Comparative inhibition by oral bilastine, parenteral dexchlorpheniramine, and a new bilastine parenteral (i.v. and i.m.) formulation of histamine-induced wheal and flare response: A randomised phase I trial

IF 4.3 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Jimena Coimbra , Montserrat Puntes , Pol Molina , Ignasi Gich , Rosa Antonijoan , Inmaculada Gilaberte , Paula Arranz , Carlos Sánchez
{"title":"Comparative inhibition by oral bilastine, parenteral dexchlorpheniramine, and a new bilastine parenteral (i.v. and i.m.) formulation of histamine-induced wheal and flare response: A randomised phase I trial","authors":"Jimena Coimbra ,&nbsp;Montserrat Puntes ,&nbsp;Pol Molina ,&nbsp;Ignasi Gich ,&nbsp;Rosa Antonijoan ,&nbsp;Inmaculada Gilaberte ,&nbsp;Paula Arranz ,&nbsp;Carlos Sánchez","doi":"10.1016/j.ejps.2024.106900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Bilastine is a well-known non-sedating second-generation antihistamine authorised worldwide for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (seasonal and perennial) and urticaria with proven efficacy and good safety and tolerability profile. When the oral route is not suitable or a rapid onset of action is preferred, parenteral formulations represent an effective treatment option. However, the parenteral formulations currently available are sedating antihistamines. The objective of this research was to compare the peripheral anti-H<sub>1</sub> activity of different bilastine formulations (i.v., i.m. and oral) and dexchlorpheniramine among them also versus placebo.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a single-dose, randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase I clinical study performed on 25 adult healthy volunteers that compared the peripheral antihistaminic activity of a single dose of bilastine 12 mg i.v., bilastine 12 mg i.m., bilastine 20 mg oral tablets and dexchlorpheniramine 5 mg i.m. among them and versus placebo by inhibiting the histamine-induced wheal and flare (W&amp;F) response. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability were also evaluated.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>All bilastine formulations showed a rapid onset of action (15 min for parenteral and 30 min for the oral formulation), and the maximum effect in both wheal (i.v. 74.44 %; i.m.:74.29 %; oral 70,27 %) and flare area reduction (i.v. and i.m. 80.63 %; oral 77.67 %), was significantly larger compared to dexchlorpheniramine i.m. (25.85 % for wheal and 28.65 % for flare) and placebo (1.35 % for wheal and 4.02 % for flare). A more pronounced reduction in itching score was reached for bilastine oral, followed by i.m. and i.v. formulations. No serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported during the study, and 8 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 5 subjects, all resolved without sequelae. For psychomotor assessments, dexchlorpheniramine i.m. showed a fast onset of drowsiness, as well as decreased attention and coordination when compared to all bilastine formulations and placebo.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>All bilastine formulations showed a peripheral H<sub>1</sub>-blocking effect inducing a significantly greater inhibition of the wheal and flare response as compared to dexchlorpheniramine i.m. or placebo and provided a greater reduction of the itching sensation score. This study reconfirmed that bilastine has no sedative effect, even in a parenteral formulation. These results suggest that new bilastine parenteral formulation (i.v. or i.m.) may represent a suitable alternative for patients requiring immediate treatment of histamine-mediated type I hypersensitivity reactions, such as acute urticaria, or in those cases where oral administration is not possible.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12018,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences","volume":"203 ","pages":"Article 106900"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928098724002124/pdfft?md5=4a1bba8514145f91f031b71f88a511d3&pid=1-s2.0-S0928098724002124-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928098724002124","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Bilastine is a well-known non-sedating second-generation antihistamine authorised worldwide for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (seasonal and perennial) and urticaria with proven efficacy and good safety and tolerability profile. When the oral route is not suitable or a rapid onset of action is preferred, parenteral formulations represent an effective treatment option. However, the parenteral formulations currently available are sedating antihistamines. The objective of this research was to compare the peripheral anti-H1 activity of different bilastine formulations (i.v., i.m. and oral) and dexchlorpheniramine among them also versus placebo.

Methods

This was a single-dose, randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase I clinical study performed on 25 adult healthy volunteers that compared the peripheral antihistaminic activity of a single dose of bilastine 12 mg i.v., bilastine 12 mg i.m., bilastine 20 mg oral tablets and dexchlorpheniramine 5 mg i.m. among them and versus placebo by inhibiting the histamine-induced wheal and flare (W&F) response. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability were also evaluated.

