Agents and Actions

, Volume 14, Issue 5–6, pp 590–597 | Cite as

Evaluation of the CNS properties of SCH 29851, a potential non-sedating antihistamine

  • A. Barnett
  • L. C. Iorio
  • W. Kreutner
  • S. Tozzi
  • H. S. AnH
  • A. Gulbenkian
Histamine and Kinins

Abstract

SCH 29851 [8-chloro[6,11-dihydro-11-(1-carboethoxy-4-piperidylidene)-5-H-benzo[5,6]cyclohepta[1,2-b]-pyridine] was discovered as part of a search for a new antihistamine without effects on the central nervous system (CHS). Antihistaminic potency and duration of action of SCH 29851 and other antihistamines were assessed by inhibition of histamine-induced lethality in guinea pigs and histamine-induced paw edema in mice. Evaluation of possible CNS effects included gross observation of mice, rats, dogs and monkeys, prevention of electroshock-induced convulsions, acetic acid-induced writhing and physostigmine-induced lethality in mice and biochemical measures related to sedative liability such as displacement ofin vivo3H-mepyramine binding in mouse brain andin vitro3H-WB 4101 binding in guinea pig cortex. Comparisons were made to several antihistamines considered to be sedative to varying degrees, including diphenhydramine, promethazine, chlorpheniramine and azatadine and to the newer antihistamines terfenadine and astemizole which are reported to be non-sedating in man at doses that antagonize the effects of histamine peripherally.

SCH 29851 had antihistamine activity in the tests used with a potency at least comparable to most standards and was devoid of activity in all the functional and biochemical models used as indices of CNS activity. It is expected that SCH 29851 should be an effective, long acting, antihistamine in man without sedative effects at therapeutic doses.

Keywords

Histamine Terfenadine Diphenhydramine Astemizole Promethazine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    F.E. Roth andI.I.A. Tabachnick, Histamine and antihistamines. InDrill's Pharmacology in Medicine, 4th edn pp. 995–1020 (Ed.J.R. Dipalma). McGraw-Hill, Inc., Philadelphia 1971.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    K.J. Melville, Antihistamine drugs, InHistamine and Antihistamine, vol. 1, pp. 156–157 (Ed.M. Schacter), Pergamon Press, New York 1973.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M.L. Brandon andM. Weiner Clinical investigation of terfenadine, a non-sedating antihistamine, Ann. Allergy44, 71–75 (1980).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. Van Wauwe, F. Awouters, C.J. Niemegeers, F. Janssen, J.M. Van Nueten andP.A.J. Janssen,In vivo pharmacology of astemizole, a new type of H 1-antihistaminic compound, Arch. int. Pharmacodyn. Thér.251, 39–51 (1981).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C.H. Clarke andA.N. Nicholson,Performance studies with antihistamines, Br. J. Clin. Pharmac.6, 31–35 (1978).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    V.K. Kulshrestha, P.P. Gupta, P. Turner andJ. Wadsworth,Some clinical pharmacological studies with terfenadine, a new antihistamine drug, Br. J. Clin. Pharmac.6, 25–29 (1978).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. Moser, K.J. Huther, J. Koch-Weser andP.V. Lundt,Effects of terfenadine and diphenhydramine alone or in combination with diazepam or alcohol on psychomotor performance and subjective feeling, Eur. J. Clin. Pharmac.14, 417–423 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    D.J. Finney,Probit Analysis, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press 1962.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    K.A. Brownlee,Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Engineering, 2nd edn., pp. 346–349. Wiley and Sons, New York 1965.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. Irwin, Drug screening and evaluation of new drugs in animals. InAnimal and Clinical Pharmacologic Techniques in Drug Evaluation, pp. 36–54 (EdsJ.M. Nodine andP.E. Siegler). Year Book Medical Publishers Inc., Chicago 1964.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J.T. Litchfield andF. Wilcoxon,A simplified method of evaluating dose effect experiments, J. Pharmac. Exp. Ther.96, 99–113 (1949).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Toman, E. Swinyard andL.S. Goodman,Properties of maximal seizures and their alteration by anticonvulsant drugs and other agents, J. Neurophysiol.9, 231–239 (1946).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    L.C. Hendershot andS. Forsaith,Antagonism in the frequency of phenylquinone-induced writhing in the mouse by weak analgesics and non-analgesics, J. Pharmac. Exp. Ther.125, 237–240 (1959).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    R. Koster, M. Anderson andE.J. DeBeer,Acetic acid for analgesic screening, Fedn Proc.18, 412 (1959).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    H.O.J. Collier, L.C. Dineen, C.A. Johnson andC. Schneider,The abdominal constriction response and its suppression by analgesic drugs in the mouse, Br. J. Pharmac.32, 295–310 (1968).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    D.C. U'Prichard, D.A. Greenberg, P.P. Sheehan andS.H. Snyder,Tricyclic antidepressants: therapeutic properties and affinity for alphanoradrenergic receptor binding sites in the brain, Science, N.Y.199, 197–198 (1978).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    V.T. Tran, R.S.L. Chang andS.H. Snyder,Histamine H 1 receptors identified in mammalian brain membranes with [3H] mepyramine, Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. USA75, 6290–6294 (1978).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D.W. Dunnett,A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control, J. Am. Statist. Ass50, 1096–1121 (1955).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. Halperin andL.C. Iorio,Protection from shock-induced seizures as a measure of hypnotic potency of drugs, Pharmac. Biochem. Behaviour13, 299–301 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    J.B. Malick andA. Barnett,Central versus peripheral anticholinergic activity as assessed by two in vivo procedures in mice, J. Pharm. Sci.64, 1066–1068 (1975).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    S.J. Peroutka, D.C. U'Prichard, D.A. Greenberg andS.H. Snyder,Neuroleptic drug interactions with norepinephrine alpha receptor binding sites in rat brain, Neuropharmacology16, 549–555 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    H.S. Ahn, R.F. Petruzzi andE.A. Peets,Antihistamines: Therapeutic properties and affinities for [ 3H] mepyramine and [3H] WB4101 binding sites in the brain, Fedn Proc.39, 389 (1980).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    T.T. Quach, C.R. Duchemin, C. Rose andJ.C. Schwartz,In vivo occupation of cerebral histamine H 1 receptors evaluated with3H-mepyramine may predict sedative properties of psychotropic drugs Eur. J. Pharmac.60, 391–392, (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    T. Seppala andK. Savolainen Effect of astemizole on human psychomotor performance, Curr. Therap. Res.31, 638–644 (1982).Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    A.N. Nicholson andB.M. Stone,Performance studies with the H 1-histamine receptor antagonists, astemizole and terfenadine, Br. J. Clin. Pharmac.13, 199–202 (1982).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Barnett
    • 1
  • L. C. Iorio
    • 1
  • W. Kreutner
    • 1
  • S. Tozzi
    • 1
  • H. S. AnH
    • 1
  • A. Gulbenkian
    • 1
  1. 1.Research DivisionSchering-Plough CorporationBloomfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations