Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Bilastine 10 mg/d in Children Aged 2 to 5 Years With Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis or Urticaria: A Phase 3 Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Bilastine is a second-generation antihistamine for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) and urticaria in adults, adolescents, and children. The pharmacokinetics and safety of oral bilastine 10 mg/d in children aged 2 to 5 years were evaluated. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label clinical trial in children aged 2 to 5 years with seasonal or perennial ARC or urticaria treated once daily with bilastine 10 mg orodispersible tablets. The safety evaluation included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, and physical examination. Pharmacokinetic data were pooled with data from a prior pediatric study, and pharmacokinetic modeling was performed to assess consistency. RESULTS: A total of 37 children with ARC (81.1%), urticaria (8.1%), or both (10.8%) were included in the study, with a mean (SD) age of 3.7 (1.2) years. The highest plasma concentrations of bilastine were observed 1 hour after administration (634.91 ng/mL). Eight patients (21.6%) experienced 1 TEAE each, none of which was severe. Body weight and age were not covariates of variation in either systemic clearance or the volume of distribution in children aged 2 to 5 years and did not affect the pharmacokinetic parameters of bilastine. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetics of bilastine was linear and consistent with data from a previous trial, suggesting that a 10-mg dose may be used in children (2 to <12 years). No dose adjustments are deemed necessary. Oral once-daily bilastine 10 mg presented a good safety profile in children aged 2 to 5.

A highly sensitive spectrofluorimetric method for the determination of bilastine in human plasma: Application of content uniformity testing.

Bilastine, a new second generation antihistaminic drug, has been widely used for relieving symptoms of allergic rhinitis and urticaria without a sedative effect. A simple, cost-effective, and highly sensitive fluorimetric method was developed for the estimation of bilastine in human plasma, in addition to its pure state and tablets. The suggested method depended on binary complex formation of eosin with bilastine in a buffered medium at pH 4.2. The formed complex resulted in quantitative quenching of eosin emission at 538 nm after excitation at 335 nm. This method demonstrates a broad range of linearity, spanning from 200 to 1000 ng/mL, and exhibits exceptional sensitivity, with a limit of detection and quantitation of 30.85 and 93.48 ng/mL, respectively. In addition, this spectrofluorimetric method may be employed to determine the amount of bilastine in human plasma and tablets with satisfactory accuracy and excellent precision. Furthermore, the content uniformity of bilastine in commercially available tablets was successfully tested by this approach. Compared with the reference method, there were no significant variations in terms of precision or accuracy. In conclusion, the proposed protocol is highly recommended to quantitatively estimate bilastine in different quality control settings.

Effect of Bilastine on Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic diseases are a public health problem with the largest number of patients and the widest age distribution. Chronic urticaria (CU) is a common clinical allergic disease. Bilastine is effective in the treatment of CU, especially skin wind masses and erythema. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Bilastine in the treatment of CU symptoms and to provide an evidence-based reference for clinical rational drug use. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Embase, EBSCO, and other databases were searched by computer to collect the trials on the effect of bilastine on patients with CU. The retrieval time limit was established until November 2021. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included study. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.4 software. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies were included, including 975 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that compared to the control group, bilastine significantly improved the skin quality of life index, Total Symptom Score (TSS), and weekly urticaria activity score. The skin quality of life index DLQI score (MD = -4.98, 95% CI: -8.09 to -1.86, p = 0.002), skin symptom score TSS (MD = -1.62, 95% CI -2.29 to -0.94, p < 0.00001), the number of hives in a week UAS-7 score (MD = -25.28, 95% CI -32.36 to -18.19, p < 0.00001), and the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Bilastine has a better therapeutic effect on CU and can also significantly improve the clinical symptoms and quality of life of CU.

