Rupatadine is effective in the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria in children aged 2-11 years.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations in current guidelines for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in infants and children are mostly based on extrapolation of data obtained in adults. This study reports the efficacy and safety of rupatadine, a modern H1 and PAF antagonist recently authorized in Europe for children with allergic rhinitis and CSU. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre, placebo-controlled compared study to desloratadine was carried out in children aged 2-11 years with CSU, with or without angio-oedema. Patients received either rupatadine (1 mg/ml), or desloratadine (0.5 mg/ml) or placebo once daily over 6 weeks. A modified 7-day cumulative Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) was employed as the primary end-point. RESULTS: The absolute change of UAS7 at 42 days showed statistically significant differences between active treatments vs. placebo (-5.5 ± 7.5 placebo, -11.8 ± 8.7 rupatadine and -10.6 ± 9.6 desloratadine; p < 0.001) and without differences between antihistamines compounds. There was a 55.8% decrease for rupatadine followed by desloratadine (-48.4%) and placebo (-30.3%). Rupatadine but not desloratadine was statistically superior to placebo in reduction of pruritus (-57%). Active treatments also showed a statistically better improvement in children's quality of life compared to placebo. Adverse events were uncommon and non-serious in both active groups. CONCLUSION: Rupatadine is effective and well tolerated in the relief of urticaria symptoms, improving quality of life over 6 weeks in children with CSU. This is the first study using a modified UAS to assess severity and efficacy outcome in CSU in children.

Rupatadine 20 mg and 40 mg are Effective in Reducing the Symptoms of Chronic Cold Urticaria.

Chronic cold urticaria (ColdU) is a rare disease characterized by mast cell-mediated wheals and angioedema following cold exposure. Second-generation H1-antihistamines, such as rupatadine, are the recommended first-line therapy. As of yet, the effects of rupatadine up-dosing on development of ColdU symptom have only been partially characterized. Two-centre, randomized, double-blind, 3-way crossover, placebo-controlled study in patients with a confirmed ColdU was designed to assess the effects of up-dosing of rupatadine. A total of 23 patients were randomized to receive placebo, rupatadine 20 mg/day, and rupatadine 40 mg/day for 1 week. The primary outcome was change in critical temperature thresholds and critical stimulation time thresholds after treatment. Secondary endpoints included assessment of safety and tolerability of rupatadine. Both 20 and 40 mg rupatadine were highly effective in reducing critical temperature thresholds (p < 0.001) and critical stimulation time thresholds (p < 0.001). In conclusion, rupatadine 20 and 40 mg significantly reduced the development of chronic cold urticaria symptom without an increase in adverse effects.

How to handle off-label prescriptions of rupatadine, a second-generation antihistamine and PAF antagonist: a review.

The off-label use of second-generation antihistamines, used outside of the formal indications authorized by regulatory authorities, in different age groups, doses or in special populations, is very common for many allergic, autoimmune and dermatological diseases. The off-label use of rupatadine (a second-generation antihistamine with PAF antagonist activity) in these conditions is reviewed here, including in combination with immunotherapy in the treatment of food allergy or allergic rhinitis, at high doses in chronic urticaria, and with prescriptions of less common but challenging conditions such as skin pruritus or mast cell activation disorders like mastocytosis. Rupatadine use is reviewed herein to confirm if its off-label management is supported by well-designed clinical trials or by published real-world cases. This review will contribute to increasing compliance and achieving better results in clinical practice. Off-label use of rupatadine should be left to the discretion of the prescribing healthcare professional after careful clinical evaluation.

