PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11372910

Second-generation antihistamines: the OTC debate.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that the safety profiles of second-generation antihistamines (SGAs) meet the criteria set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for switching these products to over-the-counter (OTC) status. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE search of articles published from 1970 through 2000. SUMMARY: Most patients with allergic rhinitis treat their symptoms with first-generation antihistamines (FGAs), which are available over-the-counter (OTC). Yet FGAs are generally considered less safe than the newer drugs. FGAs cause central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects and may increase users' risk for work-related injuries and motor vehicle accidents and, in children, for learning impairment. SGAs cause fewer CNS effects, do not appear to affect learning in children, and do not have significant drug interactions. Several other countries have made SGAs available OTC. Blue Cross of California petitioned FDA in July 1998 to make this class of drugs available OTC in the United States. This petition will finally be heard in May 2001. The 1951 Durham-Humphrey amendment to the original Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 requires that "a drug be made available without a prescription if, by following the labeling, consumers can use it safely and effectively without professional guidance." If judged according to this and other criteria promulgated by FDA, SGAs should be strongly considered for being switched to OTC status. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy of SGAs have been adequately established. Consumers should have the option of self-treating mild allergic rhinitis symptoms with these products.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C S Sampey, S L Follin. Second-generation antihistamines: the OTC debate.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1086-5802(16)31259-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Does potency predict clinical efficacy? Illustration through an antihistamine model.

OBJECTIVE: The concepts of potency and efficacy are often confused and used interchangeably within the scientific and pharmaceutical industry. It is important that the distinction between the two is understood, and that the terms are defined within their correct context. After reading this article, readers should have an understanding of the relationships between receptor potency and clinical efficacy. DATA SOURCES: Following a comprehensive review of the literature using MEDLINE, the author observed a lack of relevant references that relate measurements of potency to clinical efficacy. Therefore, the author reviewed the basic pharmacologic principles of potency using examples from the recent antihistamine literature. RESULTS: Potency is an expression of the activity of a drug in terms of the concentration or amount of the drug required to produce a defined effect, whereas clinical efficacy judges the therapeutic effectiveness of the drug in humans. The differing methods of evaluating the activity of antihistamines in vitro and in vivo can lead to inconsistent results, which complicate the use of potency to predict clinical efficacy. Further, as therapeutic behavior is modulated by pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters and by further interactions at sites other than the target receptor, it does not necessarily follow that more potent drugs have greater clinical efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Although potency can be a good preclinical marker of the therapeutic potential of a drug, clinical efficacy should only be evaluated within the patient population using appropriate outcome measures.

Histamine Antagonists↗