Bilastine 0.6% preservative-free eye drops, an effective once-daily treatment to reduce signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis: A pooled analysis of two randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Allergic conjunctivitis is the most common type of ocular allergy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new once-daily, preservative-free, bilastine 0.6% eye drop formulation for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS: Two double-masked, vehicle controlled, clinical studies (a Phase 2 Dose Ranging Study and a Phase 3 Efficacy Study) were conducted to assess the efficacy of bilastine ophthalmic solution for the treatment of signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Both studies used the Ora-CAC® Conjunctival Allergen Challenge (CAC) Model to allow observations of allergic responses under controlled conditions. Each study was analyzed separately and then combined to create an integrated dataset. RESULTS: Efficacy was achieved for the primary efficacy endpoint of ocular itching for three bilastine concentrations (0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.6%) at 15 minutes and 8 hours post-instillation and bilastine 0.6% ophthalmic solution was also efficacious at 16 hours post-instillation. Bilastine 0.6% ophthalmic solution demonstrated non-inferiority to ketotifen 0.025% at the onset of action. From the integrated data set, differences between vehicle and bilastine 0.6% were significant at all time points both at onset (15 minutes) and at a prolonged duration (16 hours) after instillation. CONCLUSION: This multi-trial assessment suggests that bilastine 0.6% ophthalmic solution is efficacious for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, with a rapid and prolonged duration of action, and has a favorable safety profile. The added convenience of a once-a-day dosing regimen may contribute to patient adherence and improve their quality of life.

Bilastine 0.6% preservative-free eye drops, a once-daily treatment for allergic conjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Bilastine is a second-generation antihistamine approved for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of a new bilastine 0.6% preservative-free eye-drops formulation for the symptomatic treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS: This phase 3, multicenter, double-masked, randomized study evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of bilastine 0.6% ophthalmic solution compared to ketotifen 0.025% and vehicle. The primary efficacy endpoint was ocular itching reduction. The Ora-CAC® Allergen Challenge Model was used to assess ocular and nasal symptoms at 15 minutes (onset of action) and 16 hours post-treatment. RESULTS: Subjects (N=228) were 59.6% male, and the mean (SD) age was 44.1 (13.4) years. Bilastine demonstrated efficacy in reducing ocular itching compared to vehicle at both onset of action and 16 hours post-treatment (P <0.001). Ketotifen showed improvement compared to vehicle 15 minutes post-treatment (P <0.001). Bilastine demonstrated statistical non-inferiority to ketotifen for all 3 post-CAC timepoints at 15 minutes post-instillation, based on an inferiority margin of 0.4. Bilastine demonstrated improvement over vehicle (P <0.05) for conjunctival redness, ciliary redness, episcleral redness, chemosis, eyelid swelling, tearing, rhinorrhea, ear and palate pruritus and nasal congestion at 15 minutes post-treatment. Ophthalmic bilastine was safe and well tolerated. Mean drop comfort scores were significantly better (P <0.05) for bilastine compared with ketotifen immediately upon instillation, and similar compared with vehicle. CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmic bilastine effectively reduced ocular itching for 16 hours post-treatment, suggesting that it could be used as a once-daily treatment for the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03479307.

Efficacy of Once-Daily Ophthalmic Bilastine for the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Dose-Finding Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Bilastine is a nonsedating second-generation antihistamine for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. Our study aimed to evaluate the optimal dose, efficacy, and safety of a newly developed once-daily preservative-free ophthalmic formulation of bilastine for allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS: Our phase 2, single-center, double-masked, randomized trial compared the efficacy of 3 doses of a bilastine ophthalmic formulation (0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.6%) with that of vehicle for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. The primary efficacy endpoint was the reduction in ocular itching. The Ora-CAC Conjunctival Allergen Challenge model was used to assess ocular and nasal symptoms at the onset of action (15 minutes) and at 8- and 16-hours after treatment. Tolerance and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 121 adults with seasonal and/or perennial ocular allergy were randomized. Bilastine ophthalmic formulations 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.6% were significantly superior (P>.001) to vehicle for the treatment of ocular itching at 3, 5, and 7 minutes after challenge at onset of action (15 minutes) and at 8 hours after treatment. Bilastine 0.6% was also effective at 16 hours after treatment. Treatment differences for bilastine 0.6% were statistically significant (P<.001) compared to vehicle at all timepoints for tearing, eyelid swelling, and nasal symptoms. No relevant adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: All the tested ophthalmic bilastine doses were efficacious for rapid reduction of ocular itching. The 0.6% formulation was effective up to 16 hours after treatment, making it suitable for once-daily administration. The new formulation was safe and well tolerated.

