Abstract:Background: Bilastine is a well-known non-sedating second-generation antihistamine authorised worldwide for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (seasonal and perennial) and urticaria with proven efficacy and good safety and tolerability profile. When the oral route is not suitable or a rapid onset of action is preferred, parenteral formulations represent an effective treatment option. However, the parenteral formulations currently available are sedating antihistamines. The objective of this research was to compare the peripheral anti-H1 activity of different bilastine formulations (i.v., i.m. and oral) and dexchlorpheniramine among them also versus placebo. Methods: This was a single-dose, randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase I clinical study performed on 25 adult healthy volunteers that compared the peripheral antihistaminic activity of a single dose of bilastine 12 mg i.v., bilastine 12 mg i.m., bilastine 20 mg oral tablets and dexchlorpheniramine 5 mg i.m. among them and versus placebo by inhibiting the histamine-induced wheal and flare (W&F) response. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability were also evaluated. Results: All bilastine formulations showed a rapid onset of action (15 min for parenteral and 30 min for the oral formulation), and the maximum effect in both wheal (i.v. 74.44 %; i.m.:74.29 %; oral 70,27 %) and flare area reduction (i.v. and i.m. 80.63 %; oral 77.67 %), was significantly larger compared to dexchlorpheniramine i.m. (25.85 % for wheal and 28.65 % for flare) and placebo (1.35 % for wheal and 4.02 % for flare). A more pronounced reduction in itching score was reached for bilastine oral, followed by i.m. and i.v. formulations. No serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported during the study, and 8 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 5 subjects, all resolved without sequelae. For psychomotor assessments, dexchlorpheniramine i.m. showed a fast onset of drowsiness, as well as decreased attention and coordination when compared to all bilastine formulations and placebo. Conclusions: All bilastine formulations showed a peripheral H1-blocking effect inducing a significantly greater inhibition of the wheal and flare response as compared to dexchlorpheniramine i.m. or placebo and provided a greater reduction of the itching sensation score. This study reconfirmed that bilastine has no sedative effect, even in a parenteral formulation. These results suggest that new bilastine parenteral formulation (i.v. or i.m.) may represent a suitable alternative for patients requiring immediate treatment of histamine-mediated type I hypersensitivity reactions, such as acute urticaria, or in those cases where oral administration is not possible.

Bilastine 0.6% Preservative-free Eye Drops: A Once-daily Treatment for Allergic Conjunctivitis

Bilastine 0.6% preservative-free eye drops, an effective once-daily treatment to reduce signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis: A pooled analysis of two randomized clinical trials

Efficacy of Once-Daily Ophthalmic Bilastine for the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Dose-Finding Study

Safety and Tolerability of Bilastine 0.6% Ophthalmic Solution: An 8-Weeks Phase III Study

The new preservative-free ophthalmic formulation of bilastine 0.6% preserves the ocular surface epithelial integrity in a comparative in vitro study

Ocular Biodistribution of Once-Daily 0.6% Bilastine Eye Drops Reveals Highest Levels in Conjunctiva Up to 24 h Postadministration

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Bilastine 10 mg/d in Children Aged 2 to 5 Years With Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis or Urticaria: A Phase 3 Clinical Trial

The Impact of Bilastine on Symptoms of Allergic Rhinitis and Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Bilastine 20 mg versus Fexofenadine 180 mg for Treatment of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis: Randomized Controlled Study

Comparative inhibition by oral bilastine, parenteral dexchlorpheniramine, and a new bilastine parenteral (i.v. and i.m.) formulation of histamine-induced wheal and flare response: A randomised phase I trial

Bilastine for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria: results from an international Delphi study

Efficacy of 3% diquafosol combined with azelastine hydrochloride in allergic conjunctivitis patients with dry eye

In vitro compatibility study of a new preservative‐free multidose 0.6% bilastine eye drop formulation containing sodium hyaluronate with soft and gas rigid permeable contact lenses

Loteprednol etabonate suspension 0.2% administered QID compared with olopatadine solution 0.1% administered BID in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel group study in Chinese patients.

How bilastine is used to treat allergic rhinitis and urticaria in children

A multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of loteprednol etabonate 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% with dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% in the treatment of Chinese patients with blepharokeratoconjunctivitis.

Effectiveness of bilastine and fexofenadine among allergic Rhinitis patients in Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

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

A Comparative Study of Olopatadine Hydrochloride and Bepotastine Besilate in the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis

Phase III trials examining the efficacy of cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% compared to vehicle for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model