Advertisement

BioDrugs

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 41–63 | Cite as

Mizolastine

A Review of its Use in Allergic Rhinitis and Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria
  • Amitabh Prakash
  • Harriet M. Lamb
Adis Drug Evaluation

Summary

Abstract

Mizolastine is a second generation antihistamine agent with high affinity and specificity for histamine H1 receptors. Mizolastine has demonstrated antiallergic effects in animals and healthy volunteers and anti-inflammatory activity in animal models.

Double-blind trials have shown mizolastine to be significantly more effective than placebo and as effective as other second generation antihistamine agents, such as loratadine or cetirizine, in the management of patients with perennial or seasonal allergic rhinitis and in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Available data also suggest that prophylactic administration of mizolastine is significantly more effective than placebo and as effective as prophylactic terfenadine in delaying the onset of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Mizolastine 10 mg/day is generally well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being drowsiness (7%), fatigue (2%), increased appetite (2%) and dry mouth (2%). In volunteers and patients the incidence of prolonged QTC interval was similar in mizolastine and placebo recipients, although mizolastine is contraindicated in those with cardiac disease or hepatic impairment or in those receiving erythromycin, ketoconazole or class I or III antiarrhythmic agents. Tests of psychomotor function in volunteers revealed no impairment after single doses of mizolastine ≤10mg.

Conclusions: Mizolastine is a second generation antihistamine agent administered at a dosage of 10mg once daily. Unlike terfenadine and astemizole, mizolastine has not been shown to increase the QTC interval in volunteers and patients. Mizolastine may be considered an effective alternative to other second generation antihistamine agents in the management of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Pharmacodynamic Properties

In vitro studies have shown mizolastine to be a specific histamine H1 receptor antagonist. Mizolastine was 10- to 21-fold more potent than terfenadine, cetirizine and loratadine in displacing [3 H]pyrilamine from H1 receptors in guinea-pig cerebellar tissues. The antihistamine activity of mizolastine is similar to that of cetirizine and 7-fold more potent than that of loratadine in animal studies. In experimental models, oral mizolastine, but not oral terfenadine, loratadine or pyrilamine, showed anti-inflammatory activity at a dose of 0.1 to 10 mg/kg; this effect was not H1 receptor-mediated but may have been attributable to inhibition of 5-lipoxygenase.

In volunteers, maximal inhibition of wheal and flare responses to intradermal histamine was achieved with mizolastine 10 and 20mg, respectively. The inhibition of wheal and flare responses with mizolastine 10mg was significantly greater than that in placebo recipients after 1 hour and 30 to 35% inhibition of the flare response was observed after 24 hours. No tolerance developed to the antihistamine activity of mizolastine over 8 weeks.

In pollen-sensitive patients, mizolastine inhibited early and late soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 release and protein extravasation at challenged skin sites. However, some antiallergic effects of mizolastine observed in animal models, such as inhibition of histamine release from mast cells and inhibition of cell migration, were not observed in allergic patients.

In single doses of up to 10mg, mizolastine did not cause any sedative effect, as assessed by performance in standard tests of psychomotor function and simulated and actual car driving tests, in healthy volunteers. The effects of mizolastine in these tests were generally similar to those of cetirizine 10mg or placebo.

The effects of mizolastine, in repeated doses of up to 40 mg/day for 7 days, on the QTc interval in ECG recordings were similar to those of placebo in healthy volunteers. Concurrent administration of diltiazem or erythromycin with mizolastine did not prolong the QTC interval compared with placebo.

Pharmacokinetic Properties

Mizolastine is administered orally and has a bioavailability of 65.5%. A peak plasma mizolastine concentration (Cmax) of 0.3 mg/L is achieved in 1.5 hours after mizolastine 10mg. Mizolastine has a distribution half-life of 1.9 hours and is highly plasma protein bound (>98%). The apparent volume of distribution of mizolastine is 1.4 L/kg. Most of the drug is metabolised in the liver and only a small fraction (<0.5%) of the administered dose is recovered in the urine in unchanged form. The terminal elimination half-life of mizolastine ranges from 6.1 to 25 hours (median value of 13.7 hours).