A highly sensitive micelle-enhanced synchronous spectrofluorimetric determination of the recently approved co-formulated drugs, bilastine and montelukast in pharmaceuticals and human plasma at nanogram levels.

In this study, the simultaneous determination of bilastine and montelukast, two recently approved co-formulated antihistaminic medications, was accomplished using a quick, sensitive, environmentally friendly, and reasonably priced synchronous fluorescence spectroscopic approach for the first time. Enhancement of the method's sensitivity down to nanogram levels was achieved by the addition of sodium dodecyl sulfate (1.0% w/v) as a micellar system. According to the results, bilastine and montelukast's fluorescence was measured at 255.3 and 355.3 nm, respectively, using Δλ of 40.0 nm and distilled water as a green diluting solvent. With respect to the concentration ranges of bilastine (5.0-300.0 ng/ml) and montelukast (50.0-1000.0 ng/ml), the method showed excellent linearity (r ≥ 0.9998). The results showed that the suggested method is highly sensitive, with detection limits of 1.42 and 13.74 ng/ml for bilastine and montelukast, respectively. Within-run precisions (intra- and interday) per cent relative standard deviations (RSD) for both analytes were <0.59%. With high percentage recoveries and low percentage RSD values, the designed approach was successfully applied for the simultaneous estimation of the cited medications in their dosage form and human plasma samples. To evaluate the green profile of the suggested method, an analytical GREENNESS metric approach (AGREE) and green analytical procedure index (GAPI) metric tools were used. These two methods for evaluating greenness confirmed that the developed method met the highest number of green requirements, recommending its use as a green substitute for the routine analysis of the studied drugs. The proposed approach was validated according to ICHQ2 (R1) guidelines.

Lack of Clinical Relevance of Bilastine-Food Interaction in Healthy Volunteers: A Wheal and Flare Study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacodynamic activity of bilastine administered under fasting and fed conditions in healthy volunteers. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover study involving 24 healthy subjects, once-daily oral bilastine 20 mg was administered for 4 days under fasting and fed conditions, with a 7-day washout period. Bilastine plasma concentrations were measured for 24 h after the first and fourth doses in each period. Pharmacodynamic activity was assessed by wheal and flare surface inhibition and subjective assessment of itching, after intradermal injection of histamine 5 µg. RESULTS: When administered under fed versus fasting conditions, exposure to bilastine 20 mg decreased (mean maximum plasma concentration and area under the curve from time 0 to 24 h decreased by 34.27% and 32.72% [day 1], respectively, and 33.08% and 28.87% [day 4]). Despite this, the antihistaminic effect of bilastine 20 mg was not altered by food. On day 1, as assessed by wheal and flare surface inhibition, the maximum effect and duration of action of bilastine did not differ to a significant extent between fasting and fed conditions, with only a short 30-min delay in the onset of wheal inhibition. At steady state (day 4), bilastine's pharmacodynamic effects were not significantly affected under fasting or fed conditions. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetic interaction of bilastine with food does not imply a significant reduction of its peripheral antihistaminic efficacy. Despite a slight delay in onset of action on the first treatment day, the global clinical efficacy of bilastine is not affected by coadministration with food.

Differential Regulation of Bilastine Affinity for Human Histamine H1 Receptors by Lys 179 and Lys 191 via Its Binding Enthalpy and Entropy.

Bilastine, a zwitterionic second-generation antihistamine containing a carboxyl group, has higher selectivity for H1 receptors than first-generation antihistamines. Ligand-receptor docking simulations have suggested that the electrostatic interaction between the carboxyl group of second-generation antihistamines and the amino group of Lys179ECL2 and Lys1915.39 of human H1 receptors might contribute to increased affinity of these antihistamines to H1 receptors. In this study, we evaluated the roles of Lys179ECL2 and Lys1915.39 in regulating the electrostatic and hydrophobic binding of bilastine to H1 receptors by thermodynamic analyses. The binding enthalpy and entropy of bilastine were estimated from the van 't Hoff equation using the dissociation constants. These constants were obtained from the displacement curves against the binding of [3H] mepyramine to membrane preparations of Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing wild-type human H1 receptors and their Lys179ECL2 or Lys1915.39 mutants to alanine at various temperatures. We found that the binding of bilastine to wild-type H1 receptors occurred by enthalpy-dependent binding forces and, more dominantly, entropy-dependent binding forces. The mutation of Lys179ECL2 and Lys1915.39 to alanine reduced the affinity of bilastine to H1 receptors by reducing enthalpy- and entropy-dependent binding forces, respectively. These results suggest that Lys179ECL2 and Lys1915.39 differentially contribute to the increased binding affinity to bilastine via electrostatic and hydrophobic binding forces.

Effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of bilastine 20 mg vs levocetirizine 5 mg for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria: A double-blind, parallel group, randomized controlled trial.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a debilitating condition, adversely affecting the patient's quality of life. Bilastine is a recently introduced, non-sedative H1-antihistamine for its treatment. We wanted to compare the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of bilastine 20 mg vs levocetirizine 5 mg in moderate-to-severe CSU. We conducted a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with two groups: bilastine 20 mg (n = 31) and levocetirizine 5 mg (n = 27), once daily for 42 days. We included patients (18-65 years), with moderate-to-severe CSU. UAS7, VAS, and DLQI were used to assess severity of urticaria, global urticaria-induced discomfort and quality of life, respectively. DLQI was assessed at baseline (D0) and end-of-treatment (D42), while UAS7 and VAS were noted at baseline and all follow-up visits. Assessment of UAS7 alteration was our primary objective, while changes in DLQI and VAS were the secondary outcomes. Safety was assessed by recording drug-related adverse events, biochemical investigations, and electrocardiogram, along with tolerability and compliance. Both drugs significantly improved UAS7, DLQI, and VAS at end-of-treatment (D42) compared with baseline (intra-group). At the end-of-treatment, all parameters showed greater improvement with bilastine, but only UAS7 reduction was significant (bilastine > levocetirizine, P = .03). In both the groups, UAS7 and VAS improved significantly D14 onwards, and was maintained throughout the study. Sedation was significantly less with bilastine (P = .04), while neither drug showed any serious adverse-effect. Tolerability of both drugs was similar. Therefore, bilastine was found to be a more effective and less-sedative novel therapy for CSU compared to levocetirizine, with similar effect on quality of life.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of bilastine in children aged 6 to 11 years with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or chronic urticaria.

Bilastine, a second-generation antihistamine, is approved in Europe for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria in adults and children aged ≥ 6 years. Pharmacokinetic data for children aged 6-11 years were extracted post hoc from a study in which children (2-11 years) with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or urticaria received oral bilastine (10 mg/day). Maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) data were compared with adult pharmacokinetic data from seven clinical studies (bilastine 20 mg/day). Safety data for children aged 6-11 years were extracted post hoc from a phase III randomized controlled trial of children (2-11 years) with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or chronic urticaria receiving once-daily bilastine 10 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. Exposure and Cmax values were similar for children (6-11 years) and adults: median pediatric/adult ratios for AUC0-24 and Cmax were 0.93 and 0.91, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse in children (6-11 years) receiving bilastine 10 mg or placebo.Conclusion: Pharmacokinetic and safety analyses in children aged 6-11 years support the suitability of the pediatric dose of bilastine 10 mg and confirm that the safety profiles of bilastine and placebo are similar.What is Known:• Bilastine, a second-generation antihistamine, is approved in Europe for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria in adults (20 mg/day) and children aged ≥ 6 years (10 mg/day).• An ontogenic model based on adult data and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic simulations supported the selection of a bilastine dose of 10 mg/day in children aged 2-11 years. Bilastine 10 mg/day was shown to have a safety profile similar to that of placebo in a large phase III randomized clinical trial in children aged 2-11 years.What is New:• As bilastine is approved in Europe for children aged ≥6 years, the current study reports the results of two post hoc analyses of pharmacokinetic and safety data in children aged 6-11 years.• Analysis of pharmacokinetic and safety data in children aged 6-11 years supports the suitability of the pediatric dose of bilastine 10 mg and confirms that its safety profile is similar to that of placebo.

