Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology1995
Comparative wheal and flare study of mizolastine vs terfenadine, cetirizine, loratadine and placebo in healthy volunteers.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of the antihistaminic (H1) effect of bilastine.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2009Trial
- Comparative activity of cetirizine and mizolastine on histamine-induced skin wheal and flare responses at 24 h.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2002Trial
- Lack of interaction between two antihistamines, mizolastine and cetirizine, and ethanol in psychomotor and driving performance in healthy subjects.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 1995Trial
- Predicting and establishing the clinical efficacy of a histamine h(1)-receptor antagonist : desloratadine, the model paradigm.Clinical drug investigation · 2005Article
- Review
- Article
- Clinical pharmacokinetics of mizolastine.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2001Review
- Clinical pharmacology of new histamine H1 receptor antagonists.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 1999Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
1. Mizolastine, a new benzimidazole derivative with potent selective, non-sedative H1-histamine antagonist activity was compared with terfenadine, cetirizine and loratadine using the histamine-induced wheal and flare model in healthy volunteers. 2. Study design was a five way double-blind crossover design using a single dose of mizolastine 10 mg, terfenadine 120 mg, cetirizine 10 mg, loratadine 10 mg and placebo. 3. Histamine tests were performed on 10 occasions up to +24 h after dosing using an intradermal injection of histamine 2 micrograms with concommittant contralateral injection of a saline control. 4. Mizolastine, terfenadine, cetirizine and loratadine significantly (P < 0.001 vs placebo) inhibited the wheal and flare formation starting 1 to 2 h after dosing up to 24 h after dosing. 5. Mizolastine was significantly more active than loratadine on the wheal (P < 0.01) and flare (P < 0.05) inhibition from 3 up to 6 and 8 h respectively, as active as terfenadine on both parameters and as active as cetirizine on wheal inhibition while less active (P < 0.01) than cetirizine on flare inhibition at 2 and 12 h post-dosing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8703650PMC1365192What 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.