QT time prolongation
Adverse drug events
Variants ✨For the computationally intensive evaluation of the variants, please choose the paid standard subscription.
Explanations of the substances for patients
We have no additional warnings for the combination of promethazine and loratadine. Please also consult the relevant specialist information.
The reported changes in exposure correspond to the changes in the plasma concentration-time curve [ AUC ]. We do not expect any change in exposure for promethazine, when combined with loratadine (100%). We did not detect any change in exposure to loratadine. We currently cannot estimate the influence of promethazine.
The pharmacokinetic parameters of the average population are used as the starting point for calculating the individual changes in exposure due to the interactions.
Promethazine has a low oral bioavailability [ F ] of 25%, which is why the maximum plasma level [Cmax] tends to change strongly with an interaction. The terminal half-life [ t12 ] is 14.5 hours and constant plasma levels [ Css ] are reached after approximately 58 hours. The protein binding [ Pb ] is moderately strong at 93%. The metabolism mainly takes place via CYP2D6.
Loratadine has a low oral bioavailability [ F ] of 10%, which is why the maximum plasma level [Cmax] tends to change strongly with an interaction. The protein binding [ Pb ] is 98% strong. The metabolism takes place via CYP2D6 and CYP3A4, among others and the active transport takes place in particular via PGP.
|Serotonergic Effects a||0||Ø||Ø|
Rating: According to our knowledge, neither promethazine nor loratadine increase serotonergic activity.
|Kiesel & Durán b||4||+++||+|
Recommendation: The risk of anticholinergic side effects such as blurred vision, confusion and tremor is increased with this therapy. If possible, the therapy should be switched or the patient should be closely monitored for other symptoms, such as constipation, mydriasis and reduced vigilance.
Rating: Together, promethazine (strong) and loratadine (mild) increase anticholinergic activity.
QT time prolongation
Promethazine can potentially increase QT time, but we do not know about torsades de pointes arrhythmias. We do not know of any QT-prolonging potential for loratadine.
General adverse effects
|Side effects||∑ frequency||pro||lor|
|Lowered convulsive threshold||1.0 %||+||n.a.|
Neuroleptic malignant syndrome: promethazine
Respiratory depression: promethazine
Based on your answers and scientific information, we assess the individual risk of undesirable side effects. These recommendations are intended to advise professionals and are not a substitute for consultation with a doctor. In the restricted test version (alpha), the risk of all substances has not yet been conclusively assessed.
Abstract: This histological and immunohistochemical study of 6 food handlers affected by immediate contact dermatitis due to foods shows that apparently normal skin of patients with this condition presents several histological and immunohistochemical abnormalities. Skin biopsies of normal hand skin showed focal parakeratosis and moderately dense dermal infiltrates. Immunohistochemistry showed an increased number of Langerhans cells in the epidermis and in the superficial dermis and a mononuclear dermal infiltrate consisting of peripheral T lymphocytes with a CD4/CD8 ratio of 5-6/1. Biopsies of the immediate vesicular reactions induced by foods showed spongiotic vesicles within the epidermis and a moderate to dense mononuclear dermal perivascular infiltrate. The immunohistochemical features were similar to those described in apparently normal skin. The mechanism of this immediate vesicular reaction requires further research. The rapid appearance of the lesions (after 20-30 min) probably excludes an immunological cell-mediated pathogenesis. A non-immunological mechanism due to direct liberation of mediators by foods is more readily conceivable than an immediate immunological type of contact reaction.
