European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 247–250

Pharmacologic evaluation of loratadine (SCH 29851), chlorpheniramine and placebo

  • R. L. Batenhorst
  • A. S. Batenhorst
  • D. A. Graves
  • T. S. Foster
  • M. Kung
  • R. P. Gural
  • H. J. Amkraut
Short Communications

Summary

The antihistaminic effect of loratadine (160 mg) was compared in twenty-four normal male volunteers to chlorpheniramine maleate (4 mg) and placebo in a double blinded 3-way cross-over study of latin square design. After receiving single oral doses of each medication, the wheal response to serial 0.1 ml intradermal histamine (2 µg) and saline (control) injections were recorded over a 24-h period. The calculated wheal areas were compared to baseline measurements. The results were analyzed by analysis of variance. Loratadine exhibited a more pronounced inhibition of histamine wheal formation than placebo or chlorpheniramine maleate (p<0.003). In contrast to chlorpheniramine maleate which had a duration of action of only 3 h, loratadine inhibited the response for the entire observation period between 1 and 24 h post-dose. Although sedation was observed less frequently with loratadine (Placebo,n=2; chlorpheniramine,n=3; and loratadine,n=1), the relative incidence were not statistically significant.

Key words

loratadine chlorpheniramine placebo histamine pharmacodynamics adverse effects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barnett A, Iorio LC, Kreutner W, Tozzi S, Ahn HS, Gulbenkian A (1984) Evaluation of the CNS properties of SCH 29851, a potential non-sedating antihistamine. Agents Actions 14: 590–597Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kassem NY, Garvin PR, Gural RP, Amkraut HJ (1985) Inhibition of histamine-induced wheals by SCH29851 (Abstract No. 113). Ann Allergy 54: 366Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jobert L, Gaut Z, Abrams WB (1969) A new approach to the use of histamine skin tests in the study of antihistamine drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 10: 250–257Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fowle ASE, Hughes DTD, Knight GJ (1971) The evaluation of histamine antagonists in man. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 3: 215–220Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peck AW, Fowle ASE, Bye C (1975) A comparison of tripolidine and clemastine on histamine antagonism and performance tests in man. Implications for the mechanism of drug induced drowsiness. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 8: 455–463Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gutterman DL, Batenhorst RL, Batenhorst AS, Graves DA, Foster TS (1985) Serial response to histamine in normal volunteers. Curr Ther Res 37: 722–729Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. L. Batenhorst
    • 1
    • 5
  • A. S. Batenhorst
    • 1
  • D. A. Graves
    • 1
  • T. S. Foster
    • 1
  • M. Kung
    • 2
  • R. P. Gural
    • 3
  • H. J. Amkraut
    • 4
  1. 1.Drug Product Evaluation Unit, College of PharmacyUniversity of Kentucky Medical CenterLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.College of MedicineUniversity of Kentucky Medical CenterLexingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PharmacologySchering-Plough CorporationKenilworthUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiostatisticsSchering-Plough CorporationKenilworthUSA
  5. 5.Section for Drug Evaluation Department of Pharmacy Practice College of Pharmacy RM 244 (m/c 886)University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations