ATR-FTIR spectroscopy and µ-EDXRF spectrometry monitoring of enamel erosion caused by medicaments used in the treatment of respiratory diseases.

Medicaments essential for alleviation of diseases may sometime adversely affect dental health by eroding the enamel, owing to their acidic nature. It is therefore highly desirable to be able to detect these effects quickly and reliably. In this study, we evaluated the erosive capacity of four most commonly prescribed respiratory disease syrup medicaments on enamel using micro-energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (µ-EDXRF) and attenuated total reflection Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR). Fifty-five enamel fragments obtained from 30 bovine teeth were treated with artificial saliva (S), acebrofilin hydrochloride (AC), ambroxol hydrochloride (AM), bromhexine hydrochloride (BR), and salbutamol sulfate (SS); by immersing in 3 mL of respective solutions for 1 min, three times a day at intervals of 1 hr, for 5 days. µ-EDXRF analysis of enamel surface did not reveal significant erosion caused by the medications. However, ATR-FTIR showed a detectable shift in the phosphate (PO4 ) antisymmetric stretching mode (ν3 ) at ∼985 cm-1 for AM, BR, and SS, indicating erosion. Multivariate statistical analysis showed that AC, AM, SS, and BR could be classified with 70%, 80%, 100%, and 100% efficiency from S (control), further highlighting the ability of ATR-FTIR to identify degree of erosion. This suggests ATR-FTIR may be used to rapidly and nondestructively investigate erosive effects of medicaments.

Brugada syndrome after using cold medicine: is there any relation?

Brugada syndrome (BrS) is associated with increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden death. Some drugs can trigger the electrocardiographic and arrhythmic manifestations of this syndrome. Cold medicines for symptom relief are sold without prescription in Brazil and most contain antihistamines and adrenergic agonists. We report a case of BrS probably triggered by the use of such medication.

Cross-sectional microhardness of bovine enamel subjected to three paediatric liquid oral medicines: an in vitro study.

AIM: This study aimed to investigate the in vitro effects of three paediatric liquid oral medicines on bovine dental enamel subsurfaces under pH cycling conditions. METHODS: Bovine enamel blocks were evaluated for surface hardness at baseline for sample selection. 52 intact bovine enamel blocks (16mm(2)) were randomly divided into four groups (n=13) according to the immersion treatments: G1: antibiotic (Klaricid®), G2: antihistamine (Claritin®), G3: antihistamine (Dimetapp®) and G4: control (de-ionised water). The blocks were submitted to pH cycling treatments twice a day for 12 days. The medicines were evaluated for pH, viscosity, and concentration of calcium, phosphate and fluoride. After the treatment period, cross-sectional microhardness (CSMH) measurements of the enamel blocks were taken and the data, expressed in Knoop hardness number (kg/mm(2)) was used to calculate the ΔS. STATISTICS: ANOVA followed by the Tukey test were used for statistical analyses (p<0.05). RESULTS: The antibiotic Klaricid® showed the highest concentration of fluoride, calcium and phosphate. Considering pH and viscosity, the following pattern was observed according to the treatment group: G4>G1>G2>G3 and G1>G2>G3>G4 respectively. Regarding the demineralisation pattern, the following results were observed: G4>G3>G2>G1. Compared to the control, the antibiotic and both the antihistamines provoked less demineralisation of the enamel blocks (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic G1 (Klaricid®) presented an in vitro protective effect against acid attacks probably due to its mineral content and viscosity.

First-generation H1 antihistamines found in pilot fatalities of civil aviation accidents, 1990-2005.

