Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of desloratadine, fexofenadine and levocetirizine : a comparative review.
Second-generation histamine H(1) receptor antagonists were developed to provide efficacious treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) while decreasing adverse effects associated with first-generation agents. When comparing the efficacy and safety profiles of the newest second-generation antihistamines - desloratadine, fexofenadine and levocetirizine - many pharmacological and clinical criteria must be considered. Most importantly, these elements should not be evaluated separately but, rather, as parts of a puzzle that create a whole picture. As a class, second-generation antihistamines are highly selective for the H(1) receptor. Some bind to it with high affinity, although there is marked heterogeneity among the various compounds. They have a limited effect on the CNS, and clinical studies have noted almost no significant drug-drug interactions in the agents studied. No major cytochrome P450 inhibition has been reported with desloratadine, fexofenadine and levocetirizine, and the bioavailability of desloratadine is minimally affected by drugs interfering with transporter molecules. Of the second-generation antihistamines, desloratadine has the greatest binding affinity for the H(1) receptor. The use of desloratadine, fexofenadine and levocetirizine is not associated with clinically relevant antimuscarinic effects. Desloratadine and fexofenadine do not impair cognitive or psychomotor functioning and are comparable with placebo in terms of somnolence. Based on these pharmacological characteristics, as well as clinical endpoints such as symptom scores, quality-of-life surveys, inflammatory cell counts and investigators' global evaluations, we conclude that desloratadine, fexofenadine and levocetirizine are all efficacious treatments for AR and CIU. However, differences among the antihistamines in relation to a lack of significant interaction with drug transporter molecules and somnolence in excess of placebo may provide some advantages for the overall profile of desloratadine compared with fexofenadine and levocetirizine.
Devillier
Philippe
P
Laboratory of Pharmacology, UPRES EA 220, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France. p.devillier@hopital-foch.org
Roche
Nicolas
N
Faisy
Christophe
C
D017332:Cetirizine / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000493:pharmacokinetics / Q000494:pharmacology*; D004347:Drug Interactions; D039563:Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000493:pharmacokinetics / Q000494:pharmacology*; D006801:Humans; D017336:Loratadine / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000031:analogs & derivatives* / Q000493:pharmacokinetics / Q000494:pharmacology; D012221:Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial / Q000188:drug therapy; D006255:Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal / Q000188:drug therapy; D016593:Terfenadine / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000031:analogs & derivatives* / Q000493:pharmacokinetics / Q000494:pharmacology; D014581:Urticaria / Q000188:drug therapy
D039563:Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; C472067:levocetirizine; D017336:Loratadine; D016593:Terfenadine; C093230:fexofenadine; C121345:desloratadine; D017332:Cetirizine