Rupatadine (UR-12592)

H1-antihistamines for chronic spontaneous urticaria

Background Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterised by the development of crops of red, itchy, raised weals or hives with no identifiable external cause.Objectives To assess the effects of H1-antihistamines for CSU.Search methods We searched the following databases up to June 2014: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE(from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and PsycINFO (from 1806). We searched five trials registers and checked articles for references to relevant randomised controlled trials.Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of H1-antihistamines for CSU. Interventions included single therapy or a combination of H1-antihistamines compared with no treatment (placebo) or another active pharmacological compound at any dose.Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.Our primary outcome measures were proportion of participants with complete suppression of urticaria: 'good or excellent' response,50% or greater improvement in quality of life measures, and adverse events.We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs). Main results We identified 73 studies (9759 participants); 34 studies provided data for 23 comparisons. The duration of the intervention was up to two weeks (short-term) or longer than two weeks and up to three months (intermediate-term).Cetirizine 10mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term led to complete suppression of urticaria by more participants than was seen with placebo (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.91). For this same outcome, comparison of desloratadine versus placebo in the intermediate term (5 mg) (RR 37.00, 95% CI 2.31 to 593.70) and in the short term (20 mg) (RR 15.97, 95% CI 1.04 to 245.04)favoured desloratadine, but no differences were seen between 5 mg and 10 mg for short-term treatment.Levocetirizine 20 mg per day (short-term) was more effective for complete suppression of urticaria compared with placebo (RR 20.87,95% CI 1.37 to 317.60), and at 5 mg was effective in the intermediate term (RR 52.88, 95% CI 3.31 to 843.81) but not in the shortterm, nor was 10 mg effective in the short term.Rupatadine at 10 mg and 20 mg in the intermediate term achieved a 'good or excellent response' compared with placebo (RR 1.35,95% CI 1.03 to 1.77).Loratadine (10 mg) versus placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.79) and loratadine (10 mg) versus cetirizine (10 mg) (RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.43) over short-term and intermediate-term treatment showed no significant difference for 'good or excellent response' or for complete suppression of urticaria, respectively.Loratadine (10 mg) versus desloratadine (5 mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71). For loratadine(10 mg) versus mizolastine (10 mg) (intermediate-term), no statistically significant difference was seen for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42).Loratadine (10mg) versus emedastine (2mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression(RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24); the quality of the evidence was moderate for this comparison.No difference in short-term treatment was noted between loratadine (10mg) and hydroxyzine (25mg) in terms of complete suppression(RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10).When desloratadine (5 to 20 mg) was compared with levocetirizine (5 to 20 mg), levocetirizine appeared to be the more effective (P value < 0.02).In a comparison of fexofenadine versus cetirizine, more participants in the cetirizine group showed complete suppression of urticaria(P value < 0.001).Adverse events leading to withdrawals were not significantly different in the following comparisons: cetirizine versus placebo at 10 mg and 20 mg (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 13.22); desloratadine 5 mg versus placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.10); loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.60); loratadine 10mg versus emedastine 2mg (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.07 to 17.14);cetirizine 10 mg versus hydroxyzine 25 mg (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.45); and hydroxyzine 25 mg versus placebo (RR 3.64, 95%CI 0.77 to 17.23), all intermediate term.No difference was seen between loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg in the proportion of participants with at least 50%improvement in quality of life (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.32 to 32.33).Authors' conclusions Although the results of our review indicate that at standard doses of treatment, several antihistamines are effective when compared with placebo, all results were gathered from a few studies or, in some cases, from single-study estimates. The quality of the evidence was affected by the small number of studies in each comparison and the small sample size for many of the outcomes, prompting us to downgrade the quality of evidence for imprecision (unless stated for each comparison, the quality of the evidence was low).No single H1-antihistamine stands out as most effective. Cetirizine at 10 mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term was found to be effective in completely suppressing urticaria. Evidence is limited for desloratadine given at 5 mg once daily in the intermediate term and at 20 mg in the short term. Levocetirizine at 5 mg in the intermediate but not short term was effective for complete suppression. Levocetirizine 20 mg was effective in the short term, but 10 mg was not. No difference in rates of withdrawal due to adverse events was noted between active and placebo groups. Evidence for improvement in quality of life was insufficient.

