Effect Of Bilastine Research Articles

Effect of Bilastine on Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Allergic diseases are a public health problem with the largest number of patients and the widest age distribution. Chronic urticaria (CU) is a common clinical allergic disease. Bilastine is effective in the treatment of CU, especially skin wind masses and erythema. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Bilastine in the treatment of CU symptoms and to provide an evidence-based reference for clinical rational drug use. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Embase, EBSCO, and other databases were searched by computer to collect the trials on the effect of bilastine on patients with CU. The retrieval time limit was established until November 2021. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included study. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.4 software. Results: A total of 7 studies were included, including 975 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that compared to the control group, bilastine significantly improved the skin quality of life index, Total Symptom Score (TSS), and weekly urticaria activity score. The skin quality of life index DLQI score (MD = −4.98, 95% CI: −8.09 to −1.86, p = 0.002), skin symptom score TSS (MD = −1.62, 95% CI −2.29 to −0.94, p < 0.00001), the number of hives in a week UAS-7 score (MD = −25.28, 95% CI −32.36 to −18.19, p < 0.00001), and the differences were statistically significant. Conclusions: Bilastine has a better therapeutic effect on CU and can also significantly improve the clinical symptoms and quality of life of CU.

Efficacy and Safety of Bilastine in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Bilastine is a non-sedating second generation H1 oral antihistamine (OAH) for treating allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. The effect of bilastine has not previously been evaluated in a meta-analysis. The aim of this review was to determine the efficacy and safety of bilastine in treating AR. An electronic literature search was performed using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Science Direct and Google Scholar up to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials comparing bilastine with placebo and standard pharmacotherapy were included. The included studies must have diagnosis of AR established by clinicians and the outcomes must have a minimum of 2 weeks of follow-up period. The primary outcomes assessed were total symptom score (TSS), nasal symptom score (NSS) and non-nasal symptom score (NNSS). The secondary outcomes were discomfort due to rhinitis, quality of life (QOL) and adverse events. The risk of bias and quality of evidence for all studies were appraised. The meta-analysis was done using Review Manager 5.3 software based on the random-effects model. The search identified 135 records after removal of duplicates. Following screening and review of the records, fifteen full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Five trials involving 3,329 patients met the inclusion criteria. Bilastine was superior to placebo in improving TSS, NSS, NNSS, rhinitis discomfort score and QOL but has comparable efficacy with other OAHs in TSS, NSS, NNS, rhinitis discomfort score and QOL. There was no difference in adverse effects when bilastine was compared against placebo and other OAHs except for somnolence. Bilastine has fewer incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine. The overall quality of evidence ranged from moderate to high quality. Bilastine is effective and safe in treating the overall symptoms of AR with comparable efficacy and safety with other OAHs except somnolence. Whilst bilastine has similar efficacy to cetirizine, somnolence is notably less in bilastine.

Effect of Bilastine on Diabetic Nephropathy in DBA2/J Mice.

Diabetic nephropathy is an unmet therapeutic need, and the search for new therapeutic strategies is warranted. Previous data point to histamine H1 receptor as a possible target for glomerular dysfunction associated with long term hyperglycaemia. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of the H1 receptor antagonist bilastine on renal morphology and function in a murine model of streptozotocin-induced diabetes. Diabetes was induced in DBA2/J male mice and, from diabetes onset (glycaemia ≥200 mg/dL), mice received bilastine (1–30 mg/kg/day) by oral gavage for 14 consecutive weeks. At the end of the experimental protocol, diabetic mice showed polyuria (+195.5%), increase in Albumin-to-Creatine Ratio (ACR, +284.7%), and a significant drop in creatinine clearance (p < 0.05). Bilastine prevented ACR increase and restored creatinine clearance in a dose-dependent manner, suggesting a positive effect on glomerular filtration. The ultrastructural analysis showed a preserved junctional integrity. Preservation of the basal nephrin, P-cadherin, and synaptopodin expression could explain this effect. In conclusion, the H1 receptor could contribute to the glomerular damage occurring in diabetic nephropathy. Bilastine preserved the glomerular junctional integrity, leading to the hypothesis of anti-H1 antihistamines as a possible add-on therapy for diabetic nephropathy.

