Jimena Coimbra , Montserrat Puntes , Pol Molina , Ignasi Gich , Rosa Antonijoan , Inmaculada Gilaberte , Paula Arranz , Carlos Sánchez
{"title":"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","authors":"Jimena Coimbra , Montserrat Puntes , Pol Molina , Ignasi Gich , Rosa Antonijoan , Inmaculada Gilaberte , Paula Arranz , 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&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":"{\"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 , Montserrat Puntes , Pol Molina , Ignasi Gich , Rosa Antonijoan , Inmaculada Gilaberte , Paula Arranz , 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&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}","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}
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
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.
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.