Bilastine vs. hydroxyzine: occupation of brain histamine H1 -receptors evaluated by positron emission tomography in healthy volunteers.

AIM: A close correlation exists between positron emission tomography (PET)-determined histamine H1 -receptor occupancy (H1 RO) and the incidence of sedation. Antihistamines with H1 RO <20% are classified as non-sedating. The objective was to compare the H1 RO of bilastine, a second generation antihistamine, with that of hydroxyzine. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, crossover study used PET imaging with [(11) C]-doxepin to evaluate H1 RO in 12 healthy males (mean age 26.2 years), after single oral administration of bilastine (20 mg), hydroxyzine (25 mg) or placebo. Binding potentials and H1 ROs were calculated in five cerebral cortex regions of interest: frontal, occipital, parietal, temporal, insula. Plasma bilastine concentrations, subjective sedation (visual analogue scale), objective psychomotor performance (digital symbol substitution test), physiological variables and safety (adverse events, AEs), were also evaluated. RESULTS: The mean binding potential of all five regions of interest (total binding potential) was significantly greater with bilastine than hydroxyzine (mean value 0.26 vs. 0.13, P < 0.01; mean difference and 95% CI -0.130 [-0.155, 0.105]). There was no significant difference between bilastine and placebo. Overall H1 RO by bilastine was significantly lower than that by hydroxyzine (mean value -3.92% vs. 53.95%, P < 0.01; mean difference and 95% CI 57.870% [42.664%, 73.075%]). There was no significant linear relationship between individual bilastine plasma concentrations and total binding potential values. No significant between-treatment differences were observed for sedation and psychomotor performance. Twenty-six non-serious AEs were reported. Sleepiness or sedation was not reported with bilastine but appeared in some subjects with hydroxyzine. CONCLUSIONS: A single oral dose of bilastine 20 mg had minimal H1 RO, was not associated with subjective sedation or objective impairment of psychomotor performance and was devoid of treatment-related sedative AEs, thus satisfying relevant subjective, objective and PET criteria as a non-sedating antihistamine.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-brain Penetrating H1-Antihistamines for the Treatment of Allergic Diseases.

H1 receptor antagonists, known as H1-antihistamines (AHs), inactivate the histamine H1-receptor thereby preventing histamine causing the primary symptoms of allergic diseases, such as atopic dermatitis, pollinosis, food allergies, and urticaria. AHs, which are classified into first-generation (fgAHs) and second-generation (sgAHs) antihistamines, are the first line of treatment for allergic diseases. Although fgAHs are effective, they cause adverse reactions such as potent sedating effects, including drowsiness, lassitude, and cognitive impairment; anticholinergic effects, including thirst and tachycardia. Consequently, the use of fgAHs is not recommended for allergic diseases. Today, sgAHs, which are minimally sedating and, therefore, may be used at more effective doses, are the first-line treatment for alleviating the symptoms of allergic diseases. Pharmacologically, the use of sedating fgAHs is limited to antiemetics, anti-motion sickness drugs, and antivertigo drugs. The use of histamine H1-receptor occupancy (H1RO) based on positron emission tomography (PET) has been developed for the evaluation of brain penetrability. Based on the results of the H1RO-PET studies, non-brain-penetrating AHs (nbpAHs) have recently been reclassified among sgAHs. The nbpAHs are rapidly acting and exhibit minimal adverse reactions and, thus, are considered first-line drugs for allergic diseases. In this review, we will introduce recent topics on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of AHs and make recommendations for the use of nbpAHs as first-line treatment options for allergic diseases.

The clinical pharmacology of non-sedating antihistamines.

We previously reported on brain H1 receptor occupancy measurements of antihistamines in human brain using [11C]doxepin and positron emission tomography (PET). We proposed the use of brain H1 receptor occupancy to classify antihistamines objectively into three categories of sedating, less-sedating, and non-sedating antihistamines according to their sedative effects. Non-sedating antihistamines are recommended for the treatment of allergies such as pollinosis and atopic dermatitis because of their low penetration into the central nervous system. Physicians and pharmacists are responsible for fully educating patients about the risks of sedating antihistamines from pharmacological points of view. If a sedating antihistamine must be prescribed, its sedative effects should be thoroughly considered before choosing the drug. Non-sedating antihistamines should be preferentially used whenever possible as most antihistamines are equally efficacious, while adverse effects of sedating antihistamines can be serious. This review summarizes the pharmacological properties of clinically useful non-sedating antihistamines from the perspective of histamine function in the CNS.

Brain histamine H1 receptor occupancy measured by PET after oral administration of levocetirizine, a non-sedating antihistamine.

OBJECTIVE: Histamine H1 receptor (H1R) antagonists often have sedative side effects, which are caused by the blockade of the neural transmission of the histaminergic neurons. We examined the brain H1R occupancy (H1RO) and the subjective sleepiness of levocetirizine, a new second-generation antihistamine, comparing fexofenadine, another non-sedating antihistamine, as a negative active control. METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers underwent positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with [(11)C]doxepin, a PET tracer that specifically binds to H1Rs, after a single oral administration of levocetirizine (5 mg), fexofenadine (60 mg) or placebo in a double-blind crossover study. Binding potential ratios and H1ROs in the cerebral cortices regions were calculated using placebo. Subjective sleepiness was assessed with the Line Analogue Rating Scale and the Stanford Sleepiness Scale. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the mean brain H1RO after levocetirizine administration (8.1%; 95% CI: -9.8 to 26.0%) and fexofenadine administration (-8.0%; 95% CI: -26.7 to 10.6%). Similarly, subjective sleepiness was not significantly different between the two antihistamines and placebo. Neither subjective sleepiness nor plasma concentrations was significantly correlated with the brain H1RO of the two antihistamines. CONCLUSION: At therapeutic dose, levocetirizine does not bind significantly to the brain H1Rs and does not induce significant sedation.