCs can be a useful method for the screening of effective antihistamines, for the comparison of the efficacy of antihistamines, and for predicting the efficacy of antihistamines on an individual basis.
Adolescent↗
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. This prodysrhythmic effect has also been briefly mentioned in comparisons of non-sedative H1 antihistamines.
Astemizole↗
Antiallergic anti-inflammatory effects of H1-antihistamines in humans.
Data from in vitro, in vivo, and ex vivo studies suggest that second-generation antihistamines have a number of antiallergic, anti-inflammatory properties that appear to be independent of their H1-blockade activity. First-generation antihistamines also have antiallergic, anti-inflammatory properties, as suggested by the studies with azatadine, chlorpheniramine, mepyramine, and promethazine; most other first-generation antihistamines have not been studied for these properties. In vitro studies have shown that H1-antihistamines reduce the release of proinflammatory mediators from mast cells and basophils, the chemotaxis and activation of inflammatory cells (especially eosinophils), and the expression of adhesion molecules induced by immunological and nonimmunological stimuli in epithelial cell lines. Nasal allergen challenge models have similarly demonstrated that H1-antihistamines inhibit mediator release from mast cells and basophils, and that they decrease inflammatory cell infiltration and the expression of adhesion molecules on epithelial cells. The results of published studies of the effects of H1-antihistamines on nasal allergic inflammation in humans have been summarized in this chapter. Recent investigations indicate that H1-antihistamines may modulate airway inflammation by downregulating the activity of airway epithelial cells, which have an important role in allergic airway inflammation. The modulation of adhesion molecules and of inflammatory cell infiltration by H1-antihistamines may be beneficial during long-term treatment in patients with allergic rhinitis. The rationale for this hypothesis is the persistence of inflammation on the nasal epithelial cells even when patients are symptom-free (16). All of the events affected by H1-antihistamines are important in the allergic inflammation cascade. The underlying mechanisms for such effects remain unclear, but are unrelated to H1-antagonist activity. Several studies have demonstrated that H1-antihistamines can form an ionic association with cell membranes and inhibit calcium ion influx into the mast cell or basophil plasma membrane, or inhibit Ca2+ release within the cells, and may therefore influence the signal transduction pathways. However, these effects appear to occur at concentrations higher than those achieved in therapeutic practice (126-128). It has recently been hypothesized that the anti-inflammatory activity of H1-antihistamines may be a consequence of their ability to influence the activation of genes responsible for the expression and synthesis of proinflammatory mediators (129). The contribution of the antiallergic effects of H1-receptor antagonists to their clinical efficacy is not fully understood. There have been no data suggesting that H1-antihistamines with well-documented antiallergic properties are superior to the others for which such properties have not been as extensively investigated. Additional studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms(s) by which H1-antihistamines exert anti-inflammatory effects. This knowledge might lead to the development of novel therapies with more potent and specific anti-inflammatory effects.
Anti-Allergic Agents↗
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.
Adult↗
Antihistamines for the common cold.
BACKGROUND: Although antihistamines are prescribed in large quantities for the common cold, there is little evidence to whether these drugs are effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess in patients with a common cold the effects of antihistamines in alleviating nasal symptoms, or in shortening of illness duration. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialized Register and EMBASE up to December 2002; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and MEDLINE up to February 2003. We also followed up references in identified papers. We appealed for further articles at a major international conference on Acute Respiratory Infections (1997). We corresponded with experts and got in touch with pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on treatment of common cold with antihistamines, used either singly or in combination, in adults or children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two reviewers and authors were contacted for further data. Trials were subdivided into monotherapy and combination therapy. Data on general recovery, nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and side-effects were extracted and summarized in a systematic review. MAIN RESULTS: We included thirty two papers describing 35 comparisons; 22 trials studied monotherapy, 13 trials a combination of antihistamines with other medication. A total of 8930 people suffering from the common cold were included. There were large differences in study designs, participants, interventions, and outcomes. There was no evidence of any clinically significant effect - in children or in adults - on general recovery of antihistamines in monotherapy. First generation - but not non-sedating - antihistamines have a small effect on rhinorrhea and sneezing. In trials with first generation antihistamines the incidence of side effects (especially sedation) is significantly higher with active treatment. Two trials, studying a combination of antihistamines with decongestives in small children, both failed to show any effect. Of the eleven trials on older children and adults, the majority show an effect on general recovery and on nasal symptom severity. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Antihistamines in monotherapy - in children as well as in adults - do not alleviate to a clinical extend nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea and sneezing, or subjective improvement of the common cold. First generation antihistamines also cause more side-effects than placebo, in particular they increase sedation in cold sufferers. Combinations of antihistamines with decongestives are not effective in small children. In older children and adults most trials show a beneficial effect on general recovery as well as on nasal symptoms. It is however not clear whether these effects are clinically significant.