Antihistamines for Allergic Rhinitis Treatment from the Viewpoint of Nonsedative Properties.

Antihistamines targeting the histamine H1 receptor play an important role in improving and maintaining the quality of life of patients with allergic rhinitis. For more effective and safer use of second-generation drugs, which are recommended by various guidelines, a classification based on their detailed characteristics is necessary. Antihistamines for first-line therapy should not have central depressant/sedative activities. Sedative properties (drowsiness and impaired performance) are associated with the inhibition of central histamine neurons. Brain H1 receptor occupancy (H1RO) is a useful index shown to be correlated with indices based on clinical findings. Antihistamines are classified into non-sedating (<20%), less-sedating (20⁻50%), and sedating (≥50%) groups based on H1RO. Among the non-sedating group, fexofenadine and bilastine are classified into "non-brain-penetrating antihistamines" based on the H1RO. These two drugs have many common chemical properties. However, bilastine has more potent binding affinity to the H1 receptor, and its action tends to last longer. In well-controlled studies using objective indices, bilastine does not affect psychomotor or driving performance even at twice the usual dose (20 mg). Upon selecting antihistamines for allergic rhinitis, various situations should be taken into our consideration. This review summarizes that the non-brain-penetrating antihistamines should be chosen for the first-line therapy of mild allergic rhinitis.

Model Informed Pediatric Development Applied to Bilastine: Ontogenic PK Model Development, Dose Selection for First Time in Children and PK Study Design.

PURPOSE: Bilastine is an H1 antagonist whose pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) have been resolved in adults with a therapeutic oral dose of 20 mg/day. Bilastine has favorable characteristics for use in pediatrics but the PK/PD and the optimal dose in children had yet to be clinically explored. The purpose is to: (1) Develop an ontogenic predictive model of bilastine PK linked to the PD in adults by integrating current knowledge; (2) Use the model to design a PK study in children; (3) Confirm the selected dose and the study design through the evaluation of model predictability in the first recruited children; (4) Consider for inclusion the group of younger children (< 6 years). METHODS: A semi-mechanistic approach was applied to predict bilastine PK in children assuming the same PD as described in adults. The model was used to simulate the time evolution of plasma levels and wheal and flare effects after several doses and design an adaptive PK trial in children that was then confirmed using data from the first recruits by comparing observations with model predictions. RESULTS: PK/PD simulations supported the selection of 10 mg/day in 2 to <12 year olds. Results from the first interim analysis confirmed the model predictions and design hence trial continuation. CONCLUSION: The model successfully predicted bilastine PK in pediatrics and optimally assisted the selection of the dose and sampling scheme for the trial in children. The selected dose was considered suitable for younger children and the forthcoming safety study in children aged 2 to <12 years.

Selecting optimal second-generation antihistamines for allergic rhinitis and urticaria in Asia.

BACKGROUND: Allergic diseases are on the rise in many parts of the world, including the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. Second-generation antihistamines are the first-line treatment option in the management of allergic rhinitis and urticaria. International guidelines describe the management of these conditions; however, clinicians perceive the additional need to tailor treatment according to patient profiles. This study serves as a consensus of experts from several countries in APAC (Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam), which aims to describe the unmet needs, practical considerations, challenges, and key decision factors when determining optimal second-generation antihistamines for patients with allergic rhinitis and/or urticaria. METHODS: Specialists from allergology, dermatology, and otorhinolaryngology were surveyed on practical considerations and key decision points when treating patients with allergic rhinitis and/or urticaria. RESULTS: Clinicians felt the need for additional tools for diagnosis of these diseases and a single drug with all preferred features of an antihistamine. Challenges in treatment include lack of clinician and patient awareness and compliance, financial constraints, and treatment for special patient populations such as those with concomitant disease. Selection of optimal second-generation antihistamines depends on many factors, particularly drug safety and efficacy, impact on psychomotor abilities, and sedation. Country-specific considerations include drug availability and cost-effectiveness. Survey results reveal bilastine as a preferred choice due to its high efficacy and safety, suitability for special patient populations, and the lack of sedative effects. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance to the international guidelines is present among allergists, dermatologists and otorhinolaryngologists; however, this is lower amongst general practitioners (GPs). To increase awareness, allergy education programs targeted at GPs and patients may be beneficial. Updates to the existing international guidelines are suggested in APAC to reflect appropriate management for different patient profiles and varying symptoms of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

Therapeutic effect of bilastine in Japanese cedar pollinosis using an artificial exposure chamber (OHIO Chamber).