Abstract: This article reviews clinical pharmacokinetic data on the H1-receptor antagonists, commonly referred to as the antihistamines. Despite their widespread use over an extended period, relatively little pharmacokinetic data are available for many of these drugs. A number of H1-receptor antagonists have been assayed mainly using radioimmunoassay methods. These have also generally measured metabolites to greater or lesser extents. Thus, the interpretation of such data is complex. After oral administration of H1-receptor antagonists as syrup or tablet formulations, peak plasma concentrations are usually observed after 2 to 3 hours. Bioavailability has not been extensively studied, but is about 0.34 for chlorpheniramine, 0.40 to 0.60 for diphenhydramine, and about 0.25 for promethazine. Most of these drugs are metabolised in the liver, this being very extensive in some instances (e.g. cyproheptadine and terfenadine). Total body clearance in adults is generally in the range of 5 to 12 ml/min/kg (for astemizole, brompheniramine, chlorpheniramine, diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine, promethazine and triprolidine), while their elimination half-lives range from about 3 hours to about 18 days [cinnarizine about 3 hours; diphenhydramine about 4 hours; promethazine 10 to 14 hours; chlorpheniramine 14 to 25 hours; hydroxyzine about 20 hours; brompheniramine about 25 hours; astemizole and its active metabolites about 7 to 20 days (after long term administration); flunarizine about 18 to 20 days]. They also have relatively large apparent volumes of distribution in excess of 4 L/kg. In children, the elimination half-lives of chlorpheniramine and hydroxyzine are shorter than in adults. In patients with alcohol-related liver disease, the elimination half-life of diphenhydramine was increased from 9 to 15 hours, while in patients with chronic renal disease that of chlorpheniramine was very greatly prolonged. Little, if any, published information is available on the pharmacokinetics of these drugs in neonates, pregnancy or during lactation. The relatively long half-lives of a number of the older H1-receptor antagonists such as brompheniramine, chlorpheniramine and hydroxyzine suggest that they can be administered to adults once daily.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of coadministration of loratadine and erythromycin on the pharmacokinetics and electrocardiographic repolarization (QTc) pharmacodynamics of loratadine and its metabolite descarboethoxyloratadine in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy volunteers were studied in a prospective, double-blind crossover design while confined in a Clinical Research Center. The primary pharmacodynamic end point of the study was the difference between baseline and day 10 mean QTc intervals obtained from surface electrocardiograms. Plasma concentrations of loratadine, descarboethoxyloratadine, and erythromycin were measured on treatment day 10 for pharmacokinetic analysis. Subjects received in random sequence the following three treatments for 10 consecutive days during three separate study periods: 10 mg loratadine every morning plus 500 mg erythromycin stearate every 8 hours, or 10 mg loratadine every morning plus placebo every 8 hours, or placebo every morning plus 500 mg erythromycin stearate. RESULTS: Concomitant administration of loratadine and erythromycin was associated with increased plasma concentrations of loratadine (40% increase in area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC]) and descarboethoxyloratadine (46% increase in AUC) compared with loratadine alone. Analysis of variance showed no difference between the treatment groups in effect on QTc intervals compared with baseline, and no significant change from baseline was observed. No clinically relevant changes in the safety profile of loratadine were observed, and there were no reports of sedation nor syncope. CONCLUSION: Although concomitant administration of loratadine and erythromycin was associated with increased plasma concentrations of loratadine and descarboethoxyloratadine, no clinically relevant changes in the safety profile of loratadine were observed. In this study, 10 mg loratadine administered orally for 10 consecutive days was well tolerated when coadministered with therapeutic doses of erythromycin stearate.
Abstract: The pharmacokinetics of promethazine hydrochloride after administration of rectal suppositories at three dosage strengths and oral syrup were studied. The study had an open-label, randomized, crossover design. At intervals of five to nine days, healthy volunteers were given two 12.5-mg promethazine rectal suppositories, one 25-mg suppository, one 50-mg suppository, or 50 mg (10 mL) of promethazine oral syrup. Blood samples were collected before each dose and at intervals from 0.5 to 48 hours afterward. Promethazine concentration was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography, and pharmacokinetic values were calculated with noncompartmental methods. Thirty-six subjects (18 men and 18 women) completed the study. Absorption was highly variable for all the formulations. On average, absorption was more rapid and the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) higher for the syrup than for the suppositories. Cmax was significantly lower for the 50-mg suppository (mean, 9.04 ng/mL) than for the syrup (19.3 ng/mL). The time to Cmax (tmax) was significantly shorter for the syrup (mean, 4.4 hours) than for the suppositories (6.7-8.6 hours). There were no significant differences in dose-normalized Cmax among the three suppository treatments. Area under the concentration-versus-time curve (AUC) was comparable between the syrup and the 50-mg suppository and between the treatments with two 12.5-mg suppositories and the 25-mg suppository. Elimination profiles were similar among all treatments (mean half-life [t1/2], 16-19 hours). There were no significant differences in pharmacokinetics on the basis of sex or race. The mean relative bioavailability for the three suppository treatments ranged from 70% to 97%. Individual relative bioavailabilities ranged from 4% to 343%. The pharmacokinetics of promethazine administered in oral syrup and rectal suppositories were highly variable, but, in general, the suppositories produced a lower Cmax and later tmax than the syrup. All formulations were comparable in terms of dose-normalized AUC and t1/2, and the three suppository treatments were comparable in terms of dose-normalized Cmax.