Common Cold↗
Effects of antihistamine medications on exercise performance. Implications for sportspeople.
The athlete who suffers from atopic diseases such as seasonal allergic rhinitis has an arsenal of antihistamines from which to choose for relief of symptoms. The decision to select a particular medication involves consideration of its efficacy and its side effects. Many of the standard antihistamines have sedative side effects which render them undesirable for use by athletes during competition. For example, a survey of studies suggests that some of these medications may compromise the performance of psychomotor skills important to the athlete (e.g. reaction time and visual discrimination). The newer, nonsedating antihistamines are equal to the standard agents in efficacy and comparable with placebo in central nervous system effects. Thus, psychomotor performance is not adversely affected by the newer antihistamines. Despite their widespread use, the effects of treatment with antihistamines on exercise performance (e.g. metabolic responses and time to exhaustion) have scarcely been addressed. The few studies available indicate that single oral administrations of antihistamines neither compromise nor enhance exercise performance or tolerance in asymptomatic individuals. Yet the research conducted has not examined the effects of antihistamine ingestion on exercise performance in symptomatic individuals. Whether treatment with an antihistamine would improve exercise performance relative to nontreatment in symptomatic, atopic athletes remains to be determined. Whereas there is a dearth of information on the effects of antihistamine medications on exercise performance, there is growing evidence that pretreatment with antihistamines may prevent or attenuate some exercise-induced histamine-mediated disorders such as urticaria, pruritus, anaphylaxis and gastrointestinal bleeding. A survey of studies suggests that prophylactic treatment with antihistamines may increase tolerance to exercise in individuals susceptible to these disorders.
Anaphylaxis↗
Treatment of urticaria. An evidence-based evaluation of antihistamines.
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.
Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗
Comparative analysis of the cardiotoxicity proclivities of second generation antihistamines in an experimental model predictive of adverse clinical ECG effects.
Terfenadine and astemizole belong to the second generation histamine H1 antagonists and are widely prescribed for allergic and upper respiratory diseases. The popularity of the newer H1 antihistamines is due to their ability to provide relief from allergic symptoms without the undesirable side effect of sedation commonly associated with first generation H1 receptor antagonists such as diphenhydramine and promethazine. Recent clinical evidence that the second generation histamine H1 antagonists terfenadine and astemizole have the potential for inducing life threatening ventricular arrhythmias has raised questions as to whether other drugs in this class have similar cardiotoxic potential. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the arrhythmogenic potential of a series of second generation antihistamines in a quantitative experimental model predictive of adverse ECG effects in man. Antihistamines were given intravenously and electrocardiographic (ECG) and cardiovascular parameters (blood pressure and heart rate) were measured. The ECG wave form was analyzed to determine QTc interval, PR interval, QRS interval and heart rate. To determine the relative cardiotoxic potential of the antihistamines, the lowest dose producing significant prolongation of the QTc interval was compared with the dose required to inhibit by 50% the peripheral bronchospasm elicited by histamine at 10 micrograms/kg i.v. (antihistamine ED50). The second generation antihistamines studied were astemizole (CAS 68844-77-9), carebastine (CAS 90729-42-3), cetirizine hydrochloride (CAS 83881-52-1), ebastine (CAS 90729-43-4), norastemizole (CAS 75970-99-9), terfenadine (CAS 50679-08-8) and terfenadine carboxylate (CAS 83799-24-0). The second generation antihistamines astemizole, ebastine and terfenadine produced pronounced dose-dependent QTc interval prolongation effects. These arrhythmogenic effects occurred at doses that were between 1 and 4 times their respective peripheral antihistamine doses. These drugs produced significant disruption of the ECG wave form including large amplitude, morphologically aberrant T-waves and, in some cases, torsades de pointes-type arrhythmias. In contrast, terfenadine carboxylate (100 mg/kg i.v.), norastemizole (20 mg/kg, i.v.) and carebastine (50 mg/kg, i.v.), the major metabolites of terfenadine, astemizole and ebastine, were largely devoid of adverse ECG effects. Similarly, cetirizine (20 mg/kg, i.v.) was also found to not alter ECG or cardiovascular function. These findings demonstrate that terfenadine, astemizole and ebastine exhibit significant arrhythmogenic effects including QTc interval prolongation, bradycardia and distortion of the ECG morphology in the guinea pig. The relative cardiotoxicity of these antihistamines based on the separation of antihistamine activity and adverse ECG effects was similar for terfenadine and astemizole, but slightly less for ebastine. In this model carebastine, cetirizine, loratadine, norastemizole and terfenadine carboxylate are devoid of QTc prolongation effects. Given the structural similarity of terfenadine and ebastine it is not surprising that these drugs produce significant cardiotoxicity in this animal model. Taken together, these results indicate that the ability to cause QTc interval prolongation and the proclivity for producing arrhythmias is not a class effect and is seen only with some second generation nonsedating antihistamines.
