Abstract
Background: Rupatadine is a histamine receptor type 1 antagonist that has been used to treat allergic rhinitis and urticaria.
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of 2 rupatadine tablet formulations on the inhibition of histamine-induced wheal-and-flare cutaneous responses.
Methods: In this single-blind, single oral dose, crossover study, healthy male volunteers were randomized to receive 10 mg of either a rupatadine reference or test formulation after an overnight fast. After a 10-day washout period, the subjects were crossed over to receive the other formulation. Subjects were asked to sit with their arm resting on the table while histamine was injected intradermally. The skin prick test was performed on the upper half of the volunteers' forearms before administration and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours after study drug administration. Fifteen minutes after each skin prick test, the wheal-and-flare responses were visualized under a bright lamp. AUC0–24 was the primary end point.The 90% CI of least squares mean ratio (%) of the test: reference formulations for maximum inhibition of histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response (Imax%), Tmax, AUC0–24 mm2/h, and AUC0–24%/hr were expected to be within 80% to 125% of untransformed data and 80% to 120% of log-transformed data for the 2 formulations to be considered pharmacodynamically equivalent. Subjects were monitored for any spontaneously reported adverse event (AE) throughout the study. In addition, they were specifically asked about the occurrence of any AEs on a checklist (ie, drowsiness, dizziness, dryness of mouth, itching sensation, headache, nausea) throughout the study.
Results: Of the 15 subjects assessed for inclusion, 12 healthy male volunteers (mean [SD] age, 30 [5] years; height, 162 [6] cm; weight, 58 [6] kg) participated in the study. Administration of reference and test formulations of rupatadine significantly inhibited the histamine-induced cutaneous responses in all subjects (P <0.001). Wheal Imax% with the reference and test formulations was 67.97% (11.57%) and 66.76% (9.40%), respectively. Flare Imax% was 59.06% (11.95%) and 56.92% (16.31%), respectively. None of the subjects withdrew from the study due to AEs. Both formulations were well tolerated except for an itching sensation on injection of histamine in all patients; no subject complained of any adverse drug reaction.
Conclusion: In this small study of healthy adult males, the test formulation of the rupatadine tablet was found to be pharmacodynamically equivalent to the reference formulation, as measured by inhibition of histamine-induced cutaneous wheal-and-flare responses.
Key words: rupatadine, healthy subjects, pharmacodynamic equivalence, histamine-induced cutaneous response
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (468.6 KB).
References
- 1.Izquierdo I, Merlos M, Garcia-Rafanell J. Rupatadine: A new selective histamine H1 receptor and platelet-activating factor (PAF) antagonist. A review of pharmacological profile and clinical management of allergic rhinitis. Drugs Today (Barc) 2003;39:451–468. doi: 10.1358/dot.2003.39.6.799450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Friedmann PS. Assessment of urticaria and angio-oedema. Clin Exp Allergy. 1999;29(Suppl 3):109–112. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2222.1999.0290s3109.x. discussion 113-115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Greaves MW, Sabroe RA. ABC of allergies. Allergy and the skin. I—Urticaria. BMJ. 1998;316:1147–1150. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bousquet J, Godard P, Michel FB. Antihistamines in the treatment of asthma. Eur Respir J. 1992;5:1137–1142. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Howarth PH. Histamine and asthma: An appraisal based on specific H1-receptor antagonism. Clin Exp Allergy. 1990;20(Suppl 2):31–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.1990.tb02459.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Grant JA, Danielson L, Rihoux JP, DeVos C. A double-blind, single-dose, crossover comparison of cetirizine, ebastine, epinastine, fexofenadine, terfenadine, and loratadine versus placebo: Suppression of histamine-induced wheal and flare response for 24 h in healthy male subjects. Allergy. 1999;54:700–707. doi: 10.1034/j.1398-9995.1999.00032.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.del Cuvillo A, Mullol J, Bartra J. Comparative pharmacology of the H1 antihistamines. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2006;16(Suppl 1):3–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Recommendations Guiding Medical Doctors in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects [WMA Web site ]. Ferney-Voltaire, France: WMA; 1989. http://www.wma.net. Accessed November 15, 2007.
- 9.European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, International Conference on Harmonisation—World Health Organization. Guideline for Good Clinical Practice [EMEA Web site]. ICH Topic E6. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2002. http://www.emea.eu.int. Accessed November 15, 2007.
- 10.Devalia JL, De Vos C, Hanotte F, Baltes E. A randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison among cetirizine, levocetirizine and ucb 28557 on histamine-induced cutaneous responses in healthy adult volunteers. Allergy. 2001;56:50–57. doi: 10.1034/j.1398-9995.2001.00726.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Usharani P, Naidu MUR, Reddy KLN. Randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison between two levocetirizine formulations on histamine-induced cutaneous response in healthy male human adult volunteers. J Appl Res. 2005;5:149–159. [Google Scholar]