Rupatadine oral solution in children with persistent allergic rhinitis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common chronic diseases in childhood. No large, multicentre clinical trials in children with persistent allergic rhinitis (PER) have previously been performed. Rupatadine, a newer second-generation antihistamine, effective and safe in adults, is a promising treatment for children with AR. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new rupatadine oral solution in children aged 6-11 yr with PER. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was carried out worldwide. Patients between 6 and 11 yr with a diagnosis of PER according to ARIA criteria were randomized to receive either rupatadine oral solution (1 mg/ml) or placebo over 6 wk. The primary efficacy end-point was the change from baseline of the total nasal symptoms score (T4SS) after 4 wk of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients were randomized to rupatadine (n = 180) or placebo (n = 180) treatment. Rupatadine showed statistically significant differences vs. placebo for the T4SS reduction both at 4 (-2.5 ± 1.9 vs. -3.1 ± 2.1; p = 0.018) and 6 wk (-2.7 ± 1.9 vs. -3.3 ± 2.1; p = 0.048). Rupatadine also showed a statistically better improvement in the children's quality of life compared with placebo. Adverse reactions were rare and non-serious in both treatment groups. No QTc or laboratory test abnormalities were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Rupatadine oral solution (1 mg/ml) was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing nasal symptoms at 4 and 6 wk and was well tolerated overall. This is the first large clinical report on the efficacy of an H1 receptor antagonist in children with PER in both symptoms and quality of life.

Upregulation of Platelet-Activating Factor Receptor Expression and Lyso-Platelet-Activating Factor Isoforms in Human Nasal Polyp Tissues.

BACKGROUND: The Platelet-Activating Factor (PAF)/receptor (PAFR) system is involved in asthma and allergic rhinitis; however, its role in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is still unclear. This study aimed to assess the expression of PAFR and the concentration of Lyso-PAF isoforms in the nasal polyps (NP) of patients suffering from CRS with/without comorbidities such as asthma and NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) compared to healthy nasal mucosa (NM) from control subjects. METHODS: NM (n = 8) and NP tissues were obtained from patients undergoing surgery for septal deviation/turbinate hypertrophy or endoscopic sinus surgery, respectively. Three phenotypes were studied: CRSwNP with no asthma (n = 6), CRSwNP with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-tolerant asthma (n = 6), and CRSwNP with NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (n = 6). PAFR protein and mRNA were assessed via immunochemistry, immunofluorescence, Western blot, and real-time quantitative PCR. Lyso-PAF isoforms (C16, C18, and C18:1) were quantified via mass spectrometry. RESULTS: PAFR protein was expressed in the NM and NP, concretely in epithelial cells and submucosal glands. Compared to NM, PAFR mRNA expression was higher in all NP phenotypes (p < 0.05) while all Lyso-PAF isoform concentrations were higher in the NP from asthmatic patients (p < 0.05). Lyso-PAF C16 and C18 concentrations were higher in the NP from asthmatic patients than in the NP from patients without asthma. CONCLUSIONS: The PAF/PAFR system could play a pathophysiological role in CRSwNP pathogenesis.

The impact of allergic rhinitis on symptoms, and quality of life using the new criterion of ARIA severity classification.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common disease with major socieconomic burden and a significant impact on quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the impact of AR severity, using the modified ARIA (m-ARIA) severity criterion in order to discriminate among moderate and severe AR, in symptoms and quality of life assessed with the questionnaire ESPRINT-15. METHODS: The specific quality of life questionnaire (ESPRINT-15) was applied in over thousand untreated RA patients. Severity was evaluated by the m-ARIA classification, which categorizes AR as mild, moderate, and severe. Nasal symptoms were evaluated by using categorized (none, low, middle, and high) Total Four Symptom Score (T4SS). RESULTS: Using the m-ARIA severity classification, significant differences in quality of life, both global score and specific domains, and categorized T4SS were found among the AR severity groups. CONCLUSION: Modified ARIA severity classification in mild, moderate, and severe allergic rhinitis clearly discriminates the impact of AR in all domains of quality of life and categorized symptom`s score.

New transcriptome and clinical findings of platelet-activating factor in chronic spontaneous urticaria: Pathogenic and treatment relevance.

