Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11270939›Full record

ReviewDrugs2001

New insights into the second generation antihistamines.

G M Walsh, L Annunziato, N Frossard, K Knol, S Levander, J M Nicolas, M Taglialatela, M D Tharp, J P Tillement, H Timmerman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Mast Cell: A Multi-Functional Master Cell.Frontiers in immunology · 2015
    Review
  7. Determination of stress-induced degradation products of cetirizine dihydrochloride by a stability-indicating RP-HPLC method.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2014
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The anti-inflammatory effects of levocetirizine--are they clinically relevant or just an interesting additional effect?Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2009
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Methods of assessment and clinical relevance of QT dynamics.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal · 2005
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

G M WalshDepartment of Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Aberdeen Medical School, Scotland. g.m.walsh@abdn.ac.uk
L Annunziato
N Frossard
K Knol
S Levander
J M Nicolas
M Taglialatela
M D Tharp
J P Tillement
H Timmerman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Second generation antihistamines are recognised as being highly effective treatments for allergy-based disease and are among the most frequently prescribed and safest drugs in the world. However, consideration of the therapeutic index or the benefit/risk ratio of the H1 receptor antagonists is of paramount importance when prescribing this class of compounds as they are used to treat non-life threatening conditions. There are many second generation antihistamines available and at first examination these appear to be comparable in terms of safety and efficacy. However, the newer antihistamines in fact represent a heterogeneous group of compounds, having markedly differing chemical structures, adverse effects, half-life, tissue distribution and metabolism, spectrum of antihistaminic properties, and varying degrees of anti-inflammatory effects. With regard to the latter, there is growing awareness that some of these compounds might represent useful adjunct medications in asthma therapy. In terms of safety issues, the current second generation grouping includes compounds with proven cardiotoxic effects and others with the potential for adverse drug interactions. Moreover, some of the second generation H1 antagonists have given cause for concern regarding their potential to cause a degree of somnolence in some individuals. It can be argued, therefore, that the present second generation grouping is too large and indistinct since this was based primarily on the concept of separating the first generation sedating compounds from nonsedating H1 antagonists. Although it is too early to talk about a third generation grouping of antihistamines, future membership of such a classification could be based on a low volume of distribution coupled with a lack of sedating effects, drug interactions and cardiotoxicity.

Indexed as

Anti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaCentral Nervous SystemContraindicationsHeartHistamine H1 AntagonistsHumansInflammationInflammation MediatorsReceptors, Histamine H1Anti-Asthmatic AgentsHistamine H1 AntagonistsInflammation MediatorsReceptors, Histamine H1

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.