Comparison of non sedating antihistamines
A Pub Med literature search from January 1, 2000, through April 1, 2013, was conducted to track down randomized controlled studies of clinical efficacy of bilastine.This was supplemented with additional papers on bilastine and abstracts cited in reference lists, obtained from online sources, or supplied by Berlin-Chemie A. The literature search revealed 2 efficacy studies in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis [14, 15], 1 in perennial rhinitis , and 1 in chronic idiopathic urticaria .In healthy adults, a mean oral systemic availability of bilastine of 61% has been reported .The reduction seems to be due to a downregulation of the cell transport activity in the intestinal mucosa, the so-called organic anion-transporting polypeptides (OATP1A2) .Research into aspects of pharmacokinetics and efficacy and adverse effect profiles of bilastine in children under 12 years of age is needed as are dose-response assessments and studies planned rigorously with the aim of assessing quality of life effects.Current guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria recommend nonsedating antihistamines as first line treatment [1, 2]. Bilastine is a new, well-tolerated, nonsedating H1 receptor antihistamine.
Like other antihistamines bilastine is an H1 receptor inverse agonist.
Though they are helpful in many patients with mild disease, the available non-sedating antihistamines may not be sufficiently efficacious in moderate to severe conditions [1, 2].
Therefore, the launch of a recently developed non-sedating oral antihistamine, bilastine, attracts attention .
Non-sedating antihistamines are part of a quite heterogeneous pharmacological group.
Bilastine has not been derived structurally from other antihistamines.