Genetic analysis of the species cytoplasm specific gene (scs d) derived from durum wheat.

The action of species cytoplasm specific (scs) gene(s) can be observed when a durum (Triticum turgidum L.) nucleus is placed in the Aegilops longissimum S. & M. cytoplasm. This alloplasmic combination, (lo) durum, results in nonviable progeny. A scs gene derived from T. timopheevii Zhuk. (scs(ti)) produced compatibility with the (lo) cytoplasm. The resulting hemizygous (lo) scs(ti)- durum line was male sterile and when crossed to normal durum produced a 1:1 ratio of plump, viable (PV) seeds with scs(ti) and shriveled inviable (SIV) seeds without scs(ti). In a systematic characterization of durum lines an unusual line was identified that when crossed to (lo) scs(ti)- produced all PV seeds. When planted these PV seeds segregated at a 1:1 ratio of normal vigor plants (NVPs) and low vigor plants (LVPs). The LVP senescence before full maturity. The NVPs were male sterile and when crossed to common durum lines resulted in all plump seeds that again segregated at a 1:1 ratio of NVPs to LVPs. The crosses of these NVPs to common durum lines resulted in a 1:1 ratio of PV to SIV seeds. This study was extended to 317 individuals segregating for scs(ti) and the new locus, derived from durum wheat (scs(d)), establishing the allelic relationship of these two genes.

Constant infusion of epinephrine, but not bolus treatment, improves haemodynamic recovery in anaphylactic shock in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: Epinephrine (Epi) is the treatment of choice for reversing cardiovascular collapse in anaphylactic shock (AS). In this condition, most treatment guidelines have been anecdotally derived and no randomized clinical trials have been conducted. In the present study, we examined the time course of haemodynamic recovery in a canine model of AS when Epi was administered at the initiation of allergen challenge before fully developed shock had occurred. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, crossover studies were performed approximately 3-5 weeks apart in ragweed-sensitized dogs while the animals were ventilated and anaesthetized. Epi was administered by bolus intravenous (i.v.), subcutaneous (s.c.), intramuscular (i.m.) routes and by continuous i.v. infusion (CI). The findings obtained in the Epi treatment (T) studies were compared with those found in a no treatment (NT) study. In the bolus studies, Epi was administered at 0.01 mg/kg, while in the CI study, the dose of Epi was titrated to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 70% of preshock levels. MAP, cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV), and pulmonary wedge pressure (Pwp) were determined over a 3 h period. RESULTS: In the CI study, haemodynamics (CO, MAP, and SV) were significantly higher than those measured in the NT study and the bolus studies over approximately the first hour of the study. In the CI study, the amount of Epi infused was significantly less than in the bolus studies. CONCLUSION: When administered at the initiation of allergen challenge, bolus treatment of Epi by i.m., i.v., or s.c. routes caused limited haemodynamic improvement in AS. In contrast, constant infusion of Epi at a lower total dose produced significant haemodynamic improvement. Within the limits of this anaesthetized canine model, the results suggest that CI should be the preferred route in the treatment of AS when this treatment option is available.

Epinephrine for the out-of-hospital (first-aid) treatment of anaphylaxis in infants: is the ampule/syringe/needle method practical?

BACKGROUND: Little information is available about administration of an accurate epinephrine dose to infants experiencing anaphylaxis outside the hospital setting. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to perform a prospective, controlled study of (1) the time needed by parents to draw up an infant epinephrine dose from an ampule and (2) the dose accuracy. METHODS: We gave 18 parents written instructions and asked them to draw up epinephrine 0.09 mL. We timed them by means of a stopwatch and measured the epinephrine content (in micrograms) in each dose by using HPLC-UV. Eighteen resident physicians, 18 general duty nurses, and 18 emergency department nurses served as controls. RESULTS: The parents took significantly longer (P < .05) than the controls to draw up the dose; the mean (+/- SEM) times were 142 +/- 13 seconds (range, 83-248) for the parents, 52 +/- 3 seconds (range, 30-83) for the physicians, 40 +/- 2 seconds (range, 26-71) for the general duty nurses, and 29 +/- 0.09 seconds (range, 27-33) for the emergency department nurses. The control groups did not differ significantly from each other in speed (P > .05). The epinephrine content of the doses drawn up by the parents ranged 40-fold in contrast to the physicians' doses (7- to 8-fold), general duty nurses' doses (3-fold), and emergency department nurses' doses (2-fold). The mean epinephrine content did not differ significantly (P > .05) among the 4 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Most parents were unable to draw up an infant epinephrine dose rapidly or accurately. Most health care professionals drew up the dose rapidly; however, their accuracy was compromised by inherent variations of epinephrine concentrations in the ampules (United States Pharmacopeia compendial limits, 90% to 115%) and the inherent difficulty of measuring low volumes (<0.1 mL) of epinephrine. User-friendly premeasured epinephrine doses suitable for infants should be developed.