Histamine and H1-antihistamines: celebrating a century of progress

In this review we celebrate a century of progress since the initial description of the physiologic and pathologic roles of histamine and 70 years of progress since the introduction of H(1)-antihistamines for clinical use. We discuss histamine and clinically relevant information about the molecular mechanisms of action of H(1)-antihistamines as inverse agonists (not antagonists or blockers) with immunoregulatory effects. Unlike first (old)-generation H(1)-antihistamines introduced from 1942 to the mid-1980s, most of the second (new)-generation H(1)-antihistamines introduced subsequently have been investigated extensively with regard to clinical pharmacology, efficacy, and safety; moreover, they are relatively free from adverse effects and not causally linked with fatalities after overdose. Important advances include improved nasal and ophthalmic H(1)-antihistamines with rapid onset of action (in minutes) for allergic rhinitis and allergic conjunctivitis treatment, respectively, and effective and safe use of high (up to 4-fold) doses of oral second-generation H(1)-antihistamines for chronic urticaria treatment. New H(1)-antihistamines introduced for clinical use include oral formulations (bilastine and rupatadine), and ophthalmic formulations (alcaftadine and bepotastine). Clinical studies of H(3)-antihistamines with enhanced decongestant effects have been conducted in patients with allergic rhinitis. Additional novel compounds being studied include H(4)-antihistamines with anti-inflammatory effects in allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and other diseases. Antihistamines have a storied past and a promising future.

COVID-19, microthromboses, inflammation, and platelet activating factor

Recent articles report elevated markers of coagulation, endothelial injury, and microthromboses in lungs from deceased COVID-19 patients. However, there has been no discussion of what may induce intravascular coagulation. Platelets are critical in the formation of thrombi and their most potent trigger is platelet activating factor (PAF), first characterized by Demopoulos and colleagues in 1979. PAF is produced by cells involved in host defense and its biological actions bear similarities with COVID-19 disease manifestations. PAF can also stimulate perivascular mast cell activation, leading to inflammation implicated in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Mast cells are plentiful in the lungs and are a rich source of PAF and of inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-1β and IL-6, which may contribute to COVID-19 and especially SARS. The histamine-1 receptor antagonist rupatadine was developed to have anti-PAF activity, and also inhibits activation of human mast cells in response to PAF. Rupatadine could be repurposed for COVID-19 prophylaxis alone or together with other PAF-inhibitors of natural origin such as the flavonoids quercetin and luteolin, which have antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and anti-PAF actions.

Efficacy and Safety of Up-dosing Antihistamines in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background and objectives: According to current guidelines, oral antihistamines are the first-line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Up-dosing antihistamines to 4-fold the licensed dose is recommended if control is not achieved. Such indications are based mainly on expert opinion. Objectives: To critically review and analyze clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of higher-than-licensed dosage of second-generation oral antihistamines in the treatment of CSU.
Material and methods: A systematic literature review was performed following a sensitive search strategy. All articles published in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between 1961 and October 2018 were examined. Publications with CSU patients prescribed secondgeneration antihistamines in monotherapy compared with placebo, licensed dosages, and/or higher dosages were included. Articles were evaluated by peer reviewers. Quality was evaluated using the Jadad and Oxford scores.
Results: We identified 337 articles, of which 14 were included in the final evaluation (fexofenadine, 6; cetirizine, 2; levocetirizine and desloratadine, 1; levocetirizine, 1; rupatadine, 2; ebastine, 1; and bilastine, 1). Only 5 studies were placebo-controlled. The number of patients included ranged from 20 to 439. The observation lapse was ≿6 weeks. High fexofenadine doses produced a significant dosedependent response and controlled urticaria in most patients. Cetirizine, levocetirizine, rupatadine, and bilastine were more effective in up-dosing. The most frequent adverse events were headache and drowsiness.
Conclusion: The low quality and heterogeneity of the articles reviewed made it impossible to reach robust conclusions and reveal the need for large-scale randomized clinical trials.

Assessment of the effects of antihistamine drugs on mood, sleep quality, sleepiness, and dream anxiety

Objective: There are limited comparative studies on classic and new-generation antihistamines that affect sleep quality and mood. The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the effects of classic and new-generation antihistamines on sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, dream anxiety, and mood.
Methods: Ninety-two patients with chronic pruritus completed study in the dermatology outpatient clinic. Treatments with regular recommended therapeutic doses were administered. The effects of antihistaminic drugs on mood, daytime sleepiness, dream anxiety, and sleep quality were assessed on the first day and 1 month after.
Results: Outpatients who received cetirizine and hydroxyzine treatments reported higher scores on the depression, anxiety, and fatigue sub-scales than those who received desloratadine, levocetirizine, and rupatadine. Pheniramine and rupatadine were found to be associated with daytime sleepiness and better sleep quality. UKU side effects scale scores were significantly elevated among outpatients receiving pheniramine. Classic antihistamines increased daytime sleepiness and decreased the sleep quality scores. New-generation antihistamines reduced sleep latency and dream anxiety, and increased daytime sleepiness and sleep quality.
Conclusion: Both antihistamines, significantly increased daytime sleepiness and nocturnal sleep quality. Daytime sleepiness was significantly predicted by rupadatine and pheniramine treatment. Cetirizine and hydroxyzine, seem to have negative influences on mood states. Given the extensive use of antihistamines in clinical settings, these results should be more elaborately examined in further studies.