A double-blind, randomized, single-dose, crossover comparison of levocetirizine with ebastine, fexofenadine, loratadine, mizolastine, and placebo: suppression of histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response during 24 hours in healthy male subjects
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Levocetirizine is the active enantiomer of cetirizine, a potent drug with little metabolism widely used for allergic rhinitis and urticaria.
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the potency, consistency, onset, and duration of action of levocetirizine with other popular antihistamines.
METHODS: Levocetirizine 5 mg, ebastine 10 mg, fexofenadine 180 mg, loratadine 10 mg, mizolastine 10 mg, or placebo in single doses were given to 18 healthy male volunteers in a double-blind, crossover, randomized fashion. Wheal-and-flare responses to epicutaneous histamine dihydrochloride (100 mg/mL) challenge were measured at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 hours after each dose.
RESULTS: The overall effect of each drug was evaluated by the area under the curve (0 to 24 hours). Levocetirizine was the most potent and consistently effective drug for inhibiting the histamine-induced wheal-and-flare surface areas. Ebastine, fexofenadine, and mizolastine ranked next and had almost identical effects for inhibiting the wheal. Loratadine was the least potent drug. Levocetirizine, fexofenadine, and mizolastine inhibited the wheal-and-flare response after 1 hour and reached their peak for inhibition after 4 hours. Ebastine and loratadine could be distinguished from placebo only after 4 hours. After treatment with levocetirizine, all 18 subjects had >95% inhibition of the wheal response at one timepoint. Fexofenadine, mizolastine, and ebastine were inhibitory in declining order. All…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 18 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students on Application, Education, and Ethical Aspects
- Information quality of videos related to esophageal cancer on tiktok, kwai, and bilibili: a cross-sectional study
- The quality and reliability of short videos about hypertension on TikTok: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability evaluation of pancreatic cancer-related video content on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study
- Association between metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) and hypertension: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2007–2018
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.