Animals↗
First do no harm: managing antihistamine impairment in patients with allergic rhinitis.
Antihistamines are effective medications that have been used for decades in the management of allergic rhinitis; however, they may be administered or selected in an inappropriate fashion and may be the source of drug-related morbidity. Our objective is to present relevant background information and an expert consensus statement on the use of antihistamines in treatment of allergic rhinitis. In July 2002, 14 experts in allergy, clinical immunology, pharmacology, and impairment assessment were invited to participate in a roundtable conference to present current concepts and develop a consensus statement on the clinical management of allergic rhinitis with antihistamines. Many of the antihistamines used to treat allergic rhinitis, as well as the disease itself, may produce sedation, impairment, and reduced quality of life. Allergic rhinitis is more appropriately managed with the relatively nonimpairing second-generation antihistamines (eg, loratadine, desloratadine, cetirizine, and fexofenadine), because older agents (eg, diphenhydramine, chlorpheniramine, and brompheniramine) produce sedation and impairment and worsen sleep architecture. Although there is some debate surrounding the varying degrees of efficacy of second-generation antihistamines, it is known that some agents may produce varying levels of drowsiness or impairment, especially at higher than recommended doses. The differences with regard to safety among the second-generation antihistamines are smaller than are the differences between the first and second generations. A nonsedating, nonimpairing (even at higher than recommended doses), second-generation antihistamine is preferred for all patients, particularly those with a higher risk for the development of adverse effects. We recommend that primary care and specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, and all other health professionals involved in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis follow this consensus document and share this information with patients for whom antihistamine therapy is recommended. In addition, further epidemiologic studies on the effects of antihistamines should be performed.
Diagnosis, Differential↗
Appraisal of the validity of histamine-induced wheal and flare to predict the clinical efficacy of antihistamines.
Antihistaminic drugs have been used successfully for many years in the treatment of allergic diseases. Second-generation antihistamines have fewer sedating side effects than first-generation agents, and the number of newer drugs available for clinical use is growing. Various methods have been used to assess antihistaminic activity, the most popular of which is the epicutaneous histamine-induced wheal and flare. This test relies on the ability of epicutaneously injected histamine to bring about the wheal and flare, a neurovascular response that involves reflex vasodilation (flare) and local swelling caused by plasma extravasation (wheal). Antihistamines have been compared on the basis of their ability to block the histamine-induced wheal and flare in the skin. Results of these trials have been applied to predict the global antiallergic efficacy of various antihistamines. The review has examined the reliability of suppression of the histamine wheal and flare reaction in the skin to predict an antihistamine's clinical efficacy in two common allergic diseases seasonal allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. Although histamine is one mediator in the allergic response in the skin and nasal mucosa, many other agents are important modulators of the allergic response. In addition, the major structural and functional differences that exist between the nasal mucosa and the skin affect the type of local response. These manifest themselves as differences between the responses to antigen and histamine challenge in the skin and the nose. The allergic responses in these tissues are not simply the consequence of one chemical but are the result of a cascade of interactions among various cells and mediators. The clinical manifestations of these complex interactions obviously cannot be fully replicated by injection of one chemical mediator, histamine, into the outer layer of the skin. Studies with antihistamines have shown that certain drugs, such as cetirizine, are more suppressive than others (loratadine, terfenadine) in controlling the histamine-induced wheal and flare reaction in the skin. When the clinical efficacy of these medications is compared in clinical trials in seasonal allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria, all are equally efficacious in controlling symptoms. Although the histamine-induced wheal and flare reaction can serve as a useful clinical pharmacologic test to assess dose-response relations for an antihistamine, its lack of correlation with clinical responses among antihistamines indicates that this model should not be used to predict or compare clinical efficacies of antihistamines in seasonal allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria.
Allergens↗
Antihistamines and driving ability: evidence from on-the-road driving studies during normal traffic.