The objective of the study was to assess the pathogenic and treatment relevance of Platelet Activating factor (PAF) in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). The expression and cellular location of PAF receptor (PAFR) and serum levels of PAF and PAF acetylhydrolase (PAF-AH) in patients with moderate/severe CSU (n = 45) and healthy controls (HCs, n = 17) were studied. Skin samples from the active wheal (LS-CSU, 13 samples for qPCR and 33 for immunohistochemistry) and non-lesional skin (NLS-CSU, 13 samples) of CSU patients and HCs (13 samples and 5 for immunohistochemistry) were analyzed. Serum PAF and PAF-AH levels were measured by ELISA and compared between HC (10 samples) and CSU patients (25 samples) and, among them, between those refractory and non-refractory to second-generation H1 -antihistamines (sgAH). PAFR mRNA expression was significantly higher in LS-CSU versus HCs (p = 0.014). PAFR positive staining in immunohistochemistry was mainly found in the epidermal basal layer in HCs, whereas it was broadly present along the epidermis in LS-CSU samples. Endothelial cells showed PAFR expression exclusively in LS-CSU and NLS-CSU samples. PAFR expression was observed in the nerves of HC, LS-CSU, and NLS-CSU samples. Double PAFR/CD43 expression showed that T-lymphocytes were the main cell type from the wheal inflammatory infiltrate expressing PAFR. A significantly lower PAF-AH/PAF ratio was observed in sgAH non-responders versus responders (6.1 vs. 12.6; p = 0.049). Our study confirms that PAF is a mediator of wheal pathogenesis in CSU. The significantly lower PAF-AH/PAF ratio in sgAH non-responders vs responders suggests that PAF could be a potential biomarker of sgAH refractoriness.

Gastrointestinal safety of triflusal solution in healthy volunteers: a proof of concept endoscopic study.

PURPOSE: Triflusal is an antiplatelet agent that irreversibly acetylates cyclooxygenase isoform 1 (COX-1) and therefore inhibits thromboxane biosynthesis. It was initially marketed as capsules containing 300 mg of active substance. In 2006 a new 600 mg (10 ml) oral solution form of triflusal was authorized in Spain. The primary aim of this study was to compare the gastrointestinal safety of the new triflusal oral solution with triflusal capsules in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Sixty healthy subjects were randomly assigned, in a 2.5:2.5: 1 ratio, into one of three groups, with 25 subjects receiving one bottle of triflusal oral solution (600 mg) daily, 25 subjects receiving two triflusal capsules (600 mg) once daily, and ten subjects receiving two placebo capsules once daily, respectively, during 7 consecutive days. Gastroscopy was performed at baseline before the administration of study drugs and after 4-8 h of the last dose of study drugs. Effects on the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum were measured in accordance with a modified Lanza scale. RESULTS: No differences between groups were detected at baseline. After treatment, median global scores in the placebo, triflusal solution, and triflusal capsules groups were, respectively, 0, 1, and 3 (p = 0.003 for comparison between placebo and triflusal capsules and p = 0.042 for comparison between triflusal solution and triflusal capsules). There were no significant differences between the scores on the triflusal solution and placebo groups. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In healthy subjects, triflusal solution induced less endoscopically apparent gastrointestinal mucosal damage than triflusal capsules and did not induce more damage than the placebo in healthy volunteers.

Rupatadine Oral Solution Titration by Body Weight in Paediatric Patients Suffering from Allergic Rhinitis: A Population Pharmacokinetic Study.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic urticaria, both are treated in children with doses of second generation of antihistamines that have been mostly based on extrapolation of data obtained in adults. The objectives of this work were to develop a model to explain the pharmacokinetics (PK) of rupatadine, a second generation antihistamine, administered to children 2-11 years old and to calculate the non-compartmental PK parameters for two groups of age (2-5 and 6-11 years old) based on the individual Bayesian estimates from the selected model. METHODS: Data from two PK studies with rupatadine oral solution (1 mg/mL) were pooled: Study A, an extensive blood sampling study performed in 11 children (6-11 years old) who received a single oral dose of rupatadine; and Study B, a sparse blood sampling study in 40 children (2-5 years old) receiving multiple oral doses. A simultaneous population PK model was developed using data available for all children. Using individual Bayesian estimates from the selected model, steady-state plasma concentrations for both studies were simulated and the non-parametric PK parameters were calculated for two age groups: 2-5 years (subgroup I) and 6-11 years (subgroup II). RESULTS: A two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination with clearance depending on body weight, better described the PK of rupatadine for 2-11 year old children. The plasma clearance dependence on weight was linear. The mean (SD) non-compartment PK parameters calculated using simulated plasma profiles at steady state were: Cmax, 2.54 (1.26) vs 1.96 (0.52) ng/mL; AUC0-24h, 10.74 (3.09) vs 10.38 (4.31) ng/mL/h; and t1/2, 12.28 (3.09) vs 15.94 (4.09) h, for children 6-11 and 2-5 years old, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The PK of rupatadine depends on the weight of paediatric patients but not on their age. The dosage strategy adjusted by body weight in children 2-11 years old (2.5 mL if weight 10-25 kg, and 5 mL if ≥ 25 kg) provides similar exposure between the two groups of age, and to that obtained in adults with the 10 mg dose tablet formulation.

