2. METHOD
Computer-assisted searches of bibliographical data bases were conducted
to identify scientific publications for the initial review. Specifically,
MEDLINE and related search engines were used to identify well-designed
human studies investigating the behavioral, cognitive and sedative effects
of antihistamines. Search terms included: antihistamines, H1-antagonists,
psychomotor performance, driving, performance impairment, and cognitive
effects. Publications through the end of 1998 were included; no particular
date limit was set regarding earlier publications, although it should
be noted that MEDLINE typically does not include publications prior to
1966. This primary computer-assisted search was supplemented by review
of the references cited in the retrieved publications as well as consideration
of reports of pertinent studies known to the authors. Therefore, in addition
to published journal articles, some abstracts, proceedings, and reports
of conference presentations also were included. Although an extensive
literature search was conducted, the results cannot be viewed as exhaustive.
The titles (or abstracts) of the identified references were evaluated
for initial inclusion according to the following criteria: the article
(or detailed abstract) was available in English, the study tested healthy
human subjects (or allergy patients), measures included driving-related
performance tasks, antihistamines were administered in an experimental
setting, a placebo control treatment was included, and statistical tests
compared the treatment(s) to placebo. All publications appearing to meet
these initial criteria were indexed as the master reference set and copies
of the articles were sought for intensive review. This master set included
386 references selected from more than 500 titles/abstracts reviewed
in the initial focused search. Of the 386 references identified, 256
were excluded from the intensive review and analysis for the following
reasons, as shown in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1. REASONS
FOR STUDY EXCLUSION: |
NOT in English; OR English summary
lacks sufficient detail to review |
14 |
5.5 |
NOT adult subjects; OR not healthy
volunteers or allergy patients; Excluded other clinical patients
(e.g., abstinent alcoholics, depressed patients) |
10 |
3.9 |
NO driving-related tasks used in the
experiment; (but coded subjective sedation only from studies which
tested at least one behavioral/cognitive measure) |
42 |
16.4 |
NO key drugs included (per top 5 for
each H1-antagonist generation; see lists) |
67 |
26.2 |
Inadequate methodology (need at least
Placebo; best if +Control also included) OR statistical tests only
used baseline change, not comparison with Placebo |
10 |
3.9 |
NOT an experiment; e.g., Review paper
with no new experiments reported; or Review of pharmacology or
clinical effects, epidemiology, or case report, etc. |
80 |
31.2 |
Prior published data; (Note: included
earliest publication unless later paper provided a more detailed
report of the findings) |
17 |
6.6 |
Unable to obtain copy of article for
detailed review |
13 |
5.1 |
Copy obtained, but article had insufficient
detail to allow review of criteria |
3 |
1.2 |
| |
256 |
100% |
The remaining 130 publications which met all inclusion criteria were
then subjected to intensive review and the findings were coded and entered
into the data base for summary and analysis. The complete citations for
this final set of 130 publications appear as REFERENCE LIST B at the
end of this report. Originally, 132 articles were deemed appropriate
for the intensive review and so they are indexed in the data base (and
in all appended Tables and listings) as Reference Numbers 1-132 in alphabetical
order by first author. Subsequently, four of these articles were excluded
from the review set (Ref# 10, 52, 72, and 118) and two additional publications
(published in late 1998) were identified and added to the data base.
However, to avoid major recoding and reorganization of the data base,
the two added articles simply were indexed as Reference #133 (Comer et
al., 1998) and #134 (Scavone et al., 1998). As such, they appear at the
end of the data base and reference list, rather than in alphabetical
order.
A complete listing of the individual studies, with impairment findings
grouped according to the behavioral skill categories (discussed in detail
below), is presented in Appendix A. In addition, for each task category,
an overall summary table of “Skills performance impairment as a function
of antihistamine (Drug/Dose), task category and dosing (Acute/Repeated)” was
generated to present the counts of YES and NO for significant impairment.
An example of such a “YES/NO Counts” table is presented in Appendix B.
The tables in Appendix A and B also summarize the findings by drug generation
as a class.
