Literature DB >> 10209701

The current cardiac safety situation with antihistamines.

Y G Yap1, A J Camm.   

Abstract

Antihistamines (H1-receptor antagonists) are amongst the most frequently prescribed drugs worldwide for the treatment of allergic conditions. The clinical interest of classical 'first generation' antihistamines is currently rather limited by their anticholinergic and sedative properties. The second generation of antihistamines, so-called non-sedating antihistamines, are free of these side-effects. However, since the 1990s, there have been reports that certain non-sedating antihistamines, mainly terfenadine and astemizole, might be associated with the risk of rare but severe dysrhythmias. These drugs prolong the monophasic action potential and surface electrocardiographic QT interval and may lead to the development of early after-depolarization and possibly torsades de pointes through an inhibition of potassium channel repolarization. Concomitant administration with drugs that inhibit the hepatic cytochrome P-450 (imidazole antifungals, macrolide antibiotics) or those that prolong the QT interval by the same or other mechanism (e.g. antiarrhythmics, antipsychotics, tricyclic antidepressants) increases their effect on the cardiac repolarization. The cardiac safety profile of newer non-sedating antihistamines requires confirmation. Drugs with low or no potential to block the K + rectification channel (e.g. IKr channels) are likely to possess cardiac safety advantages. Other drug-related factors such as the physico-chemical properties of the antihistamines and its metabolic profile may also contribute to the cardiac response. Mizolastine is a new non-sedating antihistamine with antiallergic properties. It has a good bioavailability and a metabolism via the cytochrome P-450 oxidation accounting for only 35% of its hepatic clearance. In addition, mizolastine displays low lipophilicity and consequently low cardiac tissue fixation. In clinical studies, mizolastine has not shown any dose-related increase in QT intervals. Its clinical use has not been associated with ventricular dysrhythmias. Thus, although the post-marketing experience with mizolastine is still limited, mizolastine offers a safe alternative for the therapeutic management of allergic rhinitis and urticaria. However, more data are still needed on the cardiac safety of this and other non-sedating antihistamines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10209701

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Exp Allergy        ISSN: 0954-7894            Impact factor:   5.018


  5 in total

1.  Lack of clinically relevant interaction between desloratadine and erythromycin.

Authors:  Christopher Banfield; Thomas Hunt; Larisa Reyderman; Paul Statkevich; Desmond Padhi; Melton Affrime
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 6.447

2.  Treatment of allergic rhinitis in infants and children: efficacy and safety of second-generation antihistamines and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast.

Authors:  Hanna Phan; Matthew L Moeller; Milap C Nahata
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 9.546

3.  Analysis of Relationship between Levofloxacin and Corrected QT Prolongation Using a Clinical Data Warehouse.

Authors:  Man Young Park; Eun Yeob Kim; Young Ho Lee; Woojae Kim; Ku Sang Kim; Seung Soo Sheen; Hong Seok Lim; Rae Woong Park
Journal:  Healthc Inform Res       Date:  2011-03-31

4.  The role and choice criteria of antihistamines in allergy management - expert opinion.

Authors:  Piotr Kuna; Dariusz Jurkiewicz; Magdalena M Czarnecka-Operacz; Rafał Pawliczak; Jarosław Woroń; Marcin Moniuszko; Andrzej Emeryk
Journal:  Postepy Dermatol Alergol       Date:  2016-12-02       Impact factor: 1.837

Review 5.  Pharmacological Management of Allergic Rhinitis in the Elderly.

Authors:  Andrzej Bozek
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.923

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.