Abstract: AIMS: To evaluate whether ketoconazole or cimetidine alter the pharmacokinetics of loratadine, or its major metabolite, desloratadine (DCL), or alter the effects of loratadine or DCL on electrocardiographic repolarization in healthy adult volunteers. METHODS: Two randomized, evaluator-blind, multiple-dose, three-way crossover drug interaction studies were performed. In each study, subjects received three 10 day treatments in random sequence, separated by a 14 day washout period. The treatments were loratadine alone, cimetidine or ketoconazole alone, or loratadine plus cimetidine or ketoconazole. The primary study endpoint was the difference in mean QTc intervals from baseline to day 10. In addition, plasma concentrations of loratadine, DCL, and ketoconazole or cimetidine were obtained on day 10. RESULTS: Concomitant administration of loratadine and ketoconazole significantly increased the loratadine plasma concentrations (307%; 90% CI 205-428%) and DCL concentrations (73%; 62-85%) compared with administration of loratadine alone. Concomitant administration of loratadine and cimetidine significantly increased the loratadine plasma concentrations (103% increase; 70-142%) but not DCL concentrations (6% increase; 1-11%) compared with administration of loratadine alone. Cimetidine or ketoconazole plasma concentrations were unaffected by coadministration with loratadine. Despite increased concentrations of loratadine and DCL, there were no statistically significant differences for the primary electrocardiographic repolarization parameter (QTc) among any of the treatment groups. No other clinically relevant changes in the safety profile of loratadine were observed as assessed by electrocardiographic parameters (mean (90% CI) QTc changes: loratadine vs loratadine + ketoconazole = 3.6 ms (-2.2, 9.4); loratadine vs loratadine + cimetidine = 3.2 ms (-1.6, 7.9)), clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Loratadine 10 mg daily was devoid of any effects on electrocardiographic parameters when coadministered for 10 days with therapeutic doses of ketoconazole or cimetidine in healthy volunteers. It is concluded that, although there was a significant pharmacokinetic drug interaction between ketoconazole or cimetidine and loratadine, this effect was not accompanied by a change in the QTc interval in healthy adult volunteers.
Abstract: Loratadine is known to be a substrate for both CYP3A4 and CYP2D6 based on a previous in vitro study. In view of the large interindividual variability in loratadine pharmacokinetics and the greater genetically determined variability of CYP2D6 activity than of CYP3A4 in vivo, we hypothesized that CYP2D6 polymorphisms may contribute to the pharmacokinetic variability of loratadine. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of CYP2D6 genotype (specifically the CYP2D6*10 allele) on the pharmacokinetics of loratadine in Chinese subjects. Three groups of healthy male Chinese subjects were enrolled: group I, homozygous CYP2D6*1 (*1/*1, n=4); group II, heterozygous CYP2D6*10 (*1/*10 or *2/*10, n=6); and group III, homozygous CYP2D6*10 (*10/*10, n=7) carriers. Each subject received a single oral dose of 20 mg of loratadine under fasting conditions. Multiple blood samples were collected over 48 h, and the plasma concentrations of loratadine and its metabolite desloratadine were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. In comparing homozygous CYP2D6*10 (group III) to heterozygous CYP2D6*10 (group II) to homozygous CYP2D6*1 (group I) subjects, loratadine oral clearance values were 7.17+/- 2.54 versus 11.06+/-1.70 versus 14.59+/-2.43 l/h/kg, respectively [one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), p<0.01], and the corresponding metabolic ratios [area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC)(desloratadine)/AUC(loratadine)] were 1.55+/-0.73 versus 2.47+/- 0.46 versus 3.32+/- 0.49, respectively (one-way ANOVA, p<0.05), indicating a gene-dose effect. The results demonstrated that CYP2D6 polymorphism prevalent in the Chinese population significantly affected loratadine pharmacokinetics.