Details of the data base coding system can be found in an example of
one of the individual Study Summary Sheets which were generated for all
130 articles (see Appendix C for an example). In brief, each article
was reviewed and the information for the Citation, Method, and Results
of each reported study was entered in the data base. Of note, seven publications
reported more than one experiment; in these cases, the data base includes
the single Citation, but separate Methods and Results sections for each
of the studies which are indexed by the single Reference number plus
a letter; (e.g., Reference #18 reports two separate studies: these are
indexed as Reference #18A and #18B). The 130 publications reflect a total
of 138 separate studies; these are included in the data base for this
review.
The results from each study were coded, at the level of drug dose and
task measure, for evidence of significant impairment, i.e., YES or NO.
With few exceptions, “significant” means that the study reported a statistical
test of the given drug's dose versus placebo at p < 0.05.
Nearly 40 different antihistamines were represented in the master data
set of publications which were identified in the initial, focused literature
search. In many cases, only a few studies (and sometimes only one study)
examined a given drug, and many of the drugs are (were) only available
in Europe. Consequently, in order to ensure an adequate sample of studies
for this review, and to be relevant to the medications available to the
U.S. population of drivers, we decided to focus only on the five most
widely prescribed and/or studied drugs from each generation. These 10
drugs are described in detail in Table 2, as shown on the next page.
A table which lists all of the studies in this review, presented with
the YES/NO codes across all 10 drugs, is presented in Appendix D. This
listing provides a concise overview of the specific drugs examined in
a given study. Of note, the majority of studies focused on only one of
the 10 drugs. Only 12 studies involved a comparison of two different
2nd -generation drugs, and only a single study (Simons, 1996) examined
a group of 2nd -generation drugs in comparison to placebo and to a 1
st -generation antihistamine as the positive control (e.g, diphenhydramine).
TABLE 2. THE TEN DRUGS SELECTED FOR REVIEW
First-generation
H1-receptor antagonists |
|
chlorpheniramine |
Chlor-Trimeton |
Alkylamines |
4 mg tid, qid |
2-6 hr |
T1/2: 20-24hr |
clemastine |
Tavist |
Ethanolaminessss |
1.34 bid - 2.68 tid |
2-4 hr |
|
diphenhydramine |
Benadryl |
Ethanolamines |
25-50 mg tid,qid |
2-4 hr |
T1/2: 8 hr |
hydroxyzine |
Atarax |
Piperazines |
25 mg tid, qid |
2-3 hr |
T1/2: 29 hr |
tripolidine |
Actidil |
Alkylamines |
2.5 mg tid, qid
or 10 mg SR |
~ 2 hr |
T1/2: ~2 hr |
Note: There are six generally
recognized chemical classes of SR = sustained release
antihistamines:
Alkylamines, Ethanolamines, Ethylenediamines, T1/2 = Half-life
Phenothiazines,
Piperazines, and Piperidines.
|
|
Second-generation
H1-receptor antagonists: |
astemizole |
Hismanal |
Piperidines |
10 mg qd |
1 hr |
6-9 days |
cetirizine |
Zyrtec |
Piperazines |
10 mg qd, bid |
1 hr |
T1/2: 7-11 hr |
fexofenadine |
Allegra |
Piperidines |
60 mg bid |
1-2 hr |
T1/2: 13-16 hr |
loratadine |
Claritin |
Piperidines |
10 mg qd |
1-1.5 hr |
5 days |
terfenadine |
Seldane |
Piperidines |
60 mg bid |
2.5 hr |
2-3 days |
Note: loratadine was
derived from azatadine; cetirizine is the carboxylated metabolite
of
hydroxyzine; fexofenadine is the hydrochloride salt of terfenadine's
active metabolite.
|
Each drug was indexed in the data base and in all generated figures
and listings by a drug code number: D1-D5 and N1-N5, respectively, reflect
the five drugs in the 1st -, and 2nd -, generations. Only one study
of fexofenadine's effects on driving-related behavior has been published
to date (i.e., through the end of 1998 in this review). Its inclusion
in this review, however, is warranted by its current status as one of
the most widely prescribed antihistamines and the fact that its chemical
structure is identical to terfenadine's active metabolite, except that
fexofenadine is the hydrochloride salt. Terfenadine was taken off the
market in early 1998 after increased reports of cardiovascular adverse
effects. Nonetheless, as the parent drug to fexofenadine, the many studies
of terfenadine are included in this review for their continued relevance
for understanding the drug mechanism and impairment effects of the 2
nd generation drugs. In addition, astemizole recently was removed from
the market due to safety concerns.