There was no clinically relevant alteration in the pharmacokinetic properties of mizolastine in the elderly (aged 66 to 77 years) or in those with renal impairment (creatinine clearance of 0.3 to 2.9 L/h). Patients with cirrhosis given a single dose of mizolastine showed a prolonged time to Cmax, a lower Cmax, a prolonged distribution half-life and an increased area under the plasma concentration-time curve compared with healthy volunteers. No clinically relevant interactions were found between mizolastine and digoxin, diltiazem, theophylline, ethanol or lorazepam in healthy volunteers, although plasma concentrations of digoxin and theophylline were increased.

Clinical Efficacy

The beneficial effects of mizolastine 10 mg/day on symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis were observed within 2 hours after oral administration. The efficacy of mizolastine 10 mg/day was greater than that of placebo and similar to that of cetirizine 10 mg/day in large double-blind trials in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Prophylactic administration of mizolastine 10 mg/day was as effective as terfenadine 120 mg/day in delaying the onset of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Mizolastine 10 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo and loratadine 10 mg/day in double-blind trials in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. After 4 weeks, the effects of mizolastine 15 mg/day were similar to those of dexclorpheniramine 12 mg/day. Patients receiving mizolastine 10 mg/day showed significant improvement in nasal obstruction after 4 weeks compared with those receiving placebo. The symptomatic benefit with mizolastine 10 to 15 mg/day was sustained over 6 months in a nonblind trial in 141 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis after a 1-month double-blind, placebo-controlled phase.

In patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria, the decrease in symptom severity and frequency with mizolastine 10 mg/day was similar to that observed with loratadine 10 mg/day or cetirizine 10 mg/day and significantly better than that of placebo in double-blind trials. The majority of patients with chronic urticaria showed a sustained symptomatic benefit with mizolastine 10 to 15 mg/day over 12 months.

Tolerability

Adverse events occurred in 22% of patients receiving mizolastine 10 mg/day, but only 1% of patients discontinued the drug because of adverse events. The most common adverse events encountered with mizolastine 10 mg/day were drowsiness (7%), fatigue (2%), increased appetite (2%), dry mouth (2%), abdominal pain (1%), vertigo (1%) and headache (1%) in 130 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. No potentiation of the CNS depressant effects of ethanol or lorazepam occurred with the concurrent administration of mizolastine 10mg in healthy volunteers. The effects of mizolastine 10 mg/day on the QTC interval in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria or allergy to grass pollen or house dust mites were similar to those of loratadine 10 mg/day or of placebo.

Dosage and Administration

Mizolastine is recommended at a dosage of 10mg administered once daily, for use in adults and children ≥12 years of age with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis or chronic idiopathic urticaria. No dosage adjustment is required in the elderly or in those with renal impairment. The use of mizolastine is contraindicated in patients with hepatic impairment and in those with clinically significant cardiac disease. Mizolastine should not be used in patients already receiving erythromycin, ketoconazole or class I or III antiarrhythmic agents.

