Allergy medication in Japanese volunteers: treatment effect of single doses on nocturnal sleep architecture and next day residual effects.

HPRU Medical Research Centre, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Current Medical Research and Opinion (Impact Factor: 2.37). 07/2006; 22(7):1343-51. DOI: 10.1185/030079906X112660
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the acute effects of two histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists on nocturnal sleep architecture and on next day cognitive function and psychomotor performance.
This was a single-site, randomized, double-blind, 3-way crossover study, comparing the effects of a single dose of chlorpheniramine (6 mg), fexofenadine (120 mg) and placebo in 18 healthy (male and female) Japanese volunteers aged 20-55 years. Volunteers were resident for 3 days and each period was separated by a minimum 5-day washout period. The three treatments were administered at 23.00 h. Overnight sleep was measured from 23.00 h to 07.00 h using polysomnography. Residual effects were studied at 07.00 h and 9.00 h the next morning, with the latency to sleep (sleep latency test) measured at 09.30 h.
Compared with placebo, chlorpheniramine increased the latencies to sleep onset and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep (p < or = 0.05 for both), and reduced the duration of REM sleep (p <or= 0.01), but this was not observed with fexofenadine. As far as residual effects the next morning were concerned there were decrements in performance with chlorpheniramine, but not with fexofenadine. Chlorpheniramine 6 mg impaired divided attention (p < 0.001), vigilance (p < 0.05), working memory (p < 0.0001) and sensori-motor performance (p < 0.01), and the latency to daytime sleep was reduced (p < 0.0001). Six adverse events possibly related to study medication were reported during the study, three of which were related to placebo, two to fexofenadine and one to chlorpheniramine.
These findings suggest that a single nocturnal dose of fexofenadine has advantages over the first-generation antihistamine chlorpheniramine, being free of disruption of night-time sleep and detrimental effects on cognitive performance the next day. It is likely that this advantage will remain with chronic ingestion, but this would need to be confirmed.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: There are limited comparative studies on classic and new-generation antihistamines that affect sleep quality and mood. The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the effects of classic and new-generation antihistamines on sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, dream anxiety, and mood. Methods: Ninety-two patients with chronic pruritus completed study in the dermatology outpatient clinic. Treatments with regular recommended therapeutic doses were administered. The effects of antihistaminic drugs on mood, daytime sleepiness, dream anxiety, and sleep quality were assessed on the first day and one month after. Results: Outpatients who received cetirizine and hydroxyzine treatments reported higher scores on the depression, anxiety, and fatigue sub-scales than who received desloratadine, levocetirizine, and rupatadine. Pheniramine and rupatadine were found to be associated with daytime sleepiness and better sleep quality. UKU side effects scale scores were significantly elevated among outpatients receiving pheniramine. Classic antihistamines increased daytime sleepiness and decreased the sleep quality scores. New-generation antihistamines reduced sleep latency, dream anxiety and increased daytime sleepiness and sleep quality. Conclusion: Both antihistamines, significantly increased daytime sleepiness and nocturnal sleep quality. Daytime sleepiness was significantly predicted by rupadatine and pheniramine treatment. Cetirizine and hydroxyzine, seem to have negative influences on mood states. iven the extensive use of antihistamines in clinical settings, these results should be more elaborately examined in further studies.
    International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice 03/2014; 18(3). DOI:10.3109/13651501.2014.907919 · 1.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives Sleep disturbances and fatigue are common in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), but little is known about hypnotic use patterns in MS, or the relationship between these medications and fatigue. The objectives of this study were to investigate the prevalence of prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) hypnotic use among MS patients, and to assess relationships between fatigue severity and hypnotic use among persons with MS. Methods Data on hypnotic use frequency, hypnotic agents of choice, and clinical characteristics were extracted from medical records and a survey dataset from n=190 MS patients who completed questionnaires regarding sleep quality, sleep quantity, nocturnal symptoms, sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale), obstructive sleep apnea risk (STOP-Bang questionnaire), insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index), and fatigue level (Fatigue Severity Scale - FSS). Results N=89 (47%) endorsed hypnotic use occasionally, frequently, or always. Over-the-counter diphenhydramine-containing products accounted for the majority of utilization, reported by n=47 (25%). Presence of occasional or more frequent hypnotic use correlated with daytime fatigue (Spearman rho=0.28, p=0.0002), but not sleepiness. Regression of FSS scores on hypnotic use confirmed the association [beta (SE) = 0.55 (0.21), p=0.0092] after adjustment for clinical and sleep-related confounds. In separate, similarly adjusted models, use of OTC hypnotics but not prescription hypnotics was independently associated with higher FSS scores [0.54 (0.22), p=0.0159]. An analogous association was observed more specifically for use of diphenhydramine-containing products [0.49 (0.24), p=0.044]. Conclusions Hypnotic use is highly prevalent among MS patients. Carry-over effects from hypnotic agents, and in particular, OTC diphenhydramine-containing products, could contribute to daytime fatigue.
    Sleep Medicine 09/2014; 16(1). DOI:10.1016/j.sleep.2014.09.006 · 3.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Second-generation antihistamines (AHs) have, in general, fewer sedative effects than the first-generation. However, important inter-drug differences remain in the degree of cognitive and/or psychomotor impairment. The extent to which a particular compound causes disruption can be conveniently compared, to all other AHs, using the Proportional Impairment Ratio (PIR). Although the PIR can differentiate the relative impairment caused by individual drugs, there is no indication of the reliability of the ratios obtained. To calculate the PIRs -together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as an index of reliability- and compare AHs currently, or soon to be, available in Japan, with respect to their intrinsic capacity to cause impairment. Results from studies of cetirizine, desloratadine, ebastine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine, loratadine, mequitazine, and olopatadine were included in the PIR calculations. All data utilised came from crossover studies in healthy volunteers which were randomised and placebo and positive-internal controlled. Existing databases from studies reporting the sedative effects of AHs on objective (speed, accuracy, memory) and subjective (feeling) psychometrics were augmented, via results from suitable studies published after the previous reviews. The null value for a PIR was one. A total of 45 studies were finally included for this review. Of the AHs assessed, fexofenadine, ebastine, and levocetirizine showed a PIR for objective tests of 0. However, only fexofenadine (PIR = 0.49) had an upper limit of the 95% CI of less than 1. Fexofenadine, levocetirizine, desloratadine, olopatadine, loratadine, and mequitazine all had a PIR for subjective ratings of 0, but the upper limits of the 95% CIs were all in excess of 1, although fexofenadine (PIR = 2.57) was the lowest. The results show that there are differences between second-generation AHs in the extent of sedation produced. However, subjective ratings indicate that patients may not necessarily be aware of this.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9(12):e114336. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114336 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 19, 2014