Rupatadine does not potentiate the CNS depressant effects of lorazepam: randomized, double-blind, crossover, repeated dose, placebo-controlled study.

AIM: The main objective was to assess whether benzodiazepine intake when rupatadine plasma concentrations were at steady-state would increase the CNS depressant effects. Rupatadine is a new H(1)-antihistamine which also inhibits platelet activating factor (PAF) release and has been shown to be clinically effective at doses of 10 mg. METHODS: Sixteen healthy young volunteers took part in a crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial comprising two experimental periods (repeated administration for 7 days of rupatadine 10 mg or placebo as single oral daily doses, separated by a washout of 14 days). On days 5 and 7, according to a fully balanced design, a single oral dose of lorazepam 2 mg or placebo was added. CNS effects were evaluated on these days by seven objective tests of psychomotor performance and eight subjective visual analogue scales (VAS) at pre-dose and several times after drug intake. Four treatment conditions were evaluated: placebo, rupatadine 10 mg, lorazepam 2 mg and rupatadine 10 mg + lorazepam 2 mg. RESULTS: Significant CNS effects, either impairment of psychomotor performance or subjective sedation, were observed when lorazepam was administered, either alone or in combination with steady state concentrations of rupatadine. No significant differences were found between these two conditions. In addition, rupatadine was not different from placebo. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Repeated doses of rupatadine (10 mg orally) did not enhance the CNS depressant effects of lorazepam (2 mg orally, single dose) either in objective psychomotor tasks or in subjective evaluations.

No cardiac effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of rupatadine: results from a 'thorough QT/QTc study' performed according to ICH guidelines.

AIMS: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of rupatadine on cardiac repolarization in line with a 'thorough QT/QTc study' protocol performed according to International Conference on Harmonization guidelines. METHODS: This was a randomized (gender-balanced), parallel-group study involving 160 healthy volunteers. Rupatadine, 10 and 100 mg day(-1), and placebo were administered single-blind for 5 days, whilst moxifloxacin 400 mg day(-1) was given on days 1 and 5 in open-label fashion. ECGs were recorded over a 23-h period by continuous Holter monitoring at baseline and on treatment days 1 and 5. Three 10-s ECG samples were downloaded at regular intervals and were analysed independently. The primary analysis of QTc was based on individually corrected QT (QTcI). Treatment effects on QTcI were assessed using the largest time-matched mean difference between the drug and placebo (baseline-subtracted) for the QTcI interval. A negative 'thorough QT/QTc study' is one where the main variable is around < or =5 ms, with a one-sided 95% confidence interval that excludes an effect >10 ms. RESULTS: The validity of the trial was confirmed by the fact that the moxifloxacin-positive control group produced the expected change in QTcI duration (around 5 ms). The ECG data for rupatadine at both 10 and 100 mg showed no signal effects on the ECG, after neither single nor repeated administration. Furthermore, no pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship, gender effects or clinically relevant changes in ECG waveform outliers were observed. No deaths or serious or unexpected adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This 'thorough QT/QTc study' confirmed previous experience with rupatadine and demonstrated that it had no proarrhythmic potential and raised no concerns regarding its cardiac safety.