Keywords

Adis International Limited Allergic Rhinitis Allergy Clin Immunol Terfenadine Cetirizine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Naclerio RM. Allergic rhinitis. Review article. N Engl J Med 1991 Sep 19; 325: 860–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simons FER, Simons KJ. The pharmacology and use of H1-receptor-antagonist drugs. N Engl J Med 1994 Jun 9; 330: 1663–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krause HF. Pharmacotherapy of perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis. Clin Immunother 1995 Apr; 3: 308–24Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kontou-Fili K. Hi-receptor antagonists in the management of allergic rhinitis: a comparative review. Clin Immunother 1994 Nov; 2: 352–75Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sécher C, Kirkegaard J, Borum P, et al. Significance of H1 and H2 receptors in the human nose: rationale for topical use of combined antihistamine preparations. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1982; 70: 211–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooks CD, Butler D, Meltzer C. Effect of H2 blockade in the challenged allergic nose. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1982; 70: 373–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kemp JP. Special considerations in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adolescents: the role of antihistamine therapy. Clin Pediatr 1996 Aug; 35: 383–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broder I, Higgins MW, Mathews KP, et al. Epidemiology of asthma and allergic rhinitis in a total community, Tecumseh, Michigan. IV. Natural history. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1974; 54: 100–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benavides J, Schoemaker H, Dana C, et al. In vivo and in vitro interaction of the novel selective histamine H1 receptor antagonist mizolastine with H1 receptors in the rodent. Arzneimittel Forschung 1995 May; 45: 551–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Angel I, Pichat P, Arbilla S. Powerful anti-histamine properties of mizolastine in cutaneous oedema in the dog [abstract]. Allergy 1996; 51Suppl. 31: 171Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levrier J, Duval D, Prouteau M, et al. Anti-anaphylactic activity of the novel selective histamine H1 receptor antagonist mizolastine in the rodent. Arzneimittel Forschung 1995 May; 45: 559–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosenzweig P, Thebault JJ, Caplain H, et al. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of mizolastine (SL 85.0324), a new nonsedative H1 antihistamine. Ann Allergy 1992 Aug; 69: 135–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pinquier JL, Caplain H, Cabanis M-J, et al. Inhibition of histamine-induced skin wheal and flare after 5 days of mizolastine. J Clin Pharmacol 1996 Jan; 36: 72–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosenzweig P, Caplain H, Chaufour S, et al. Comparative wheal and flare study of mizolastine vs terfenadine, cetirizine, loratadine and placebo in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1995 Nov; 40: 459–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chosidow O, Dubruc C, Danjou P, et al. Plasma and skin suction-blister-fluid pharmacokinetics and time course of the effects of oral mizolastine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1996 Jun; 50: 327–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenzweig P, Caplain H, Bianchetti G, et al. Weal and flare study of mizolastine, a new potent non sedative H1-antihistamine [abstract]. Allergy 1992; 47(12) Suppl.: 43Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Long WF, Taylor RJ, Wagner CJ, et al. Skin test suppression by antihistamines and the development of subsensitivity. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1985; 76: 113–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bousquet J, Chanal I, Murrieta M, et al. Lack of subsensitivity to mizolastine over 8-week treatment. Allergy 1996 Apr; 51: 251–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spencer CM, Faulds D, Peters DH. Cetirizine: a reappraisal of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in selected allergic disorders. Drugs 1993 Dec; 46: 1055–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Campoli-Richards DM, Buckley MM-T, Fitton A. Cetirizine: a review of its pharmacological properties and clinical potential in allergic rhinitis, pollen-induced asthma, and chronic urticaria. Drugs 1990 Nov; 40: 762–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McTavish D, Goa KL, Ferrill M. Terfenadine: an updated review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 1990 Apr; 39: 552–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Townley RG. Antiallergic properties of the second-generation H1 antihistamines during the early and late reactions to antigen. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1992 Oct; 90 (Pt 2): 720–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haria M, Fitton A, Peters DH. Loratadine: a reappraisal of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in allergic disorders. Drugs 1994 Oct; 48: 617–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pinquier J-L, Michel L, Cabanis MJ, et al. Effect of mizolastine on experimental inflammation in human skin [abstract]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995 Feb; 57: 169Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Michel L, Dubertret L, Jean-Louis F, et al. Modulation of IgE-dependent hypersensitivity reaction by mizolastine: inhibition of antigen-induced soluble ICAM-1 release [abstract]. J Invest Dermatol 1997 May; 108: 822Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pichat P, Angel I, Arbilla S. Anti-inflammatory properties of mizolastine after oral administration of arachidonic acid-induced cutaneous reactions in the rat. Arzneimittel Forschung 1998; 48: 173–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goldhill J, Pichat P, Roome N, et al. Effect of mizolastine on visceral sensory afferent sensitivity and inflammation during experimental colitis. Arzneimittel Forschung 1998; 48: 179–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vuurman EFPM, von Vegel LMA, Uiterwijk MMC, et al. Seasonal allergic rhinitis and antihistamine effects on children’s learning. Ann Allergy 1993; 71: 121–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Monti JE. Involvement of histamine in the control of the waking state. Life Sci 1993; 53: 1331–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Danjou P, Dunmore C, Curson VH, et al. A double-blind placebo controlled study of the psychometric effects of the SL 85.0324, a new H1 antagonist drug compared to terfenadine and triprolidine in healthy subjects [abstract]. Eur J Pharmacol 1990 Jul 2; 183:534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kerr JS, Dunmore C, Hindmarch I. The psychomotor and cognitive effects of a new antihistamine, mizolastine, compared to terfenadine, triprolidine and placebo in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 47(4): 331–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schaffler K, Wauschkuhn CH, Zander KJ, et al. CNS-pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the new non-sedative H1-antihistamine SL85.0324 vs placebo and dimetindene in volunteers [abstract]. Eur J Pharmacol 1990 Jul 2; 183: 593–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vuurman EFPM, Uiterwijk MMC, Rosenzweig P, et al. Effects of mizolastine and clemastine on actual driving and psychomotor performance in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 47(3): 253–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Patat A, Gram LF, Dubruc C, et al. Effects of mizolastine, a new antihistamine, on psychomotor performance and memory in elderly subjects. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 9: 101–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Patat A, Stubbs D, Dunmore C, et al. Lack of interaction between two antihistamines, mizolastine and cetirizine, and ethanol in psychomotor and driving performance in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 48: 143–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chaufour S, Caplain H, Lilienthal N, et al. Mizolastine, a new H1 antagonist, does not affect the cardiac repolarisation in healthy volunteers [abstract no. PIII-27]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 63(2): 214Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Seiler W, Dubruc C, Parain I, et al. Double-blind, phase I study to assess pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions of mizolastine and diltiazem after repeated dosing in healthy male volunteers. Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux). 95-00005-EN-01; 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chaufour S, Holt B, Jensen R, et al. Interaction study between mizolastine, a new H1 antihistamine, and erythromycin [abstract no. PIII-28]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 63(2): 214Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jensen R, Curson H, Chaufour S, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetic study of the potential interaction between ketoconazole and mizolastine after repeated administration in healthy volunteers. Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux). 94-00797-EN-01; 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Paserchia LA, Hewett J, Woosley RL. Effects of ketoconazole on QTc [abstract]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 55: 146Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Malavasi B, Locatelli M, Ascalone V. Coupled liquid-liquid extraction and column switching LC for the determination of a new antihistaminic H1 drug in human urine. Chromatographia 1993; 36: 337–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Desager J-P, Horsmans Y. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships of H1-antihistamines. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995 May; 28: 419–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Holgate S. Mizolastine. Clinical expert report. Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux). 95-00385-EN-00; 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ducheix G, Bianchetti G, Deschamps C, et al. A pharmacokinetic study of a 10mg mizolastine tablet after single and once a day repeated oral administration for 14 days in 18 young healthy volunteers — open study. Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux); 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dubruc C, Mesnil F, Mentré F, et al. Population pharmacokinetic analysis of mizolastine using a non parametric method (NPML) [abstract]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996 Feb; 59: 204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mesnil F, Mentré F, Dubruc C, et al. Population pharmacokinetic analysis of mizolastine and validation from sparse data on patients using the non parametric maximum likelihood method. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1998; In pressGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Salva P, Dubruc C, Ascalone V, et al. The effects of food on the pharmacokinetics of mizolastine after oral administration in healthy volunteers. Synthelabo Recherche (Bagneux). Report 94-0067 l-EN-01; 1997 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dubruc C, Deschamps C, Fraisse J, et al. Pharmacokinetic profile of mizolastine, a new antihistamine drug [abstract no. P514]. Allergy 1996; 51Suppl. 31: 153–4Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Humbert M, Hulot T, Dubruc C, et al. Study of the absolute bioavailability of mizolastine administered in capsules and tablet forms compared with an intravenous administration in 18 healthy young volunteers. Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux); 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Arbilla S. Metabolites of mizolastine: their affinity for H1 receptors and “in vivo” antihistamine properties. Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux); 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fillastre JP, D’Agostino S, Chaufour S, et al. The safety and pharmacokinetics of mizolastine in non-haemodialysed patients with chronic renal failure. Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux). Report 94-00521-EN-00; 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bechtel P, Miguet JP, Magnette I, et al. Mizolastine (SL85.0324-00): safety and pharmacokinetics of single 10mg oral dose in patients with hepatic failure. Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux). Report 94-00061-EN-00; 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chaufour S, Le Coz F, Dubruc C, et al. Lack of effect of mizolastine on the safety and pharmacokinetics of digoxin administered orally in repeated doses in healthy volunteers [abstract]. Therapie 1995; 50 Suppl.: abstr.467Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Miget N, Herrmann WM, Bergougnan L, et al. Lack of interaction between mizolastine and diltiazem in healthy volunteers [abstract]. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 1996; 18Suppl. B:204Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Patat A, Perault MC, Vandel B, et al. Lack of interaction between a new antihistamine, mizolastine, and lorazepam on psychomotor performance and memory in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1995 Jan; 39: 31–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pinquier JL, Salva P, Deschamps C, et al. Effect of mizolastine, a new non sedative H1 antagonist on the pharmacokinetics of theophylline [abstract]. Therapie 1995; 50 Suppl.: 148Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kaliner M, Lemanske R. Rhinitis and asthma. JAMA 1992 Nov 25; 268: 2807–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Daele J, Sabbah A, Wade AG, et al. Onset of action of mizolastine 10 mg od in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR) comparatively to cetirizine 10 mg od and placebo [abstract]. Allergy 1998. In pressGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Leynadier F, Bousquet J, Murrieta M, et al. Efficacy and safety of mizolastine in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1996 Feb; 76: 163–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Stern MA, Dunmore CJ, Théron M. A double-blind comparative study of mizolastine (SL85.0324) 10mg and placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adult patients [abstract]. Allergy 1992; 47Suppl.12: 177Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Stern MA, Darnell R, Tudor D. Can an antihistamine delay appearance of hay fever symptoms when given prior to pollen season? Allergy 1997 Apr; 52: 440–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wade AG, Bousquet J, Daele J, et al. Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of 10mg of mizolastine (M) and 10mg of cetirizine (C) once daily vs. placebo (P) in seasonal allergic rhino conjunctivitis (SAR) [abstract]. Allergy 1996; 51Suppl. 31: 156Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Stern MA, Darnell R, Dunmore C, et al. Prophylaxis with mizolastine 10mg of the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR) [abstract]. Allergy 1995; 50Suppl. 26: 108Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bellioni P, Catalano B, Cervellera G, et al. Comparison of mizolastine with loratadine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. Rhinology 1996 Jun;34: 101–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tasman AJ, Weber F, The Riperan Study Group. A double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentred study on mizolastine, a new non-sedative H1-receptor antagonist in patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis [abstract]. Allergy 1995; 50Suppl. 26: 79Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tasman AJ, Scadding GK, Murrieta M. An open-labelled, multi centered study of mizolastine (M): 10 mg and 15 mg/d, to assess the long-term safety and efficacy in patients suffering from perennial allergic rhino-conjunctivitis (PAR) [abstract]. Allergy 1996; 51Suppl. 31: 154–5Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Haguenauer P, Tudor D, Mathieu G, et al. Comparative study to determine the efficacy and safety of mizolastine (15 mg/d as a single dose) versus dexchlorpheniramine (12 mg/d as two divided doses) in the treatment of chronic rhinitis in adults. Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux). 93-00478-EN-00; 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Scadding G, Bachert C, Dunmore C, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentred study of mizolastine (SL85.0324) (10 mg/d) assessing the efficacy and safety in patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (RIPERAN). Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux). 94-00611-EN-01; 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Scadding G, Tasman AJ, Dunmore C, et al. An open-labelled, multicentred study of mizolastine (SL85.0324) (10 mg/d and 15 mg/day) to assess the long-term safety and long-term efficacy in patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (RIPEREX). Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux). 94-00939-EN-00; 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kennard CD, Ellis CN. Pharmacologic therapy for urticaria. J Am Acad Dermatol 1991 Jul; 25: 176–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Leynadier F, Dubertret L, Murrieta-Aguttes M, et al. Effect of mizolastine vs placebo in acquired cold induced urticaria (ACIU): the cold stimulation time test (CSTT) [abstract no. 296]. Allergy 1997; 52Suppl. 