Blocking of histamine-induced conjunctivitis by the oral antihistamine, astemizole.
(33/48)
When histamine is applied topically to the eye it produces stinging and inflammation of the caruncle and bulbar and palpebral conjunctiva. This model has been employed in the present study to assess the ability of an oral antihistamine, astemizole, to attenuate the irritation and inflammatory signs. Astemizole 30 mg, taken orally once daily for 1 week, considerably lessened the stinging and significantly lowered the signs of inflammation caused by topically applied histamines. (+info)
Performance studies with the H1-histamine receptor antagonists, astemizole and terfenadine.
(34/48)
1 Effects of the antihistamines, terfenadine (60 mg) and astemizole (10 and 20 mg), on performance (visuo-motor coordination, arithmetical ability and digit symbol substitution) and on mood were studied in six healthy adult females. The study was double-blind, placebo controlled and included an antihistamine with known central effects (triprolidine 10 mg in sustained release form). 2 There were no changes in performance after terfenadine (60 mg) and astemizole (10 and 20 mg). Triprolidine (10 mg) caused a decrement in visuo-motor coordination (P less than 0.01) 0.5 h after ingestion which lasted until 3.5 h (P less than 0.001). The subject assessed their performance as impaired from 1.5-3.5 h (P less than 0.05) with triprolidine (10 mg), and their mood assessments were also altered. 3 Terfenadine (60 mg) and astemizole (10 and 20 mg) are likely to prove useful antihistamines for those involved in skilled activity. (+info)
The acute and chronic effects of H1 receptor blockade with astemizole on indocyanine green clearance.
(35/48)
The effects of acute and chronic (3 months) dosing with astemizole on indocyanine green kinetics have been investigated in normal volunteers and patients. A single dose of astemizole 40 mg produced significant reduction in indocyanine green clearance (P less than 0.02) and volume of distribution (P less than 0.02) when assessed at 48 h, but not at 24 h. In six volunteers who did not receive astemizole there was no significant change in indocyanine green kinetics over a 48 h period. In seven patients on chronic treatment with astemizole there was no significant change in indocyanine green kinetics when these were measured at 1 month and 3 months and compared to pre-treatment values. The change in indocyanine green clearance and volume of distribution following acute astemizole treatment did not correlate with H1-receptor antagonism. Change in indocyanine green clearance following acute drug administration may not be due to changes in liver blood flow and should therefore be interpreted with caution. (+info)
Mechanism of action of antipruritic drugs.
(36/48)
Astemizole and terfenadine, two potent non-sedative H1 antihistamines, had no effect on itch measured objectively as nocturnal scratching and subjectively on a 10 cm line. Trimeprazine, however, a more sedative but less potent H1 antihistamine, was antipruritic, as was nitrazepam, a sedative benzodiazepine. We concluded (a) that antipruritic drugs act centrally by a property related to sedation; (b) H1 receptor antagonists have a peripheral antipruritic action only when itch is due to histamine release, as in the wealing disorders. Thus the new nonsedative H1 antihistamines have no place in the treatment of itch from other causes. (+info)
Astemizole, a potent histamine H1-receptor antagonist: effect in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, on antigen and histamine induced skin weal responses and relationship to serum levels.
(37/48)
The efficacy of astemizole, a new, long acting, oral histamine H1-receptor antagonist was compared to placebo for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis during the grass pollen season of 1982. Sixty-three patients with a positive skin prick test to grass pollen and current symptoms participated in an 8 week, double-blind, randomized study. Astemizole, 10 mg, was significantly better than placebo in alleviating both nose (P less than 0.05) and eye (P less than 0.01) symptoms despite significantly greater use of the reserve medication, clemastine, by the placebo group (P less than 0.003). There was a lag period of 5 days after initiation of therapy before treatment benefit became manifest. Subdivision of nasal symptoms indicated significant improvement compared to placebo over the 8 weeks for sneezing (P less than 0.05) and runny nose (P less than 0.05) but not blocked nose. The absence of effect on nasal blockage was confirmed by parallel measurement of nasal calibre by body plethysmography. The antihistaminic potency of astemizole was indicated by an 80% inhibition of the histamine induced skin weal response after 8 weeks therapy. A positive correlation was found between serum drug levels and % inhibition of histamine skin weal (r = 0.64, P less than 0.001). Astemizole was free from adverse sedative or anticholinergic effects but did cause a mean increase in weight of 1.3 kg (P less than 0.01) after 8 weeks therapy, not found with placebo. (+info)
Comparative trial of two non-sedative H1 antihistamines, terfenadine and astemizole, for hay fever.