Higher efficacy of rupatadine 20 mg and 10 mg versus placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: a pooled responder analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy of rupatadine in terms of responders has not been previously explored in perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). METHODS: This pooled analysis included data from 6 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials conducted in PAR patients treated with rupatadine 10 mg or 20 mg, or placebo. Participants were aged ≥ 18 years, with diagnosis of PAR and a Total 4 Nasal Symptom Score (T4NSS) ≥ 5. We evaluated the T4NSS and Total 5 Symptom Score (T5SS) for 28 days of treatment, the responder proportion (50% and 75% response), and the time to response. RESULTS: Efficacy data from 1486 patients were analysed: 585 received placebo, 682 rupatadine 10 mg, and 219 rupatadine 20 mg. Compared with placebo, rupatadine promoted greater symptom improvements and higher responder proportions (50% and 75% response) for T4NSS and T5SS over 28 days. Symptom improvements and responder proportions were higher in the rupatadine 20 mg group vs the 10 mg group. The time to response was shorter in the rupatadine 20 mg group vs the 10 mg group for T4NSS (16 and 9 days for the 50% and 75% responses, respectively) and for T5SS (13 and 8 days for the 50% and 75% responses, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Rupatadine was efficacious in reducing allergic rhinitis symptoms, showing high responder proportions. The faster and stronger effect of rupatadine 20 mg may suggest its use in patients with severe PAR or not responding to the standard dose.

Safety of rupatadine administered over a period of 1 year in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis: a multicentre, open-label study in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Rupatadine (Rupafin), a novel antihistamine approved recently in Europe for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria in patients aged>or=12 years, has been shown to be highly efficacious, and as safe and well tolerated as other commonly employed antihistamines in the treatment of allergic disease. There are, however, few data on the long-term safety of these antihistamines derived in accordance with the clinical safety recommendations of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) and the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Guideline. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and tolerability of treatment with rupatadine 10 mg/day for 12 months in subjects with persistent AR (PER). METHODS: A multicentre, open-label, phase IV study in patients recruited from 33 centres in Spain, from September 2002 to November 2005. The study enrolled 324 male and female patients (aged 12-70 years) with a medical history of PER for at least 12 months and a documented positive skin-prick test to an appropriate allergen. On 4 of the 7 days prior to start of treatment, the patients were required to have a minimum total nasal symptom score (TNSS [for sneezing, rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction/congestion and nasal itching]) of >or=5. Of the 324 eligible patients starting treatment, 120 needed to be treated for more than 6 months and were followed up until the end of 12 months. All patients received rupatadine 10 mg/day and were allowed to continue their normal concomitant medication for all conditions, other than rhinitis, for up to 6 or 12 months. Safety was assessed by means of adverse events (AEs) reported by patients or detected by investigators, scheduled centralized ECG with special attention to Bazzet corrected QT interval (QTcB) and standard laboratory investigations. RESULTS: Assessment of treatment compliance rates indicated 90% and 83% of patients to be compliant during the 1-6 months and 1-12 months treatment periods, respectively, with compliance rates>80% being associated with the majority of the study population reporting at least one AE. Overall, 74.1% and 65.8% of the patients reported at least one AE during the 1-6 months and 1-12 months treatment periods, respectively, compared with 20.4% and 10.8% of patients reporting at least one treatment-related AE during these periods. Disorders of the nervous system and respiratory thoracic and mediastinal system, in particular headache, somnolence and catarrh, were the three most common AEs reported by >5% of the patients during both treatment periods. Detailed ECG assessments demonstrated no clinically relevant abnormal ECG findings, nor any QTcB increases >60 msec or QTcB values>470 msec for any patient at any time during treatment. Serious AEs were reported in seven patients, of whom six were considered as unlikely to be related to rupatadine treatment, whereas one involving increased blood enzyme levels was considered as possibly related to rupatadine treatment. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the good long-term safety and tolerability of rupatadine at the therapeutic dose of 10 mg/day in patients with PER.

Clinically relevant effect of rupatadine 20 mg and 10 mg in seasonal allergic rhinitis: a pooled responder analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different clinical trials showed the superior efficacy of rupatadine compared to placebo at improving seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms, but no study has assessed if the response promoted is clinically meaningful. METHODS: This study is a pooled analysis of data of seven randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAR studies comparing responder proportions upon treatment with rupatadine (10 or 20 mg) or placebo. We evaluated the following symptom scores at baseline (Visit 1) and over 14 days of treatment: Total 4 Nasal Symptom Score (T4NSS), Total 2 Ocular Symptom Score (T2OSS) and Total 6 Symptom Score (T6SS). The proportion of responders (50% and 75% response) and the time to response were compared between groups on days 7 (Visit 2) and 14 (Visit 3). Responder rates were compared between groups on days 7 and 14 for the complete/near-to-complete response for T4NSS (TN4SS score ≤ 2 and each symptom score ≤ 1) and T6SS (T6SS score ≤ 3 and each symptom score ≤ 1). RESULTS: Data from 1470 patients were analyzed: 332 treated with placebo, 662 with rupatadine 10 mg and 476 with rupatadine 20 mg. The reduction in T4NSS, T2OSS and T6SS over 14 days of treatment relative to baseline was statistically higher in rupatadine groups vs the placebo group, with greater improvements in the 20 mg group. A statistically higher proportion of patients reached the 50% and 75% response for T4NSS, T2OSS and T6SS in rupatadine groups compared to the placebo group across the visits. Among rupatadine-treated patients, those receiving 20 mg compared favourably for both cut-off responses. The time to achieve a proportion of responders was shorter in the rupatadine 20 mg group than in the rupatadine 10 mg and placebo groups for all the symptom scores. The number of patients who achieved a complete/near-to-complete response for both symptom scores was higher in rupatadine groups than in the placebo group, with higher proportions in the 20 mg group. CONCLUSIONS: This responder analysis confirms the superior efficacy of rupatadine vs placebo to treat SAR. Rupatadine promoted higher proportions of responders according to stringent response criteria and in a dose-dependent manner, with faster and higher response rates in the 20 mg group.

Pharmacokinetic and safety profile of rupatadine when coadministered with azithromycin at steady-state levels: a randomized, open-label, two-way, crossover, Phase I study.

BACKGROUND: Rupatadine is an oral active antihistamine and platelet-activating factor antagonist indicated for the management of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria in Europe. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the effect of the concomitant administration of azithromycin and rupatadine on the pharmacokinetics of rupatadine and its metabolites after repeated doses. METHODS: This was a multiple-dose, randomized, open-label, 2-way, crossover, Phase I study in which healthy male and female volunteers received rupatadine 10 mg once a day for 6 days either alone or with azithromycin 500 mg on day 2 and 250 mg from day 3 to day 6. Treatments were administered after a fasting period of 10 hours with 240 mL of water, and fasting conditions were kept until 3 hours postmedication. A washout period of at least 21 days between the 2 active periods was observed. Blood samples were collected and plasma concentrations of rupatadine and its metabolites desloratadine and 3-hydroxydesloratadine were determined by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Tolerability was based on the recording of adverse events (AEs), physical examination, electrocardiograms, and laboratory screen controls at baseline and the final study visit. RESULTS: Twenty-four healthy volunteers (15 males, 9 females; mean [SD] age, 25.67 [5.58] years; weight, 65.96 [8.57] kg) completed the study. Except for maximum observed concentration during a dosing interval (Cmax,ss) of 3-hydroxydesloratadine, on average, there were no statistically significant differences in mean plasma concentrations in any of the main pharmacokinetic parameters of rupatadine, desloratadine, and 3-hydroxydesloratadine when administered in combination with azithromycin or alone. The Cmax,ss ratio was 111 (90% CI, 91-136) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve during a dosing interval (AUC0-tau) ratio had a value of 103 (90% CI, 91-117). The corresponding ratios for the rupatadine metabolites were 109 (90% CI, 100-120) for Cmax,ss and 103 (90% CI, 96-110) for AUC0-tau for desloratadine and 109 (90% CI, 103-115) for Cmax,ss and 104 (90% CI, 100-108) for AUC0-tau for 3-hydroxydesloratadine. Point estimates for Cmax,ss ratios using paired data were 111% for rupatadine, 109% for desloratadine, and 109% for 3-hydroxydesloratadine. The 90% CIs were included in the interval 80% to 125% for desloratadine and 3-hydroxydesloratadine, whereas 90% CI for rupatadine was shifted to the right of the interval used for comparing bioavailability of the drugs. A total of 5 subjects reported 9 AEs; 5 of these were thought to be related to the drug administration and all were categorized as mild or moderate. The reported AEs were somnolence (1/24 in the rupatadine group and 1/24 in the rupatadine plus azithromycin group), diarrhea (1/24 in the rupatadine plus azithromycin group), and gastric discomfort (2/24 in the rupatadine plus azithromycin group). Four AEs were considered not to be related (2 episodes of headache, 1 anemia, 1 cheilitis). All were resolved spontaneously. No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study in these healthy volunteers found no significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters other than Cmax,ss of 3-hydroxydesloratadine between rupatadine 10 mg administered alone or with azithromycin 500 mg on day 2 and 250 mg from day 3 to day 6. The administration of rupatadine compared with rupatadine plus azithromycin met the regulatory definition of bioequivalence in terms of exposure and rate parameters; however, Cmax,ss of rupatadine was outside the conventional confidence interval.