INTRODUCTION: First-generation H1-receptor antagonists are popularly used for alleviating allergy and cold symptoms, but these antihistaminics cause drowsiness and sedation. Such side effects could impair performance and, thus, could be the cause or a factor in accidents. Therefore, the prevalence of these antagonists was evaluated in aviation accident pilot fatalities. METHODS: The Civil Aerospace Medical Institute's (CAMI's) Toxicology Database was examined for the presence of the first-generation antihistamines in pilot fatalities of civil aircraft accidents that occurred during a 16-yr (1990-2005) period. RESULTS: Of 5383 fatal aviation accidents from which CAMI received specimens, there were 338 accidents wherein pilot fatalities (cases) were found to contain brompheniramine, chlorpheniramine, diphenhydramine, doxylamine, pheniramine, phenyltoloxamine, promethazine, and triprolidine. Of the 338 accidents, 304 were general aviation accidents, and 175 of the 338 pilots held private pilot airman certificates. Antihistamines were detected alone in 103 fatalities (1 antihistamine in 94 and 2 antihistamines in 9), while other drug(s) and/or ethanol were also present in an additional 235 fatalities. The antihistamines were found in approximately 4 and 11% of the fatalities/accidents in 1990 and in 2004, respectively. The use of antihistamine(s) was determined by the National Transportation Safety Board to be the cause of 13 and a factor in 50 of the 338 accidents. CONCLUSIONS: There was an overall increasing trend in the use of antihistamines by aviators during the 16-yr span. Blood levels of the antihistaminics were in the sub-therapeutic to toxic range. Findings from this study will be useful in investigating future accidents involving antihistamines.

Nimesulide-induced fixed drug eruption.

BACKGROUND: Nimesulide is a cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitor with a high degree of selectivity to COX-2. It is a widely used and well tolerated nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug that also has analgesic and antipyretic properties. The most frequently reported side effects concern the gastrointestinal tract. Pruritus and skin rash are the most common cutaneous adverse reactions. There are only eight cases of fixed drug eruptions due to nimesulide, described in the literature. CASE REPORT: The authors report a case of a patient with a history of antihistamine hypersensitivity who developed a bullous form of pigmented fixed drug eruption after nimesulide ingestion. Patch tests performed on residual skin lesion were positive to nimesulide, confirming that this was the culprit drug. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed drug eruptions are common cutaneous drug reactions, often misdiagnosed. A detailed anamnesis and physical examination are the key to suspect this condition.

Coccygeal fracture, constipation, convulsion, and confusion: a case report of malignant hypertension in a child.

Malignant hypertension is an unusual but well described cause of seizures in pediatrics. It is a medical emergency that must be recognized and emergently treated to prevent morbidity and mortality. In contrast to adults, hypertension in children is usually secondary to an underlying disease process. We present a complex case of hypertensive encephalopathy with seizures as the initial presentation of a pelvic mass, describe the initial work-up and stabilization and present an overview of the literature. Review of the medical literature described only one similar presentation (1). Interestingly, acute symptoms in this patient may have been precipitated by use of an over-the-counter medication.

Brompheniramine maleate: a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison with terfenadine for symptoms of allergic rhinitis.

This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel study comparing the effectiveness, at recommended doses, of an extended-release formulation of brompheniramine maleate and terfenadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Subjects with symptoms of seasonal and/or perennial allergic rhinitis received brompheniramine 12 mg (n = 106), 8 mg (n = 105), terfenadine 60 mg (n = 106), or placebo (n = 53) twice daily for 14 days. On treatment days 3, 7, and 14, symptom severity ratings (i.e., rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal congestion, itchy nose, eyes or throat, excessive tearing, postnasal drip) were completed by the physician; subjects and physicians each completed a global efficacy evaluation. Brompheniramine 12 mg and 8 mg and terfenadine were more effective than placebo (p < or = 0.05) on the physicians' global: brompheniramine 12 mg was more effective than terfenadine (p < or = 0.05) on days 7 and 14 and brompheniramine 8 mg on day 3. On the subjects' global evaluation, brompheniramine 12 mg and 8 mg and terfenadine were more effective than placebo (p < or = 0.05); brompheniramine 12 mg was more effective than terfenadine (p < or = 0.05) on days 7 and 14 and brompheniramine 8 mg on day 3. In general, brompheniramine 8 mg was comparable to terfenadine. On days 3 and 7, the total symptom and total nasal symptom severity scores for subjects receiving brompheniramine 12 mg were significantly more improved than for placebo (p < 0.05); terfenadine was not different from placebo; brompheniramine 12 mg was significantly better than terfenadine on day 7 (p < 0.05) for reducing total symptom severity and on days 3, 7, and 14 for reducing total nasal symptom severity. Adverse experiences were reported by 155 (41.9%) of the 370 subjects enrolled in the study. The overall rate of adverse experiences in the brompheniramine 12 mg treatment group (57.5%) was significantly greater (p < 0.05) than for brompheniramine 8 mg (38.1%), terfenadine (31.1%), and placebo (39.6%). In conclusion, an extended-release formulation of brompheniramine 12 mg or 8 mg bid alleviates allergic rhinitis symptoms and brompheniramine 12 mg provides significantly better relief of these symptoms than terfenadine 60 mg bid.