Comparative study of the effect of bilastine and cetirizine on cognitive functions at ground level and at an altitude of 4,000 m simulated in hypobaric chamber: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study

ABSTRACTIntroduction: Antihistamines are easily accessible and cover the vast majority of the medical therapy of allergic rhinitis. However, their systemic administration may more frequently associate with their well-known side-effect, sedation, which is a serious problem in persons in safety-critical jobs such as aviation. We have a poor understanding whether a non-sedative antihistamine has an impact on vigilance when hypobaric hypoxia occurs during flight.Methods: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over study the effect of 20 mg bilastine was compared to 10 mg cetirizine and to placebo (20 mg pyridoxine) in 33 individuals at ground level and at 4,000 m altitude simulated in hypobaric chamber. Levels of vigilance, ultrashort memory, combined distributive attention, monotony tolerance and peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) were assessed.Results: Bilastine did not impair the tested abilities in comparison with the control groups either at ground level or hypobaric hypoxia. Administration of cetirizine increased the number of errors at ground level. At the simulated altitude, already impaired results were additionally demonstrated with regards to the distributive attention test.Conclusions: From the two examined antihistamines, bilastine should be the preferred medication for by individuals who require constant attention and are exposed to hypobaric hypoxia.

Bilastine: an environmental risk assessment

Context: Bilastine is a new oral selective, non-sedating histamine H1 antagonist for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. The European Medicines Agency requires an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) for all novel medicines for human use. Objective: To calculate the bilastine predicted environmental concentration in surface water (PECsw; phase I ERA), and to determine the effects of bilastine on aquatic systems (phase II [tier A]). Materials and methods: Bilastine PECsw was calculated using the maximum daily dosage (20 mg), assuming that all administered bilastine was released into the aquatic environment. A persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity assessment was conducted using the log Kow from the molecular structure. In phase II (tier A), a ready biodegradability test was performed, and bilastine’s potential toxicity to various aquatic and sediment-dwelling micro-organisms was evaluated. Results: Bilastine PECSW was calculated as 0.1 μg L−1, and the compound was not readily biodegradable. Bilastine had no significant effects on Chironomus riparius midges, or on the respiration rate of activated sludge. For green algae, the bilastine no observed effect concentration (NOEC) was 22 mg L−1; bilastine had no effect on zebra fish development, or on the reproduction rate of daphnids. Discussion: Bilastine NOEC values against zebra fish, algae, daphnids, and aerobic organisms in activated sludge were at least 130 000-fold greater than the calculated PECSW value. Conclusion: No environmental concerns exist from bilastine use in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or urticaria.

Effects of Bilastine on T-wave Morphology and the QTc Interval

The International Conference of Harmonisation (ICH) E14 guideline for thorough QT studies requires assessing the propensity of new non-antiarrhythmic drugs to affect cardiac repolarization. The present study investigates whether a composite ECG measure of T-wave morphology (Morphology Combination Score [MCS]) can be used together with the heart rate corrected QT interval (QTc) in a fully ICH E14-compliant thorough QT study to exclude clinically relevant repolarization effects of bilastine, a novel antihistamine. Thirty participants in this crossover study were randomly assigned to receive placebo, moxifloxacin 400 mg, bilastine at therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses (20 and 100 mg) and bilastine 20 mg co-administered with ketoconazole 400 mg. Resting ECGs recorded at 12 nominal time points before and after treatments were used to determine Fridericia corrected QTc (QTcF) and MCS from the T-wave characteristics: asymmetry, flatness and notching. There were no effects of bilastine monotherapy (20 and 100 mg) on MCS or QTcF at those study times where the bilastine plasma concentrations were highest. MCS changes for bilastine monotherapy did not exceed the normal intrasubject variance of T-wave shapes for triplicate ECG recordings. Maximum QTcF prolongation for bilastine monotherapy was 5 ms or less: 3.8 ms (90% CI 0.3, 7.3 ms) for bilastine 20 mg and 5.0 ms (90% CI 2.0, 8.0 ms) for bilastine 100 mg. There were no indications of bilastine inducing larger repolarization effects on T-wave morphology as compared with the QTcF interval, as evidenced by the similarity of z-score equivalents for placebo-corrected changes in MCS and QTcF values. This study shows that bilastine, at therapeutic and supratherapeutic dosages, does not induce any effects on T-wave morphology or QTcF. These results confirm the absence of an effect for bilastine on cardiac repolarization.