Antihistaminic effects of rupatadine and PKPD modelling.

Rupatadine is a new oral antihistaminic agent used for the management of allergic inflammatory conditions, such as rhinitis and chronic urticaria. The aim of the present study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PKPD) model for the description of the effect of rupatadine and one of its active metabolites, desloratadine, on the histamine-induced flare reaction and to predict the response to treatment after repeated administrations of rupatadine. Both rupatadine and desloratadine were characterized by two-compartmental kinetics. For both compounds, covariates sex and weight had a significant effect on several parameters. The pharmacodynamics were described by an indirect model for the inhibition of flare formation that accounted for the contribution of both rupatadine and desloratadine to the antihistaminic effect. The final PKPD model adequately described the original data. The simulated response after repeated once-daily administrations of 10 mg rupatadine showed a significant and maintained antihistaminic effect over time, between two consecutive dosing intervals.

Rupatadine oral solution for 2-5-year-old children with allergic rhinitis: a safety, open-label, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: There are few clinical trials that assess the efficacy of antihistamines in very young children. Rupatadine is a second-generation antihistamine indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and urticaria. In this study, AR symptoms were evaluated before and after daily 1 mg/mL rupatadine oral solution administration in 2-5-year-old children. METHODS: A multicenter open-label study was carried out in 2-5-year-old children with AR. Safety assessments were collected during the study including spontaneous adverse events, vital signs, and electrocardiogram (QTc interval). Additionally, evaluations of Total Five Symptoms Score (T5SS, including: nasal congestion; sneezing; rhinorrhoea; itchy nose, mouth, throat, and/or ears; and itchy, watery, and red eyes) were analyzed. Symptoms were evaluated by parents/legal guardian before and after 4 weeks of rupatadine administration, dosed according to body weight. RESULTS: A total of 44 children received the study treatment. Only 15 adverse events were reported. All of them were of mild intensity and considered not related to the study treatment. No patient exceeded the standard parameter of >450 ms in the last visit, for the QTc interval on their electrocardiograms. From a maximum score value of 15, T5SS values at Day 14 (6.35) and Day 28 (5.42) were both statistically significant different (p<0.001) from the baseline T5SS value (mean 8.65), with a reduction of 26.6% and 37.4%, respectively. All individual symptoms, including nasal congestion, showed also a decrease from baseline at both 14 and 28 days. CONCLUSION: Rupatadine 1 mg/mL oral solution was found to be safe in 2-5-year-old children, correlating with an improvement of AR symptoms, overall and each individually, after a daily dose administration. With this study, we enlarge the available information in this very young pediatric patients' group, in which there is a general lack of clinical evidence.