Epinephrine absorption in adults: intramuscular versus subcutaneous injection.

We report a prospective, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, 6-way crossover study of intramuscular versus subcutaneous injection of epinephrine in young men. Peak plasma epinephrine concentrations were significantly higher (P < .01) after epinephrine was injected intramuscularly into the thigh than after epinephrine was injected intramuscularly or subcutaneously into the upper arm. We recommend intramuscular injection of epinephrine into the thigh as the preferred route and site of injection of this life-saving medication in the initial treatment of anaphylaxis.

Skin concentrations of H1-receptor antagonists.

BACKGROUND: H1-receptor antagonists are widely used in the treatment of allergic skin disorders. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the extent of fexofenadine and diphenhydramine distribution into the skin concomitantly with their peripheral H1-receptor antagonist activity. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, 7 men received 120 mg of fexofenadine, and 7 received 50 mg of diphenhydramine. Before dosing; at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 24 hours after the first dose; and at 168 hours (steady-state), 12 hours after the seventh and last daily dose, blood samples and skin punch biopsy specimens were obtained, and epicutaneous tests with histamine phosphate, 1 mg/mL, were performed. RESULTS: Fexofenadine penetrated the skin to a significantly greater extent than diphenhydramine at 6, 9, 24, and 168 hours (P < or = .05). Maximum skin/plasma ratios of both the H1-antagonists (41.3 +/- 7.8 for fexofenadine and 8.1 +/- 4.4 for diphenhydramine) were obtained at 24 hours. Fexofenadine also produced significantly greater suppression of wheals at 3, 6, and 9 hours and of flares at 3, 6, 9, and 168 hours compared with diphenhydramine (P < or = .05). CONCLUSION: In disorders in which the presence and the effects of H1-receptor antagonists in the skin are clinically relevant, our results support the use of fexofenadine and indicate the need to re-examine the role of diphenhydramine.

Suppression of the early and late cutaneous allergic responses using fexofenadine and montelukast.

BACKGROUND: The relative contribution of histamine and the cysteinyl leukotrienes to the early and late cutaneous allergic responses (ECAR and LCAR) can be studied using antagonists of these mediators. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative suppression of the ECARs and LCARs using standard doses of an H1-receptor antagonist, a cysteinyl leukotriene1-receptor antagonist, and the two antagonists administered concurrently. METHODS: We carried out a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study in 12 highly allergic participants. Intradermal tests with standardized allergen, and with histamine phosphate, LTD4, and saline controls were performed on 5 different test days as follows: pretreatment baseline and at steady state immediately after the seventh and last dose of a 1-week course of treatment with once-daily fexofenadine, 120 mg; montelukast, 10 mg; fexofenadine and montelukast administered concurrently; or placebo. On each test day, the skin test results were read at intervals from 0.25 to 24 hours after the intradermal injections were performed. RESULTS: After allergen injection, compared with baseline, all treatment regimens significantly decreased the ECAR and LCAR. After allergen injection, compared with placebo, fexofenadine significantly decreased the ECAR and the LCAR from 0.25 to 2 hours and at 8 hours. Montelukast did not significantly decrease the ECAR or LCAR. Fexofenadine and montelukast administered concurrently were not more effective than fexofenadine alone at any time. In the control skin tests, compared with placebo, fexofenadine, but not montelukast, significantly decreased the histamine-induced response, and montelukast, but not fexofenadine, significantly decreased the LTD4-induced response. CONCLUSIONS: Fexofenadine and montelukast administered concurrently were not significantly more effective than fexofenadine alone in decreasing the ECAR and LCAR. Montelukast does not need to be discontinued before allergen skin testing. Further studies of the effect of concurrent treatment with higher doses of a histamine antagonist and a leukotriene modifier on the allergic response in the skin are needed.

Can epinephrine inhalations be substituted for epinephrine injection in children at risk for systemic anaphylaxis?

BACKGROUND: For out-of-hospital treatment of anaphylaxis, inhalation of epinephrine from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler is sometimes recommended as a noninvasive, user-friendly alternative to an epinephrine injection. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of administering an adequate epinephrine dose from a metered-dose inhaler in children at risk for anaphylaxis by assessing the rate and extent of epinephrine absorption after inhalation. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in 19 asymptomatic children with a history of anaphylaxis. Based on the child's weight, 10, 15, or 20 carefully supervised epinephrine or placebo inhalations were attempted. Before dosing, and at intervals from 5 to 180 minutes after dosing, we monitored plasma epinephrine concentrations, blood glucose, heart rate, blood pressure, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Eleven children (mean +/- standard error of the mean: 9 +/- 1 years and 33 +/- 3 kg) in the epinephrine group were able to inhale 11 +/- 2 (range: 3-20) puffs, equivalent to 74% +/- 7% of the precalculated dose or 0.078 +/- 0.009 mg/kg. They achieved a mean peak plasma epinephrine concentration of 1822 +/- 413 (range: 230-4518) pg/mL at 32.7 +/- 6.2 minutes. Eight children (10 +/- 1 years of age and 33 +/- 5 kg) in the placebo group were able to inhale 12 +/- 2 (range: 8-20) puffs, 89% +/- 3% of the precalculated dose, and had a peak endogenous plasma epinephrine concentration of 1316 +/- 247 (range: 522-2687) pg/mL at 44.4 +/- 16.7 minutes. In the children receiving epinephrine compared with those receiving placebo, mean plasma epinephrine concentrations were not significantly higher at any time, mean blood glucose concentrations were significantly higher from 10 to 30 minutes, mean heart rate was not significantly different at any time, and mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were not significantly increased at most times. After the inhalations of epinephrine or placebo, the children complained of bad taste and many experienced cough or dizziness. After inhaling epinephrine, 1 child developed nausea, pallor, and muscle twitching. CONCLUSIONS: Despite expert coaching, because of the number of epinephrine inhalations required and the bad taste of the inhalations, most children were unable to inhale sufficient epinephrine to increase their plasma epinephrine concentrations promptly and significantly. Therefore, we urge caution in recommending epinephrine inhalation as a substitute for epinephrine injection for out-of-hospital treatment of anaphylaxis symptoms in children.

Clinical pharmacology of the H1-receptor antagonists cetirizine and loratadine in children.

H1-receptor antagonists are widely used in children but are not as well-studied in children as they are in adults. Our objective was to determine the onset and duration of action and the relative potency of the H1-receptor antagonists cetirizine and loratadine in children. We performed a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover, single-dose study of cetirizine and loratadine using suppression of the histamine-induced wheal and flare as the primary outcome. In 15 allergic children, mean age 9 years, compared with baseline, cetirizine (10 mg) suppressed the wheals and flares significantly from 0.25 to 24 h, achieving nearly 100% of flare suppression from 2 to 24 h, inclusive, and loratadine (10 mg) suppressed the wheals and flares significantly from 0.75 to 24 h, inclusive. Cetirizine suppressed the wheals and flares significantly more than loratadine from 0.25 to 1 h, inclusive, and at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 24 h, respectively. Placebo also suppressed the wheal and flare significantly at some assessment times. Cetirizine and loratadine both have excellent antihistaminic activity in children, with a rapid onset of action and a 24-h duration of action in this population.

Outdated EpiPen and EpiPen Jr autoinjectors: past their prime?

BACKGROUND: EpiPen and EpiPen Jr autoinjectors are often recommended for prehospital treatment of anaphylaxis. When these units become outdated, there may be a delay in replacing them. OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to evaluate unused, outdated EpiPen and EpiPen Jr autoinjectors, obtained from patients at risk for anaphylaxis, for epinephrine bioavailability and epinephrine content. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, cross-over study of epinephrine bioavailability after injection from outdated autoinjectors in rabbits; controls included EpiPen and EpiPen Jr autoinjectors that had not expired ("in-date" autoinjectors) and intramuscular injection of 0.9% saline solution. In addition, the epinephrine content of the outdated EpiPen and EpiPen Jr autoinjectors was measured by a spectrophotometric method and an HPLC-UV method. RESULTS: Twenty-eight EpiPen and 6EpiPen Jr autoinjectors were studied 1 to 90 months after the stated expiration date. Most were not discolored and did not contain precipitates. Epinephrine bioavailability from the outdated EpiPen autoinjectors was significantly reduced (P <.05) compared with epinephrine bioavailability from the in-date autoinjectors. The inverse correlation between the decreased epinephrine content of the outdated autoinjectors, assessed with an HPLC-UV method, and the number of months past the expiration date was 0.63. CONCLUSIONS: For prehospital treatment of anaphylaxis, we recommend the use of EpiPen and EpiPen Jr autoinjectors that are not outdated. If, however, the only autoinjector available is an outdated one, it could be used as long as no discoloration or precipitates are apparent because the potential benefit of using it is greater than the potential risk of a suboptimal epinephrine dose or of no epinephrine treatment at all.

Clinical pharmacology of new histamine H1 receptor antagonists.

The recently introduced H1 receptor antagonists ebastine, fexofenadine and mizolastine, and the relatively new H1 antagonists acrivastine, astemizole, azelastine, cetirizine, levocabastine and loratadine, are diverse in terms of chemical structure and clinical pharmacology, although they have similar efficacy in the treatment of patients with allergic disorders. Acrivastine is characterised by a short terminal elimination half-life (t1/2 beta) [1.7 hours] and an 8-hour duration of action. Astemizole and its metabolites, in contrast, have relatively long terminal t1/2 beta values; astemizole has a duration of action of at least 24 hours and is characterised by a long-lasting residual action after a short course of treatment. Azelastine, which has a half-life of approximately 22 hours, is primarily administered intranasally although an oral dosage formulation is used in some countries. Cetirizine is eliminated largely unchanged in the urine, has a terminal t1/2 beta of approximately 7 hours and a duration of action of at least 24 hours. Ebastine is extensively and rapidly metabolised to its active metabolite; carebastine, has a half-life of approximately 15 hours and duration of action of at least 24 hours. Fexofenadine, eliminated largely unchanged in the faeces and urine, has a terminal t1/2 beta of approximately 14 hours and duration of action of 24 hours, making it suitable for once or twice daily administration. Levocabastine has a terminal t1/2 beta of 35 to 40 hours regardless of the route of administration, but is only available as a topical application administered intranasally or ophthalmically in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Loratadine is rapidly metabolised to an active metabolite descarboethoxyloratadine and has a 24-hour duration of action. Mizolastine has a terminal t1/2 beta of approximately 13 hours and duration of action of at least 24 hours. Most orally administered new H1 receptor antagonists are well absorbed and appear to be extensively distributed into body tissues; many are highly protein-bound. Most of the new H1 antagonists do not accumulate in tissues during repeated administration and have a residual action of less than 3 days after a short course has been completed. Tachyphylaxis, or loss of peripheral H1 receptor blocking activity during regular daily use, has not been found for any new H1 antagonist. Understanding the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these new H1 antagonists provides the objective basis for selection of an appropriate dose and dosage interval and the rationale for modification in the dosage regimen that may be needed in special populations, including elderly patients, and those with hepatic dysfunction or renal dysfunction. The studies cited in this review provide the scientific foundation for using the new H1 antagonists with optimal effectiveness and safety.