BACKGROUND: Environmental exposure chambers have been used to expose subjects to aeroallergens to investigate the efficacy of prophylactic treatment with symptomatic agents in Japan. We first examined the therapeutic effect of bilastine (BIL), a novel non-sedative second-generation H1-antihistamine, in subjects with Japanese cedar pollinosis using an artificial exposure chamber (OHIO Chamber). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, four-way crossover, placebo- and active-controlled phase II study (trial registration number JapicCTI-132213). Subjects were exposed to cedar pollen (8000 grains/m3) for 2 h on Day -1 and 4 h each on Day 1 and 2. BIL 10 or 20 mg, placebo, or fexofenadine hydrochloride (FEX) 60 mg was administered orally 1 h after the start of pollen exposure on Day 1. Placebo or FEX was administered 12 h after the first dosing. The primary efficacy endpoint was the sum of total nasal symptom score (TNSS) from 0 to 3 h after the Day 1 dosing. RESULTS: We enrolled 136 subjects and the sum of TNSS on Day 1 of the three active treatments was significantly lower than that of placebo and was maintained up to 26 h after the first dosing (Day 2). The sum of TNSS or sneezing score on Day 1 after BIL 20 mg was more significantly decreased than after FEX. Moreover, BIL showed a faster onset of action than FEX. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the efficacy, rapid onset, and long duration of action of BIL in subjects with Japanese cedar pollinosis exposed to cedar pollen using the OHIO Chamber.

Efficacy and safety of bilastine in Japanese patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Bilastine, a novel non-sedating second-generation H1 antihistamine, has been approved in most European countries since 2010. This study aimed to evaluate the superiority of bilastine over placebo in Japanese patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III study (trial registration number JapicCTI-142600) evaluated the effect of a 2-week treatment period with bilastine (20 mg once daily), fexofenadine (60 mg twice daily), or a matched placebo (double dummy) in patients with PAR. All patients were instructed to record individual nasal and ocular symptoms in diaries daily. The primary endpoint was the mean change in total nasal symptom scores (TNSS) from baseline to Week 2 (Days 10-13). RESULTS: A total of 765 patients were randomly allocated to receive bilastine, fexofenadine, or placebo (256, 254, and 255 patients, respectively). The mean change in TNSS from baseline at Week 2 was significantly decreased by bilastine (-0.98) compared to placebo (-0.63, P = 0.023). Bilastine and fexofenadine showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint. However, the mean change in TNSS from baseline on Day 1 was more significantly decreased by bilastine (-0.99) than by placebo (-0.28, P < 0.001) or fexofenadine (-0.62, P = 0.032). The active drugs also improved instantaneous TNSS 1 h after the first and before the second drug administration on Day 1 (P < 0.05). The study drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: After 2-week treatment period, bilastine 20 mg once daily was effective and tolerable in Japanese patients with PAR, and exhibited a rapid onset of action.

Efficacy and safety of bilastine in Japanese patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase II/III study.

BACKGROUND: Bilastine, a novel non-sedating second-generation H1-antihistamine, has been widely used in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria with a recommended dose of 20 mg once daily in most European countries since 2010. We evaluated its efficacy and safety in Japanese patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II/III study (trial registration No. JapicCTI-142574). Patients (age, 18-74 years) were randomly assigned to receive bilastine 20 mg, 10 mg or placebo once daily for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline (Day -3 to 0) in total symptom score (TSS) at 2 weeks (Day 8-14), consisting of the itch and rash scores. RESULTS: A total of 304 patients were randomly allocated to bilastine 20 mg (101 patients), bilastine 10 mg (100 patients), and placebo (103 patients). The changes in TSS at 2 weeks were significantly decreased by bilastine 20 mg than did placebo (p < 0.001), demonstrating the superiority of bilastine 20 mg. Bilastine 10 mg also showed a significant difference from placebo (p < 0.001). The TSS changes for the bilastine showed significant improvement from Day 1, and were maintained during the treatment period. The Dermatology Life Quality Index scores were also improved in bilastine than in placebo. The bilastine treatments were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Two-week treatment with bilastine (20 or 10 mg) once daily was effective and tolerable in Japanese patients with CSU, demonstrating an early onset of action.