Abstract: Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS) scores were previously associated with serum anticholinergic activity (SAA) in a pilot study. To replicate these results, the association between ADS scores and SAA was determined using simple linear regression in subjects from a study of delirium in 201 long-term care facility residents who were not included in the pilot study. Simple and multiple linear regression models were then used to determine whether the ADS could be modified to more effectively predict SAA in all 297 subjects. In the replication analysis, ADS scores were significantly associated with SAA (R2 = .0947, P < .0001). In the modification analysis, each model significantly predicted SAA, including ADS scores (R2 = .0741, P < .0001). The modifications examined did not appear useful in optimizing the ADS. This study replicated findings on the association of the ADS with SAA. Future work will determine whether the ADS is clinically useful for preventing anticholinergic adverse effects.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Adverse effects of anticholinergic medications may contribute to events such as falls, delirium, and cognitive impairment in older patients. To further assess this risk, we developed the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), a ranked categorical list of commonly prescribed medications with anticholinergic potential. The objective of this study was to determine if the ARS score could be used to predict the risk of anticholinergic adverse effects in a geriatric evaluation and management (GEM) cohort and in a primary care cohort. METHODS: Medical records of 132 GEM patients were reviewed retrospectively for medications included on the ARS and their resultant possible anticholinergic adverse effects. Prospectively, we enrolled 117 patients, 65 years or older, in primary care clinics; performed medication reconciliation; and asked about anticholinergic adverse effects. The relationship between the ARS score and the risk of anticholinergic adverse effects was assessed using Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS: Higher ARS scores were associated with increased risk of anticholinergic adverse effects in the GEM cohort (crude relative risk [RR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-1.8) and in the primary care cohort (crude RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.4). After adjustment for age and the number of medications, higher ARS scores increased the risk of anticholinergic adverse effects in the GEM cohort (adjusted RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; c statistic, 0.74) and in the primary care cohort (adjusted RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.5; c statistic, 0.77). CONCLUSION: Higher ARS scores are associated with statistically significantly increased risk of anticholinergic adverse effects in older patients.
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To examine the longitudinal relationship between cumulative exposure to anticholinergic medications and memory and executive function in older men. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A Department of Veterans Affairs primary care clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred forty-four community-dwelling men aged 65 and older with diagnosed hypertension. MEASUREMENTS: The outcomes were measured using the Hopkins Verbal Recall Test (HVRT) for short-term memory and the instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) scale for executive function at baseline and during follow-up. Anticholinergic medication use was ascertained using participants' primary care visit records and quantified as total anticholinergic burden using a clinician-rated anticholinergic score. RESULTS: Cumulative exposure to anticholinergic medications over the preceding 12 months was associated with poorer performance on the HVRT and IADLs. On average, a 1-unit increase in the total anticholinergic burden per 3 months was associated with a 0.32-point (95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.05-0.58) and 0.10-point (95% CI=0.04-0.17) decrease in the HVRT and IADLs, respectively, independent of other potential risk factors for cognitive impairment, including age, education, cognitive and physical function, comorbidities, and severity of hypertension. The association was attenuated but remained statistically significant with memory (0.29, 95% CI=0.01-0.56) and executive function (0.08, 95% CI=0.02-0.15) after further adjustment for concomitant non-anticholinergic medications. CONCLUSION: Cumulative anticholinergic exposure across multiple medications over 1 year may negatively affect verbal memory and executive function in older men. Prescription of drugs with anticholinergic effects in older persons deserves continued attention to avoid deleterious adverse effects.
Abstract: The present study demonstrated that in addition to CYP3A4 and CYP2D6, the metabolism of loratadine is also catalyzed by CYP1A1, CYP2C19, and to a lesser extent by CYP1A2, CYP2B6, CYP2C8, CYP2C9 and CYP3A5. The biotransformation of loratadine was associated with the formation of desloratadine (DL) and further hydroxylation of both DL and the parent drug (loratadine). Based on the inhibition and correlation studies contribution of CYP2C19 in the formation of the major circulating metabolite DL seems to be minor. Reported clinical results suggest that the steady state mean (%CV) plasma Cmax and AUC(24hr) of loratadine were 4.73 ng/ml (119%) and 24.1 ng.hr/ml (157%), respectively, after dosing with 10 mg loratadine tablets for 10 days. High inter-subject variability in loratadine steady-state data is probably due to the phenotypical characteristics of CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and CYP3A4. The relative abundance of CYP3A4 in the human liver exceeds that of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 and therefore the contribution of CYP3A4 in the metabolism of loratadine should be major (approximately 70%).