In addition to the drug coding, the results for each study were entered
in the data base according to the planned analysis of the ten
behavioral skill categories, as shown in Table 3 below. In
addition, as noted earlier, subjective measures of sedation were
analyzed if the study also had tested at least one behavioral or cognitive
measure.
Table 3. NUMBER OF STUDIES AND TEST FINDINGS
FOR EACH SKILL CATEGORY
AND SUBJECTIVE SEDATION: ACUTE (A) AND REPEATED (R) DOSING
| |
DRIVING & PILOTING |
1R: on road, 1C: closed course, 1S:
simulator |
17 |
14 |
55 |
28 |
PSYCHOMOTOR |
2B: body sway, balance, hand steadiness,
2D:
dexterity, 2T: finger tapping; 2: all others |
35 |
9 |
70 |
17 |
PERCEPTION |
time perception, visual search tasks |
14 |
7 |
26 |
13 |
VISUAL FUNCTIONS |
4: visual functions, 4C: critical flicker
fusion |
34 |
10 |
83 |
16 |
COGNITIVE TASKS |
5D: digit symbol substitution test,
5M:
memory tasks, 5T: trail-making,
5: all other cognitive tasks |
63 |
20 |
201 |
61 |
DIVIDED ATTENTION |
typically visual search performed with
tracking task |
28 |
8 |
52 |
14 |
VIGILANCE |
sustained attention;
lengthy monotonous
tasks |
25 |
12 |
46 |
24 |
TRACKING |
8Cr: critical or adaptive tracking,
8: pursuit, compensatory, or unspecified tracking tasks |
39 |
10 |
80 |
23 |
REACTION TIME |
9S: simple RT, 9C: complex RT |
50 |
20 |
98 |
44 |
PHYSIOLOGICAL |
10: EEG, ERP,
10M: Multiple Sleep
Latency Test |
23 |
14 |
56 |
33 |
Subjective Sedation |
Visual analogue scales,
Stanford Sleepiness
Scale |
85 |
29 |
171 |
50 |
(from n = 135 studies
of Acute and/or Repeated Doses) TOTALS: |
113 |
47 |
938 |
323 |
Note: A = ACUTE Doses; R = REPEATED Doses ; (excluded
3 studies with only Residual effects). Many studies tested more than
one skill category, measure, drug, and dose level and schedule.
It should be noted that the terms “test” or “finding” are
used interchangeably in this report to describe the unit of
data analysis for this comprehensive review of 138 studies. A
given study, for example, may have evaluated several drugs and doses,
both acute and repeated dosing schedules, and included multiple behavioral
measures and subjective measures. The resultant total number of specific “tests” or “findings” from
that single study, therefore, would be the product of multiplying all
the levels for each factor studied. Thus, as shown in the table above,
there is a total of 1,261 test findings; obviously this number is much
greater than the total number of studies included in the review. Also,
the number of findings for repeated dosing was rather limited (n=323)
compared to the greater number for acute dosing (n=938).
The decision for classifying the many performance measures into 10 behavioral
categories is admittedly somewhat arbitrary. Prior reviewers also have
noted the difficulties inherent in this process of assigning a given
task to a specific category (e.g., Adelsberg, 1997; Rombaut & Hindmarch,
1994), but most concur with the general areas of actual driving, simulated
driving, various psychomotor skills, sensorimotor tasks, cognitive effects,
and subjective measures of sedation. In order to evaluate more precisely
the drug effects on the wide variety of measures, we also included sub
codes in an effort to restrict the variability of findings within a given
area. Specific task names and the individual response measures can be
found in the detailed tables which list the impairment results by study
(see Appendix A).
|