Brompheniramine, loratadine, and placebo in allergic rhinitis: a placebo-controlled comparative clinical trial.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of an extended-release formulation of a classical antihistamine, brompheniramine, and a second-generation compound, loratadine, in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Subjects with symptoms of allergic rhinitis received brompheniramine 12 mg twice daily (n = 112), loratadine 10 mg once daily (n = 112), or placebo twice daily (n = 114) for 7 days. Study medications were blinded using a double-dummy technique. Subjects completed an overall evaluation of symptom relief on a daily basis and returned on treatment days 3 and 7, at which times the investigator assessed symptom severity. The investigator and subject each completed a global efficacy evaluation, and subjects were interviewed regarding adverse experiences. The primary efficacy variable was the physicians' global efficacy evaluation on day 3. Symptoms also were analyzed as summed severity scores for all symptoms and for the nasal symptom cluster of rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal blockage. At all post-baseline evaluations (days 3, 7, and averaged over the two days), brompheniramine was significantly better than loratadine and placebo for both sets of summed symptom scores and all three global assessments. Loratadine was significantly better than placebo for physician ratings of total symptom severity averaged over the two days and for the physician and subject ratings of the nasal cluster on day 3. Central nervous system-related symptoms were the most frequently reported adverse experiences; somnolence was reported most frequently by patients taking brompheniramine, and its occurrence was less frequent as treatment continued. A nonprescription, extended-release formulation of brompheniramine 12 mg twice daily provided significantly better relief of symptomatic allergic rhinitis than loratadine 10 mg once daily.

Efficacy of brompheniramine maleate for the treatment of rhinovirus colds.

We tested the efficacy of brompheniramine maleate in a large randomized, controlled trial of volunteers with experimental rhinovirus colds. Brompheniramine (12 mg) or placebo was administered at 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. for < or = 4 days after the onset of symptoms (24, 36, or 48 hours after virus challenge). During the first 3 days of treatment (the first 4 days after virus challenge), nasal secretion weights were lower for infected evaluable subjects receiving brompheniramine (n = 113) than for controls (day 1: 4.3 g vs. 6.8 g; day 2: 4.8 g vs. 7.7 g; and day 3: 3.3 g vs. 5.3 g) (P < or = .03), as were rhinorrhea scores (day 1: 0.6 vs. 0.8; day 2: 0.5 vs. 0.8; and day 3: 0.3 vs. 0.5) (P < .03), sneeze counts (day 1: 1.8 vs. 3.6; day 2: 2.1 vs. 5.1; and day 3: 1.3 vs. 3.3) (P < or = .001), and sneeze severity scores (day 1: 0.3 vs. 0.6; day 2: 0.25 vs. 0.7; and day 3: 0.2 vs. 0.4) (P < .001) (n = 112). Cough counts were lower after day 1 of treatment for the brompheniramine group than for controls (4.7 vs. 7.9) (P = .05) (day 2 after virus challenge), and other symptoms were modestly reduced or were unaffected in the brompheniramine group. Total symptom scores were also lower for the brompheniramine group than for controls on treatment days 1 (4.8 vs. 6.0) (P = .03) and 2 (4.1 vs. 5.6) (days 2 and 3 after virus challenge) (P = .003). Treatment with brompheniramine was associated with the adverse effects of somnolence (n = 3) and confusion (n = 1). Brompheniramine was efficacious treatment for the sneezing, rhinorrhea, and cough associated with rhinovirus colds.