BACKGROUND: All antihistamines are capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier and thus may cause sedation. Most antihistamine users are ambulatory patients and therefore presumably drive a car. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the effects of antihistamine drugs on driving ability. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A literature search (MEDLINE and cross-references) was performed using the keywords driving and antihistamine. Sixteen studies using the on-the-road driving test during normal traffic were included in the review. Studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled and included a positive control. RESULTS: First-generation antihistamines (diphenhydramine, triprolidine, terfenadine, dexchlorpheniramine, clemastine) significantly impair driving performance after both one-time and repeated (daily) administration. Second-generation antihistamines (cetirizine, loratadine, ebastine, mizolastine, acrivastine, emedastine, mequitazine) may also impair driving performance, but the magnitude and extent of impairment depend on the administered dose, sex, and time between testing and treatment administration. Tolerance develops after 4 to 5 days of administration, but impairment is not absent. Third-generation antihistamines (fexofenadine and levocetirizine) have been shown to produce no driving impairment after both one-time and repeated administration. CONCLUSIONS: First- and second-generation antihistamines may significantly impair driving performance. In the context of driving safety but also taking into account the cardiotoxic properties of some of the second-generation antihistamines, we advise treating patients with third-generation antihistamines such as fexofenadine and levocetirizine.
Automobile Driving↗
Efficacy and tolerability of newer antihistamines in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.
Treatment for allergic conjunctivitis has markedly expanded in recent years, providing opportunities for more focused therapy, but often leaving both physicians and patients confused over the variety of options. As monotherapy, oral antihistamines are an excellent choice when attempting to control multiple early-phase, and some late-phase, allergic symptoms in the eyes, nose and pharynx. Unfortunately, despite their efficacy in relief of allergic symptoms, systemic antihistamines may result in unwanted adverse effects, such as drowsiness and dry mouth. Newer second-generation antihistamines (cetirizine, fexofenadine, loratadine and desloratadine) are preferred over older first-generation antihistamines in order to avoid the sedative and anticholinergic effects that are associated with first-generation agents. When the allergic symptom or complaint, such as ocular pruritus, is isolated, focused therapy with topical (ophthalmic) antihistamines is often efficacious and clearly superior to systemic antihistamines, either as monotherapy or in conjunction with an oral or intranasal agent. Topical antihistaminic agents not only provide faster and superior relief than systemic antihistamines, but they may also possess a longer duration of action than other classes including vasoconstrictors, pure mast cell stabilisers, NSAIDs and corticosteroids. Many antihistamines have anti-inflammatory properties as well. Some of this anti-inflammatory effect seen with 'pure' antihistamines (levocabastine and emedastine) may be directly attributed to the blocking of the histamine receptor that has been shown to downregulate intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression and, in turn, limit chemotaxis of inflammatory cells. Some topical multiple-action histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists (olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine and epinastine) have been shown to prevent activation of neutrophils, eosinophils and macrophages, or inhibit release of leukotrienes, platelet-activating factors and other inflammatory mediators. Topical vasoconstrictor agents provide rapid relief, especially for redness; however, the relief is often short-lived, and overuse of vasoconstrictors may lead to rebound hyperaemia and irritation. Another class of topical agents, mast cell stabilisers (sodium cromoglicate [cromolyn sodium], nedocromil and lodoxamide), may be considered; however, they generally have a much slower onset of action. The efficacy of mast cell stabilisers may be attributed to anti-inflammatory properties in addition to mast cell stabilisation. In the class of topical NSAIDs, ketorolac has been promoted for ocular itching but has been found to be inferior for relief of allergic conjunctivitis when compared with olopatadine and emedastine. Lastly, topical corticosteroids may be considered for severe seasonal ocular allergy symptoms, although long-term use should be avoided because of risks of ocular adverse effects, including glaucoma and cataract formation.
Administration, Oral↗
Antihistamine use and breast cancer risk.
Antihistamines are structurally similar to DPPE, a tamoxifen derivative known to promote tumor growth, and to antidepressants. Animal experiments have linked certain antihistamines and antidepressants with enhanced tumor growth in mice. The few epidemiologic studies examining antihistamine use have not indicated an increased risk. In light of suggestive animal data, structural similarities between antihistamines and DPPE, the widespread use of antihistamines, and the lack of epidemiologic investigation into their use and breast cancer risk, it is important to examine this issue. Female cases aged 25-74 years, diagnosed 1996 to 1998, were identified through the Ontario Cancer Registry. Controls were a random, age-matched sample of women. Cases (n=3,133) and controls (n=3,062) completed a mailed questionnaire that included questions about antihistamines used regularly (undefined), type and duration. Age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using logistic regression. Antihistamine users were at no increased risk for breast cancer (OR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.06), and no trend in risk was observed for age starting or duration of use. Antihistamine users were at no increased risk. No confounding or effect modification was identified in multivariate modeling. Our findings do not support the hypothesis that women who use antihistamines are at a greater breast cancer risk than those who do not.
Adult↗