(38/48)
Ninety patients participated in a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled comparison of terfenadine with astemizole in the treatment of hay fever. They entered the trial as a cohort before the grass pollen season and recorded daily their symptoms of itching eyes, sneezing, running nose, and blocked nose on visual analogue scales in diary cards. Over the eight weeks of the trial astemizole was significantly better than either terfenadine or placebo in alleviating itching eyes, sneezing, and running nose (p less than 0.0001) but no better than placebo for the treatment of blocked nose. The placebo was significantly better than terfenadine for the treatment of running nose and blocked nose (p less than 0.002). Neither of these H1 antihistamine drugs was associated with sedative adverse effects despite significantly inhibiting histamine induced skin weal responses. These results suggest that astemizole is a satisfactory non-sedative H1 antihistamine for maintenance treatment of hay fever. Terfenadine is ineffective by comparison. (+info)
Carcinogenicity studies of astemizole in mice and rats.
(39/48)
The histamine H1 antagonist astemizole (Hismanal) was tested for carcinogenicity in Swiss mice and Wistar rats. Astemizole was administered with the food to mice for 18 and to rats for 24 consecutive months. The doses given--approximately 5, 20, and 80 mg/kg body weight.day--were equivalent to 25, 100, and 400 times, respectively, the recommended human dose of 10 mg/day. Survival of both mice and rats was comparable between groups. Peto's age-adjusted, dose-related trend analysis for the tumor-bearing rats did not reveal a statistically significant difference for males or females. There was no evidence that astemizole led to an increased incidence of spontaneously or unusually occurring neoplastic lesions in either mice or rats. Special attention was given to the effect of astemizole on the progression of spontaneously occurring mammary gland adenomas and fibroadenomas. Peto's analysis applied to the number of female rats bearing these benign mammary gland tumors disclosed no statistically significant dose-related trend. There was no positive trend for the onset of this tumor type, and the median size of the tumor over time per rat was also not statistically significantly different in a comparison of the control group with each of the dosed groups. The findings from these carcinogenicity studies suggest that astemizole is not tumorigenic and that it does not promote tumor growth. (+info)
Regulation of potassium channels by nonsedating antihistamines.
(40/48)
BACKGROUND: Terfenadine and astemizole are widely prescribed nonsedating antihistamines that have been associated with QT-interval prolongation and ventricular arrhythmias. Since potassium channels are intrinsically involved in repolarization, this study was designed to evaluate the effect of the nonsedating antihistamines on potassium channel modulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The whole-cell patch-clamp technique was used to study K+ currents in enzymatically isolated rat and guinea pig ventricular myocytes. Three distinct K+ channels were examined: the inward rectifier (IK1), the delayed rectifier (IK), and the transient outward (I(to)) currents. The dialyzing pipette solution was buffered with EGTA, and ionic channels other than potassium were pharmacologically inhibited or electrically inactivated. Both astemizole and terfenadine suppressed the IK1 channel by 17% to 50% in a voltage-dependent manner in rat and guinea pig myocytes. Ito was evaluated in rat ventricular myocytes. Both drugs also inhibited the maintained component of I(to) to a lesser extent, by 23%, in a dose-dependent, reversible manner. IK was examined mainly in guinea pig myocytes. Terfenadine but not astemizole slightly inhibited IK, by 9%, and only at higher drug concentrations. The medications had dose-dependent inhibitory actions, with specific K+ channel suppression evident only beginning at concentrations > 0.1 mumol/L. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the mechanism of action of the rare proarrhythmic effects of the nonsedating antihistamines appears to be secondary to potassium channel blockade. A significant voltage-dependent blockade of the IK1 channel was demonstrated, as well as additional inhibitory effects on I(to) and IK channels. These actions lead to delayed repolarization, QT interval prolongation, and enhanced susceptibility to the development of premature ventricular depolarizations. Caution is advised in the prescription of nonsedating antihistamines, particularly in patients at risk of elevated serum levels of the antihistamine or patients with existing repolarization abnormalities. (+info)