The eternal triangle: benefit, risk, and cost of therapeutic agents.

Some people can undoubtedly tolerate a first-generation H1-receptor antagonist without sedation or other CNS adverse effects, but others cannot. There is no rapid, reliable way of differentiating these two populations. A history of presence or absence of subjective somnolence from one H1-receptor antagonist is not necessarily reliable and has no consistently useful predictive value for subsequent experience with other H1-receptor antagonists. As H1-receptor antagonists are used primarily to treat non-life-threatening disorders, safety should be a prime consideration in selecting one for use, and is surely as important a concern as efficacy and low cost. If your pilot is not permitted to take these medications before going to work, why should your taxi driver, your child's school bus driver, your dentist, your nurse, or your office assistant, to name a few examples, be allowed to do so? When the broad issue of safety is considered, first-generation H1-receptor antagonists may not be as cost-effective as they appear to be. The inherent benefit of any medication is inextricably linked with the inherent risk. It is incumbent on those promulgating the use of the older H1-receptor antagonists to define these benefits and risk further. Lowering the cost of the second-generation, relatively nonsedating H1-receptor antagonists so they are no longer the most expensive medications used in treatment of allergic rhinitis would also help solve the problem of the eternal triangle as it pertains to therapeutic use of H1-receptor antagonists.

Brompheniramine, terfenadine, and placebo in allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation antihistamines, reported to lack central nervous system depressant activity, may be considered to have a clinical advantage over traditional antihistamines. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, at recommended doses, of an extended-release formulation of nonprescription brompheniramine and prescription terfenadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel study. Subjects with symptoms of allergic rhinitis received brompheniramine 12 mg (n = 96), terfenadine 60 mg (n = 96), or placebo (n = 95) twice daily for 14 days. Subjects returned on treatment days 3, 7, and 14; at which times, the investigator assessed symptom severity (i.e., rhinorrhea; sneezing; nasal blockage; pruritus of the eyes, nose, or pharynx; watery eyes; and postnasal drip). The investigator and the subject each completed a global efficacy evaluation, and subjects were interviewed regarding the occurrence of adverse experiences. Symptoms were analyzed as summed severity scores for (1) all symptoms and (2) for the symptom cluster of rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal blockage. RESULTS: At all post-baseline evaluations (days 3, 7, and 14), brompheniramine was significantly better (P < or = .05) than terfenadine and placebo for both sets of summed symptom scores and for both global assessments. Terfenadine was significantly better (P < or = .05) than placebo on the physician's global at day 14. Central nervous system-related complaints were the most frequently reported adverse experiences among all three groups; somnolence was reported most frequently by brompheniramine-treated subjects. CONCLUSION: A nonprescription, extended-release formulation of brompheniramine, 12 mg bid, provided significantly better relief of symptomatic allergic rhinitis than terfenadine, 60 mg bid.

