ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics1999
Clinical pharmacology of new histamine H1 receptor antagonists.
Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 133 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of the antihistaminic (H1) effect of bilastine.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2009Trial
- Effects of desloratadine, diphenhydramine, and placebo on driving performance and psychomotor performance measurements.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2004Trial
- MDR1 gene polymorphisms and disposition of the P-glycoprotein substrate fexofenadine.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2002Trial
- Comparative activity of cetirizine and mizolastine on histamine-induced skin wheal and flare responses at 24 h.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2002Trial
- Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Fexofenadine: A Systematic Review.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Evaluation of applicability of micro-segmental analysis to hair treated with heat and haircare products.Forensic toxicology · 2023Article
- Fusion assays for screening of fusion inhibitors targeting SARS-CoV-2 entry and syncytia formation.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Effects of Histamine Receptor Antagonist Cetirizine on Orthodontic Tooth Movement.Biomedicines · 2020Article
- Desloratadine and depression, a drug safety signal based on worldwide spontaneous reporting of side effects.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2018Article
- International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. XCVIII. Histamine Receptors.Pharmacological reviews · 2015Review
- Respiratory allergies: a general overview of remedies, delivery systems, and the need to progress.ISRN allergy · 2014Review
- Article
- Azelastine hydrochloride, a dual-acting anti-inflammatory ophthalmic solution, for treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2010Article
- Synthesis, structure-affinity relationships, and modeling of AMDA analogs at 5-HT2A and H1 receptors: structural factors contributing to selectivity.Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry · 2009Article
- Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of desloratadine, fexofenadine and levocetirizine : a comparative review.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2008Review
- Review
- Fexofenadine pharmacokinetics are associated with a polymorphism of the SLCO1B1 gene (encoding OATP1B1).British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2005Article
- Second-generation antihistamines: actions and efficacy in the management of allergic disorders.Drugs · 2005Review
- [Pruritus in childhood. A diagnostic and therapeutic challenge].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2004Review
- Allergic rhinitis in children : diagnosis and management strategies.Paediatric drugs · 2004Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.