Safety and tolerability of bilastine 10 mg administered for 12 weeks in children with allergic diseases.

BACKGROUND: Regulations on medicinal products for paediatric use require that pharmacokinetics and safety be characterized specifically in the paediatric population. A previous study established that a 10-mg dose of bilastine in children aged 2 to <12 years provided an equivalent systemic exposure as 20 mg in adults. The current study assessed the safety and tolerability of bilastine 10 mg in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria. METHODS: In this phase III, multicentre, double-blind study, children were randomized to once-daily treatment with bilastine 10-mg oral dispersible table (n = 260) or placebo (n = 249) for 12 weeks. Safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory tests, cardiac safety (ECG recordings) and somnolence/sedation using the Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ). RESULTS: The primary hypothesis of non-inferiority between bilastine 10 mg and placebo was demonstrated on the basis of a near-equivalent proportion of children in each treatment arm without TEAEs during 12 weeks' treatment (31.5 vs. 32.5%). No clinically relevant differences between bilastine 10 mg and placebo were observed from baseline to study end for TEAEs or related TEAEs, ECG parameters and PSQ scores. The majority of TEAEs were mild or moderate in intensity. TEAEs led to discontinuation of two patients treated with bilastine 10 mg and one patient treated with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Bilastine 10 mg had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of placebo in children aged 2 to <12 years with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or chronic urticaria.

Prediction of the Efficacy of Antihistamines in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria Based on Initial Suppression of the Histamine- Induced Wheal.

BACKGROUND: Antihistamines are the first line of treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria. However, there is no effective method to predict whether an antihistamine will have a beneficial clinical effect or not. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the change in histamine-induced wheal and flare measurements 24 hours after administration of antihistamine can predict the efficacy of treatment. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, triple-blind, randomized study. Patients received a daily oral dose of cetirizine, fexofenadine, bilastine, desloratadine, or ebastine over 8 weeks. After 4 weeks, a higher dose of antihistamine was administered to patients who did not experience a clinical response. A histamine skin prick test was carried out at baseline and 24 hours after the first dose of antihistamine. Disease severity (Urticaria Activity Score [UAS]), response to the histamine skin prick test, and impact on the patient's quality of life (Dermatology Life Quality Index [DLQI]) were determined every 2 weeks. RESULTS: The study population comprised 150 patients (30 per group) and 30 controls. Twenty-four hours after administration of antihistamine, inhibition of the histamine wheal by >75% was significantly associated with better UAS and DLQI scores. The safety and efficacy of the 5 antihistamines were similar. After updosing, rates of disease control (DLQI score <5) increased from 58.7% to 76.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of the histamine-induced wheal can predict which patients will have a strong clinical response to antihistamines but has limited utility for identifying nonresponders. The clinical significance of these data could be relevant in the search for new urticaria treatment regimens.

Bilastine: new insight into antihistamine treatment.

Bilastine is a new second generation H1-antihistamine recently approved for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic urticaria (CU). Bilastine epitomizes the evolution of research on antihistamines concerning both efficacy and safety. In AR treatment, a number of large controlled clinical trials documented its efficacy, as assessed by improvement of all nasal and ocular symptoms and quality of life. These outcomes show that bilastine meets current EAACI/ARIA criteria for medications used in the treatment of AR. Also in CU, the review of the literature indicates that once-daily treatment with bilastine 20 mg was effective in managing symptoms and improving patient's quality of life. Concerning safety and tolerability, the profile of bilastine is very similar to placebo and in particular the adverse effects on central nervous system are insignificant. The balance of efficacy and safety of bilastine is particularly helpful when dosages higher than standard are needed to control the symptoms, as frequently occurs in patients with urticaria, in whom antihistamines doses up to four times the standard dose may be administered.