37: 99Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Brostoff J, Fitzharris P, Dunmore C, et al. Efficacy of mizolastine, a new antihistamine, compared with placebo in the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria. Allergy 1996 May; 51: 320–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Leynadier F, Duarte-Risselin C, Murrieta M, et al. Comparative study of the therapeutic activity and safety of 10mg mizolastine versus 10mg loratadine in chronic idiopathic urticaria [abstract]. Allergy 1995; 50Suppl. 26: 379–80Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Motolese A, Carraro A, Montesano A, et al. Mizolastine versus placebo in chronic idiopathic urticaria [abstract]. Allergy 1993; 48Suppl. 16: 38Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Lachapelle JM, Tennstedt D, Murrieta M. Comparative efficacy of mizolastine 10mg o.d. and cetirizine 10mg o.d. versus placebo in chronic idiopathic urticaria [abstract]. Allergy 1998 Suppl.: In pressGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Dubertret L, Murrieta-Aguttes M, Pelenc M-N. Comparative study of efficacy and safety of mizolastine (M), and loratadine (L) vs placebo (P) in chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) [abstract]. Allergy 1997; 52Suppl. 37: 175Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Murrieta-Aguttes M, Leynadier F, Duarte-Risselin C, et al. A comparative study of mizolastine (M) 10 mg vs. loratadine (L) 10 mg in chronic idiopathic urticaria: focusing on the effect on histamine induced wheals and flares [abstract]. Allergy 1996; 51Suppl. 31: 165–6Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ring J, Ingst R, Brockov K, et al. Mizolastine (M) in chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU): a controlled placebo trial [abstract]. Allergy 1996; 51Suppl. 31: 165Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Lorette G, Leynadier F, Murietta-Aguttes M, et al. Long term maintenance of symptoms relief in patients suffering from chronic urticaria (cu) treated with mizolastine [abstract]. Allergy 1998. In pressGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Murietta M, Favennec C, Elitzsch C, et al. Comparative study of the therapeutic activity and tolerance of 10 mg of mizolastine and 10 mg of cetirizine versus placebo in chronic idiopathic urticaria. Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux). 94-00934-EN-00; 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Danjou P, Molinier P, Berlin I, et al. Assessment of the anticho-linergic effect of the new antihistamine mizolastine in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992 Oct; 34: 328–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Caplan H, Chaufour S, Lilienthal N, et al. Compared effects of mizolastine versus placebo on electrocardiogram in healthy volunteers. Synthelabo Recherche (I.E.R.S.), (Bagneux). 96-00532-EN-00; 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Tonet J, Guerault E, Murrieta M. Cardiac safety profile of mizolastine: a pooled analysis of 4 double blind studies [abstract]. Allergy 1998. In pressGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lorette G, Leynadier F, Murrieta-Aguttes M, et al. Long term maintenance of symptoms relief in patients suffering from chronic urticaria (cu) treated with mizolastine [abstract]. Allergy 1998 Suppl.: In pressGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Gram LF, Patat A, Ulliac-Sagnes N, et al. Study of the pharmacokinetics, psychomotor and amnesic effects of mizolastine (SL85.0324) as a single dose in healthy, elderly subjects. Synthelabo Recherche (L.E.R.S.), (Bagneux). Report 93-00659-EN-00; 1998 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Varney V. Hayfever in the United Kingdom. Clin Exp Allergy 1991; 21: 757–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Bousquet J, Bullinger M, Fayol C, et al. Assessment of quality of life in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis with the French version of the SF-36 Health Status Questionnaire. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994 Aug; 94 (Pt 1): 182–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Dolovich J. Assessment of quality of life in adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: development and testing of a questionnaire for clinical trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994 Feb; 93: 413–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Berman BA, Ross RN. Antihistamines and the management of allergic rhinitis in the workplace. Adv Ther 1996 Mar–Apr; 13: 95–102Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Simons FER. H1-receptor antagonists: clinical pharmacology and therapeutics. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1989 Dec; 84: 845–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Kaiser HB. H1-receptor antagonist treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1990 Dec; 86: 1000–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Simons FER, Simons KJ. Second-generation H1-receptor antagonists. Ann Allergy 1991 Jan; 66: 5–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Second-generation Hi-antagonists first-line in the treatment of urticaria. Drug Ther Perspect 1995 Apr 3; 56: 5–8Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    International Rhinitis Management Group. International Consensus Report on the diagnosis and management of rhinitis. Allergy 1994; 49Suppl. 19: 5–34Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Goldsmith P, Dowd PM. The new H1 antihistamines — treatment of urticaria and other clinical problems. Dermatol Clin 1993 Jan; 11: 87–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ormerod AD. Urticaria: recognition, causes and treatment. Drugs 1994 Nov; 48: 717–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adis International LimitedMairangi Bay, Auckland 10New Zealand

Personalised recommendations