Abstract: The human ether-a-go-go-related gene (hERG) voltage-gated K(+) channels are located in heart cell membranes and hold a unique selectivity filter (SF) amino acid sequence (SVGFG) as compared to other K(+) channels (TVGYG). The hERG provokes the acquired long QT syndrome (ALQTS) when blocked, as a side effect of drugs, leading to arrhythmia or heart failure. Its pore domain - including the SF - is believed to be a cardiotoxic drug target. In this study combining solution and solid-state NMR experiments we examine the structure and function of hERG's L(622)-K(638) segment which comprises the SF, as well as its role in the ALQTS using reported active drugs. We first show that the SF segment is unstructured in solution with and without K(+) ions in its surroundings, consistent with the expected flexibility required for the change between the different channel conductive states predicted by computational studies. We also show that the SF segment has the potential to perturb the membrane, but that the presence of K(+) ions cancels this interaction. The SF moiety appears to be a possible target for promethazine in the ALQTS mechanism, but not as much for bepridil, cetirizine, diphenhydramine and fluvoxamine. The membrane affinity of the SF is also affected by the presence of drugs which also perturb model DMPC-based membranes. These results thus suggest that the membrane could play a role in the ALQTS by promoting the access to transmembrane or intracellular targets on the hERG channel, or perturbing the lipid-protein synergy.
Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a displeasing experience that distresses surgical patients during the first 24 h after a surgical procedure. The incidence of postoperative nausea occurs in about 50%, the incidence of postoperative vomiting is about 30%, and in high-risk patients, the PONV rate could be as high as 80%. Therefore, the study design of this single arm, non-randomized, pilot study assessed the efficacy and safety profile of a triple therapy combination with palonosetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine to prevent PONV in patients undergoing craniotomies under general anesthesia. METHODS: The research protocol was approved by the institutional review board and 40 subjects were provided written informed consent. At induction of anesthesia, a triple therapy of palonosetron 0.075 mg IV, dexamethasone 10 mg IV, and promethazine 25 mg IV was given as PONV prophylaxis. After surgery, subjects were transferred to the surgical intensive care unit or post anesthesia care unit as clinically indicated. Ondansetron 4 mg IV was administered as primary rescue medication to subjects with PONV symptoms. PONV was assessed and collected every 24 h for 5 days via direct interview and/or medical charts review. RESULTS: The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 30% (n = 12). The incidence of nausea and emesis 24 h after surgery was 30% (n = 12) and 7.5% (n = 3), respectively. The mean time to first emetic episode, first rescue, and first significant nausea was 31.3 (±33.6), 15.1 (±25.8), and 21.1 (±25.4) hours, respectively. The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting after 24-120 h period after surgery was 30% (n = 12). The percentage of subjects without emesis episodes over 24-120 h postoperatively was 70% (n = 28). No subjects presented a prolonged QTc interval ≥500 ms before and/or after surgery. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrated that this triple therapy regimen may be an adequate alternative regimen for the treatment of PONV in patients undergoing neurological surgery under general anesthesia. More studies with a control group should be performed to demonstrate the efficacy of this regimen and that palonosetron is a low risk for QTc prolongation. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02635828 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02635828).
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic drugs put elderly patients at a higher risk for falls, cognitive decline, and delirium as well as peripheral adverse reactions like dry mouth or constipation. Prescribers are often unaware of the drug-based anticholinergic burden (ACB) of their patients. This study aimed to develop an anticholinergic burden score for drugs licensed in Germany to be used by clinicians at prescribing level. METHODS: A systematic literature search in pubmed assessed previously published ACB tools. Quantitative grading scores were extracted, reduced to drugs available in Germany, and reevaluated by expert discussion. Drugs were scored as having no, weak, moderate, or strong anticholinergic effects. Further drugs were identified in clinical routine and included as well. RESULTS: The literature search identified 692 different drugs, with 548 drugs available in Germany. After exclusion of drugs due to no systemic effect or scoring of drug combinations (n = 67) and evaluation of 26 additional identified drugs in clinical routine, 504 drugs were scored. Of those, 356 drugs were categorised as having no, 104 drugs were scored as weak, 18 as moderate and 29 as having strong anticholinergic effects. CONCLUSIONS: The newly created ACB score for drugs authorized in Germany can be used in daily clinical practice to reduce potentially inappropriate medications for elderly patients. Further clinical studies investigating its effect on reducing anticholinergic side effects are necessary for validation.