Influence of food on the oral bioavailability of rupatadine tablets in healthy volunteers: a single-dose, randomized, open-label, two-way crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Rupatadine is an oral active antihistamine for the management of diseases with allergic inflammatory conditions, such as perennial and seasonal rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. Oral rupatadine has been approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria in adults and adolescents in several European countries. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the effect of the concomitant intake of food on the pharmacokinetic profile and bioavailability of a single dose of rupatadine. METHODS: This was a single-dose, randomized, open-label, 2-way crossover study in which healthy male and female volunteers received a single, 20-mg oral dose of rupatadine under fed and fasting conditions. Blood samples were collected and plasma concentrations of rupatadine and its active metabolites desloratadine and 3-hydroxydesloratadine were determined by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Tolerability was based on the recording of adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, electrocardiograms, and laboratory tolerability tests immediately before each treatment period and at the final visit of the study. RESULTS: Twenty-four volunteers (12 males; mean [SD] age, 25.4 [5.3] years [range, 18-34 years]; mean [SD] weight, 71.2 [4.3] kg [range, 64-77 kg]; 12 females; mean [SD] age, 26.8 [6.5] years [range, 18-38 years]; mean [SD] weight, 58.4 [6.8] kg, [range 50-69 kg]) were enrolled and randomized with equal distribution of sex. A significant increase in AUC from drug administration to the final quantifiable sample (AUC(0-t)) and AUC from drug administration to infinity (AUC(0-infinity)) values of rupatadine was seen under fed conditions without affecting C(max). The ratios (90% CI) of the mean log-transformed AUC(0-t) and AUC(0-infinity) for rupatadine revealed a significant increase in AUC(0-t) (ratio 131%; 90% CI, 111%-154%) and AUC(0-infinity) (ratio 133%; 90% CI, 113%-156%), whereas C(max) remained unaltered (ratio 97%; 90% CI, 80%-116%). Plasma concentration-time profiles of desloratadine and 3-hydroxydesloratadine were similar with and without food, and no differences were seen for AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), or C(max). Seven (28%) subjects reported > or =1 AE. All AEs were mild, resolved spontaneously, and did not affect the outcome of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that concomitant intake of food with a single 20-mg oral dose of rupatadine exhibits a significant increase in rupatadine bioavailability. Despite the absence of bioequivalence, the drug was well tolerated under fed and fasting conditions, and no major changes in severity and/or prevalence of AEs were reported.

Once-daily rupatadine improves the symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, international, dose-ranging study investigated the effect of treatment with rupatadine 5, 10 and 20 mg once daily for 4 weeks on symptoms and interference with daily activities and sleep in 12-65 years-old patients with moderate-to-severe chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). Rupatadine 10 and 20 mg significantly reduced pruritus severity by 62.05% and 71.87% respectively, from baseline, over a period of 4 weeks compared to reduction with placebo by 46.59% (p < 0.05). Linear trends were noted for reductions in mean number of wheals and interference with daily activities and sleep with rupatadine 10 and 20 mg over the 4-week treatment period. The two most frequently reported AEs were somnolence (2.90% for placebo, 4.29% for 5 mg-, 5.41% for 10 mg- and 21.43% for 20 mg-rupatadine-treated group) and headache (4.35% for placebo, 2.86% for 5 mg-, 4.05% for 10 mg- and 4.29% for 20 mg-rupatadine-treated group). These findings suggest that rupatadine 10 and 20 mg is a fast-acting, efficacious and safe treatment for the management of patients with moderate-to-severe CIU. Rupatadine decreased pruritus severity, in a dose- and time-dependent manner.

Population pharmacokinetic modelling of rupatadine solution in 6-11 year olds and optimisation of the experimental design in younger children.

AIMS: To optimise a pharmacokinetic (PK) study design of rupatadine for 2-5 year olds by using a population PK model developed with data from a study in 6-11 year olds. The design optimisation was driven by the need to avoid children's discomfort in the study. METHODS: PK data from 6-11 year olds with allergic rhinitis available from a previous study were used to construct a population PK model which we used in simulations to assess the dose to administer in a study in 2-5 year olds. In addition, an optimal design approach was used to determine the most appropriate number of sampling groups, sampling days, total samples and sampling times. RESULTS: A two-compartmental model with first-order absorption and elimination, with clearance dependent on weight adequately described the PK of rupatadine for 6-11 year olds. The dose selected for a trial in 2-5 year olds was 2.5 mg, as it provided a Cmax below the 3 ng/ml threshold. The optimal study design consisted of four groups of children (10 children each), a maximum sampling window of 2 hours in two clinic visits for drawing three samples on day 14 and one on day 28 coinciding with the final examination of the study. CONCLUSIONS: A PK study design was optimised in order to prioritise avoidance of discomfort for enrolled 2-5 year olds by taking only four blood samples from each child and minimising the length of hospital stays.