Central nervous system effects of H1-receptor antagonists in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: The potential adverse central nervous system effects of H1-receptor antagonists have not been optimally studied in the elderly. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that newer H1-receptor antagonists such as cetirizine and loratadine would cause less central nervous system dysfunction than the older H1-receptor antagonists diphenhydramine and chlorpheniramine in this population, as they do in younger subjects. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, placebo-controlled, 5-way crossover study in 15 healthy elderly subjects (mean age 71 +/- SD 5 years). On study days at least 1 week apart, they received cetirizine 10 mg, loratadine 10 mg, diphenhydramine 50 mg, chlorpheniramine 8 mg, or placebo. Outcome measures, recorded before and 2 to 2.5 hours after dosing were latency of the P300 event-related potential in which increased latency reflects a decreased rate of cognitive processing, visual analogue scale for subjective somnolence, and histamine skin tests for measurement of peripheral H1-blockade. RESULTS: The changes in P300 following each treatment yielded variances that were not equal (P > .05), precluding usual statistical analysis of the means. These variances were ranked: chlorpheniramine > diphenhydramine > loratadine > placebo > cetirizine. The rank of mean differences in the visual analogue scale increase from pre-dose baseline was: diphenhydramine > chlorpheniramine > cetirizine > loratadine > placebo. All H1-receptor antagonists suppressed the histamine-induced wheal and flare significantly compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: In the elderly, the new H1-receptor antagonists cetirizine and loratadine are less likely to cause adverse central nervous system effects than the old H1-antagonists chlorpheniramine or diphenhydramine, but this requires confirmation using additional objective tests of central nervous system function.

The clinical pharmacology of brompheniramine in children.

BACKGROUND: Brompheniramine has been widely used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and other disorders during the past 4 decades. There are no published studies of its clinical pharmacology in children. OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to test the hypothesis that brompheniramine would have a prompt onset of action and a 24-hour duration of action in children. METHODS: Before brompheniramine 4 mg was ingested, and at intervals from 0.5 to 30 hours thereafter, blood samples were obtained for quantitation of plasma brompheniramine concentrations by means of HPLC. Concurrently, epicutaneous tests with histamine phosphate were performed; wheals and flares were traced at 10 minutes, and the areas were measured by using a computerized digitizing system. RESULTS: In 14 children, mean age 9.5 +/- 0.4 years (SEM), the peak brompheniramine concentration was 7.7 +/- 0.7 ng/mL, and the time at which peak concentrations occurred was 3.2 +/- 0.3 hours. The terminal elimination half-life was 12.4 +/- 1.1 hours, and the oral clearance was 20.2 +/- 2.1 mL/min/kg. Compared with predose areas, the wheals and flares produced by histamine phosphate 1 mg/mL were significantly decreased from 0.5 to 30 hours and from 1 to 30 hours, respectively (P <.05), with mean maximum inhibition at 12 (52% +/- 9%) and 6 hours (72% +/- 10%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In children a single dose of brompheniramine produces prompt, long-lasting peripheral H1 -blockade. Revised dosage regimens may be needed in this population.

Epinephrine absorption after different routes of administration in an animal model.

BACKGROUND: The administration of epinephrine is the most important initial treatment in systemic anaphylaxis. PURPOSE: We wanted to determine the relationship between the route of epinephrine administration and the rate and extent of epinephrine absorption. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, five-way crossover study in rabbits, we measured plasma epinephrine concentrations before, and at intervals up to 180 min after epinephrine administration by intramuscular or subcutaneous injection, or by inhalation, with intravenous epinephrine and intramuscular saline as the positive and negative controls, respectively. RESULTS: Maximum plasma epinephrine concentrations were higher, and occurred more rapidly, after intramuscular injection than after subcutaneous injection or inhalation, and were 7719+/-3943 (S.E.M.) pg/mL at 32.5+/-6.6 min, 2692+/-863 pg/mL at 111.7+/-30.8 min and 1196+/-369 pg/mL at 45. 8+/-19.2 min, respectively. Intravenous injection of epinephrine resulted in a plasma concentration of 3544+/-422 pg/mL at 5 min, and an elimination half-life (t(1/2)) of 11.0+/-2.5 min. In the saline control study, the endogenous epinephrine concentration peaked at 518+/-142 pg/mL. CONCLUSION: In this model, absorption of epinephrine was significantly faster after intramuscular injection than after subcutaneous injection or inhalation. The extent of absorption was satisfactory after both intramuscular and subcutaneous injections. Neither the rate nor the extent of absorption was satisfactory after administration by inhalation.

Epinephrine absorption in children with a history of anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Prompt injection of epinephrine is the cornerstone of systemic anaphylaxis treatment. The rate of epinephrine absorption has not been reported previously in allergic children. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to study the clinical pharmacology of epinephrine in this population. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, blinded, parallel-group study in 17 children with a history of anaphylaxis to food, Hymenoptera venom, or other substances. We injected 0.01 ml/kg epinephrine solution (maximum 0.3 ml [0.3 mg]) subcutaneously, or 0.3 mg epinephrine intramuscularly from an autoinjector. Plasma epinephrine concentrations, heart rate, blood pressure, and adverse effects were monitored. RESULTS: In nine children who received epinephrine subcutaneously, the mean maximum plasma epinephrine concentration (+/- SEM) was 1802 +/- 214 pg/ml, achieved at a mean time of 34 +/- 14 minutes (range, 5 to 120 minutes). Only two of the nine children achieved maximum plasma concentrations by 5 minutes. In eight children who received epinephrine intramuscularly, the mean maximum plasma concentration was 2136 +/- 351 pg/ml, achieved at a mean time of 8 +/- 2 minutes, which was significantly faster than the mean time at which maximum plasma concentrations were achieved after subcutaneous epinephrine injection (p < 0.05). Six of the eight children achieved maximum plasma concentrations by 5 minutes. The terminal elimination half-life was 43 +/- 15 minutes. No serious adverse effects were noted in any child. CONCLUSIONS: In children, recommendations for subcutaneous epinephrine injection are based on anecdotal experience, and should be reevaluated in view of our finding of delayed epinephrine absorption when this route is used. This delay might have important clinical implications during an episode of systemic anaphylaxis. The intramuscular route of injection is preferable.

Peripheral H1-blockade effect of fexofenadine.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the suppressive effect of H1-receptor antagonists on the histamine-induced wheal and flare are useful for assessing peripheral H1-blockade. OBJECTIVE: To compare the peripheral H1-blockade produced by fexofenadine, 60 mg twice daily or 120 mg once daily; loratadine, 10 mg once daily; and placebo during 24 hours. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study in 20 subjects, the wheals and flares produced by epicutaneous tests with histamine phosphate 1 mg/mL were measured before and at intervals (20, 40, 60 minutes, hourly until 12 hours, and 24 hours) after the ingestion of fexofenadine, 60 mg twice daily; fexofenadine, 120 mg once daily; loratadine, 10 mg once daily; or placebo. RESULTS: All active medications effectively suppressed the histamine-induced wheal and flare for 24 hours compared with placebo. Fexofenadine 60 mg twice daily and fexofenadine 120 mg once daily had a faster onset of action than loratadine in this experimental model. CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral H1-blockade studies are useful for investigation of the differences among H1-receptor antagonists. They complement large clinical trials in which efficacy is subjectively assessed using symptom scores, and which are more likely to demonstrate similarities among the different medications in this class, and among different doses of the same H1-receptor antagonist.

Pharmacokinetics of the orally administered decongestants pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine in children.

BACKGROUND: There is little published, objective information about pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine in the treatment of children. Our goal was to determine the pharmacokinetics of these medications in young subjects. METHODS: In two sequential double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose studies, 21 children received either pseudoephedrine, 30 or 60 mg, or placebo, and 20 children received either phenylpropanolamine, 20 or 37.5 mg, or placebo. Before dosing and at intervals up to 7 hours after dosing, serum pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine concentrations were measured, and pulse and blood pressure were recorded. In two children receiving each drug, these tests were also performed at 12 and 24 hours, and urine was collected from 0 to 12 and from 12 to 24 hours. RESULTS: In children, the mean (+/-SEM) terminal elimination half-life values for pseudoephedrine, 3.1 +/- 0.5 hours, and for phenylpropanolamine, 2.6 +/- 0.6 hours, were significantly shorter than those found by other investigators in adults. Pharmacokinetics were not dose dependent in the dose ranges studied. CONCLUSION: Further studies of pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine should be performed in children with the use of objective measurements. The widespread use of these medications in young subjects should be reevaluated.

