Objective: To compare the peripheral antihistaminic activity of bilastine, rupatadine and desloratadine in inhibiting the histamine-induced wheal and flare (W&F) response. Research design and methods: Twenty-four healthy volunteers aged 18–40 years participated in this crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study. Subjects received single doses of bilastine 20 mg, desloratadine 5 mg, rupatadine 10 mg and placebo. W&F responses induced by intradermal injection of histamine 5 μg were evaluated before treatment (basal value) and at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 24 hours after treatment. Fifteen minutes after histamine injection, W&F surface areas (cm²) were quantified using the Visitrak System. Itching sensation was evaluated using a 100 mm visual analog scale. EudraCT number: 2015-000790-13. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the percentage reduction in W&F areas after each active treatment compared with corresponding basal values. Results: Bilastine induced the greatest inhibition in wheal area and was significantly superior to desloratadine and rupatadine from 1 to 12 hours (both p < .001). Rupatadine and desloratadine were better than placebo without differences between them. Maximum wheal inhibition occurred at 6 hours (bilastine 83%, desloratadine 38%, rupatadine 37%). Onset of action was 1 hour for bilastine and 4 hours for desloratadine and rupatadine. Bilastine was significantly superior to desloratadine and rupatadine for flare inhibition from 1–24 hours (both p < .001) with an onset of action at 30 minutes. Bilastine was significantly better than desloratadine (2–12 hours; at least p < .05) and rupatadine (2–9 hours; at least p < .01) for reducing itching sensation. Neither desloratadine nor rupatadine significantly reduced itching compared to placebo. All active treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions: Bilastine 20 mg induced significantly greater inhibition of the W&F response compared with desloratadine 5 mg and rupatadine 10 mg throughout the 24 hour study period, and had the fastest onset of action. Only bilastine significantly reduced itching sensation versus placebo.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacodynamic activity of bilastine administered under fasting and fed conditions in healthy volunteers. Methods: In this randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover study involving 24 healthy subjects, once-daily oral bilastine 20 mg was administered for 4 days under fasting and fed conditions, with a 7-day washout period. Bilastine plasma concentrations were measured for 24 h after the first and fourth doses in each period. Pharmacodynamic activity was assessed by wheal and flare surface inhibition and subjective assessment of itching, after intradermal injection of histamine 5 μg. Results: When administered under fed versus fasting conditions, exposure to bilastine 20 mg decreased (mean maximum plasma concentration and area under the curve from time 0 to 24 h decreased by 34.27% and 32.72% [day 1], respectively, and 33.08% and 28.87% [day 4]). Despite this, the antihistaminic effect of bilastine 20 mg was not altered by food. On day 1, as assessed by wheal and flare surface inhibition, the maximum effect and duration of action of bilastine did not differ to a significant extent between fasting and fed conditions, with only a short 30-min delay in the onset of wheal inhibition. At steady state (day 4), bilastine’s pharmacodynamic effects were not significantly affected under fasting or fed conditions. Conclusion: The pharmacokinetic interaction of bilastine with food does not imply a significant reduction of its peripheral antihistaminic efficacy. Despite a slight delay in onset of action on the first treatment day, the global clinical efficacy of bilastine is not affected by coadministration with food.

Vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent, and recent evidence suggests a possible association between vitamin D deficiency and various health conditions. The aim of this study was to assess monthly calcifediol treatments for vitamin D deficiency (or biweekly, if the deficiency was severe) in a young adult population with no associated comorbidities. This multicentre phase I trial started with a four month open-label treatment phase (TP) that included 101 participants (65% women with mean age 29.8 years). Eighty-two percent of the subjects (79/96) achieved 25(OH)D levels within the target range (20–60 ng/mL) by the end of the TP, and they were subsequently randomised and subjected to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, five month follow-up phase (FP). At the end of the FP, 89% of participants maintained vitamin D levels of >20 ng/mL with calcifediol, versus 49% with placebo (p < 0.001). Subjects receiving monthly calcifediol during both phases (n = 32) maintained 25(OH)D levels >20 ng/mL, whereas those on the placebo during the FP (n = 38) exhibited deficiency levels of 25(OH)D by the end of the study. No clinically relevant changes in bone metabolism parameters or toxic 25(OH)D levels were observed, and no serious adverse events were reported throughout the study. Calcifediol is a safe and effective treatment for vitamin D deficiency in the young adult population, but long-term use may be required to sustain optimal 25(OH)D levels.