Astemizole in combination with pseudoephedrine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The efficacy and side effects of once-daily astemizole-D, a combination of 10 mg astemizole and 240 mg pseudoephedrine, were compared with those of twice-daily brompheniramine-D, a combination of 12 mg brompheniramine and 50 mg phenylpropanolamine (Lunerin), in 64 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis caused by birch pollen. Efficacy was monitored by patient's diary scores, investigator assessments of nasal and eye symptoms and need of rescue medication during the 4-week study period. Both astemizole-D and brompheniramine-D reduced nasal and eye symptoms of allergy. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups regarding obstruction, but brompheniramine-D alleviated symptoms of rhinorrhoea and itchy eyes significantly more than astemizole-D. On the other hand, the patients in the brompheniramine-D group reported dry mouth, tiredness and drowsiness more often than those in the astemizole-D group. The results indicate that the two drugs are effective in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, but astemizole-D is better tolerated than brompheniramine-D.

Effect of food on bioavailability of pseudoephedrine and brompheniramine administered from a gastrointestinal therapeutic system.

The purpose of this study was to determine how a high-fat meal affects the delivery and absorption of pseudoephedrine and brompheniramine maleate when delivered from a gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS). This study was a randomized, complete crossover trial with 12 healthy male volunteers who were given single doses of the 24-h GITS under fed and fasted conditions. Pharmacokinetic parameters for both drugs were comparable between fed and fasted treatments, except for a shorter time to maximum concentration of pseudoephedrine for fed subjects (p = 0.002). Bioavailability of pseudoephedrine was 91% for fed relative to fasted treatment; for brompheniramine it was 89%. These results indicate that codelivery of the two drugs from the GITS is reliable and prolonged, and that the resulting absorption of pseudoephedrine and brompheniramine is minimally affected by food.

First-trimester drug use and congenital disorders.

The authors determined the prevalence of certain major congenital disorders among live-born infants of 6509 mothers in a prepaid health plan for the 30-month period of January 1, 1980 through June 30, 1982 who used a wide variety of drugs during the first trimester of pregnancy. The results were similar to those obtained in this population in a prior 30-month study. No strong associations between any of the commonly used drugs and the congenital disorders studied were present.

Adverse effects of brompheniramine on pulmonary function in a subset of asthmatic children.

The role of antihistamines in the therapy of bronchial asthma has remained controversial. Early studies suggested a possible aggravation of symptoms but more recent studies implied their safety. Ten asthmatic children who reported a feeling of chest tightness and subsequent wheezing after taking a preparation containing brompheniramine maleate were studied in addition to 10 control asthmatic children who reported no such adverse effect. All children were only intermittently symptomatic and did not require constant bronchodilator therapy. They were well at the time of the study. Challenges were performed with the antihistamine alone (4 mg of brompheniramine maleate), a decongestant-antihistamine combination (4 mg of brompheniramine maleate, 5 mg of phenylephrine HCl, 5 mg of phenylpropanolamine HCl), and a placebo. Results indicated a statistically significant decrease in pulmonary function in the study children when challenged with the antihistamine and decongestant-antihistamine preparation but not when challenged with the placebo. The 10 control asthmatic children did not exhibit this phenomenon and premedication with theophylline prevented the decrease in pulmonary function in the study group. Therefore a subset of asthmatic children does appear to exist in whom the use of an antihistamine may be harmful.

A double-blind comparison of zimelidine and desipramine in endogenous depression.

Zimelidine, a specific 5HT uptake inhibitor (final dose 225 mg), and desipramine, mainly a noradrenaline uptake inhibitor (final dose 150 mg), were given in random order to 24 in- and out-patients fulfilling the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Major Depressive Disorder, definite or probable endogenous type, for a 3-week treatment period. Nonresponders were crossed over to the other drug for another 3 weeks. There was a nonsignificant trend towards more overall improvement on desipramine. Some patients in both groups showed very little change during 3 weeks, indicating a bimodal distribution of response to either drug. Several nonresponders improved markedly upon direct crossing over to the other drug. There were few and mild side effects on both drugs, with no significant difference between them. No significant correlation was found between improvement and plasma concentrations of zimelidine, norzimelidine, or desipramine, whereas a significant positive correlation was found between improvement and platelet serotonin uptake inhibition (measured in fresh platelets incubated in diluted plasma from the patients) in zimelidine-treated patients.