Comparison of the central nervous system effects produced by six H1-receptor antagonists.

BACKGROUND: A comprehensive comparative study of the central nervous system (CNS) properties of newer H1-receptor antagonist is needed. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to investigate the central nervous system effects of a single manufacturer's recommended dose of six H1-receptor antagonists, using appropriate controls. METHODS: Fifteen healthy subjects received astemizole 10 mg, cetirizine 10 mg, ketotifen 2 mg, loratadine 10 mg, terfenadine 60 mg, diphenhydramine 50 mg or placebo. Before and 2-2.5 h after dosing, cognitive function was assessed using the P300-event-related potential, somnolence was assessed using a subjective score, and histamine skin tests were performed. RESULTS: In rank order from least to greatest effect on the P300 latency, the medications were: terfenadine, placebo, cetirizine, ketotifen, loratadine, astemizole and diphenhydramine. Only diphenhydramine increased the P300 latency significantly compared with baseline and placebo. Subjective somnolence was significantly greater than baseline and placebo after cetirizine, ketotifen and diphenhydramine. All the H1-receptor antagonists suppressed the histamine induced weal significantly compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The H1-receptor antagonist tested affected cognitive functioning and somnolence to different extents, although all produced satisfactory peripheral H1-blockade.

Adverse central nervous system effects of older antihistamines in children.

Although older, potentially sedating, "first-generation" antihistamines (H1-receptor antagonists) are commonly used in childhood, their central nervous system (CNS) effects have not been well-documented in young subjects. We hypothesized that diphenhydramine and hydroxyzine would affect CNS function adversely in this population. Our objective was to evaluate the effects of these medications on central and peripheral histamine H1-receptors in children. Fifteen subjects with allergic rhinitis were tested before and 2-2.5 h after administration of diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine, or placebo in a double-blind, single-dose, three-way crossover study. Impairment of cognitive processing was assessed objectively by the latency of the P300 event-related potential (P300). Somnolence was assessed subjectively by a visual analog scale. Peripheral H1-blockade was assessed by suppression of the histamine-induced wheals and flares. At the central (Cz) and frontal (Fz) electrodes, diphenhydramine and hydroxyzine increased the P300 latency significantly (P < 0.05) compared to baseline. Hydroxyzine increased somnolence, as recorded on the visual analog scale, significantly compared to baseline (P < 0.05), with a similar trend for diphenhydramine (P = 0.07). Both antihistamines reduced histamine-induced wheals and flares significantly compared to baseline and compared to placebo. In children, diphenhydramine and hydroxyzine are effective H1-receptor antagonists, but both these medications cause CNS dysfunction, as evidenced by increased P300 latency, a measure of cognitive function, and by increased subjective somnolence.

Effect of cimetidine on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine in rabbits.

PURPOSE: The effects of concomitant administration of the H2-receptor antagonist cimetidine on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the H1-receptor antagonists chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine were studied in rabbits. METHOD: A single dose of chlorpheniramine 10 mg (Group A) or diphenhydramine 10 mg (Group B) was given intravenously on three different study days as follows: 2 weeks before cimetidine administration, after giving cimetidine 100 mg/kg intravenously every 12 hours for one week, and two weeks after discontinuing the cimetidine. Serum chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine concentrations were measured by HPLC. Histamine H1-blockade was assessed by measuring suppression of the histamine-induced wheals in the skin. RESULTS: The chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine terminal elimination half-life values and area under the curve values were significantly increased, and the systemic clearance rates were significantly decreased, during concomitant administration of cimetidine. For each H1-receptor antagonist, pharmacokinetic parameters were similar before cimetidine was co-administered and two weeks after cimetidine was discontinued. Wheal suppression produced by chlorpheniramine or diphenhydramine was increased and prolonged when cimetidine was administered concomitantly. CONCLUSION: Any enhanced peripheral H1-blockade observed could be attributed, at least in part, to a pharmacokinetic interaction.