Results

All bilastine formulations showed a rapid onset of action (15 min for parenteral and 30 min for the oral formulation), and the maximum effect in both wheal (i.v. 74.44 %; i.m.:74.29 %; oral 70,27 %) and flare area reduction (i.v. and i.m. 80.63 %; oral 77.67 %), was significantly larger compared to dexchlorpheniramine i.m. (25.85 % for wheal and 28.65 % for flare) and placebo (1.35 % for wheal and 4.02 % for flare). A more pronounced reduction in itching score was reached for bilastine oral, followed by i.m. and i.v. formulations. No serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported during the study, and 8 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 5 subjects, all resolved without sequelae. For psychomotor assessments, dexchlorpheniramine i.m. showed a fast onset of drowsiness, as well as decreased attention and coordination when compared to all bilastine formulations and placebo.

Conclusions

All bilastine formulations showed a peripheral H1-blocking effect inducing a significantly greater inhibition of the wheal and flare response as compared to dexchlorpheniramine i.m. or placebo and provided a greater reduction of the itching sensation score. This study reconfirmed that bilastine has no sedative effect, even in a parenteral formulation. These results suggest that new bilastine parenteral formulation (i.v. or i.m.) may represent a suitable alternative for patients requiring immediate treatment of histamine-mediated type I hypersensitivity reactions, such as acute urticaria, or in those cases where oral administration is not possible.

Abstract Image

比较口服比拉斯汀、肠道外用右氯苯那敏和一种新型比拉斯汀肠道外用制剂(静脉注射和口服)对组胺引起的喘息和皮疹反应的抑制作用:随机I期试验
背景比拉斯汀是一种著名的非镇静性第二代抗组胺药,已在全球范围内获得授权,用于过敏性鼻结膜炎(季节性和常年性)和荨麻疹的对症治疗,疗效确切,安全性和耐受性良好。当不适合口服或希望快速起效时,肠外制剂是一种有效的治疗选择。然而,目前市面上的肠外制剂都是镇静抗组胺药。本研究的目的是比较不同的比拉斯汀制剂(静脉注射、口服和口服)和右氯苯那敏的外周抗 H1 活性,以及它们与安慰剂的比较、比拉斯汀 12 毫克静注、比拉斯汀 12 毫克口服、比拉斯汀 20 毫克口服片剂和右氯苯那敏 5 毫克静注的外周抗组胺活性。结果所有比拉斯汀制剂都显示出快速起效(肠外制剂 15 分钟,口服制剂 30 分钟),对荨麻疹的最大疗效(静脉注射:74.44 %;口服:74.29 %;静脉注射:74.44 %;口服:74.29 %)。与右氯苯那敏i.m.(对喘息的作用为 25.85%,对发炎的作用为 28.65%)和安慰剂(对喘息的作用为 1.35%,对发炎的作用为 4.02%)相比,右氯苯那敏i.m.(对喘息的作用为 25.85%,对发炎的作用为 28.65%)和安慰剂(对喘息的作用为 1.35%,对发炎的作用为 4.02%)在减少发炎面积(i.v. and i.m. 80.63%;in.比拉斯汀口服制剂的瘙痒评分下降更明显,其次是口服和静脉注射制剂。研究期间未报告严重不良事件(SAE),5名受试者报告了8例治疗突发不良事件(TEAE),均已缓解,未留下后遗症。结论与右氯苯那敏i.m.或安慰剂相比,所有比拉斯汀制剂都具有外周H1阻断作用,能显著增强对荨麻疹和发疹反应的抑制,并能更大程度地降低瘙痒感评分。这项研究再次证实,即使是肠外制剂,比拉斯汀也没有镇静作用。这些结果表明,对于需要立即治疗组胺介导的 I 型超敏反应(如急性荨麻疹)的患者或无法口服的病例,新的比拉斯汀肠外制剂(静脉注射或静注)可能是一种合适的替代药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
2.20%
发文量
248
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: The journal publishes research articles, review articles and scientific commentaries on all aspects of the pharmaceutical sciences with emphasis on conceptual novelty and scientific quality. The Editors welcome articles in this multidisciplinary field, with a focus on topics relevant for drug discovery and development. More specifically, the Journal publishes reports on medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, drug absorption and metabolism, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis, drug delivery (including gene delivery), drug targeting, pharmaceutical technology, pharmaceutical biotechnology and clinical drug evaluation. The journal will typically not give priority to manuscripts focusing primarily on organic synthesis, natural products, adaptation of analytical approaches, or discussions pertaining to drug policy making. Scientific commentaries and review articles are generally by invitation only or by consent of the Editors. Proceedings of scientific meetings may be published as special issues or supplements to the Journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信