QT time prolongation
Adverse drug events
Variants ✨For the computationally intensive evaluation of the variants, please choose the paid standard subscription.
Loratadine is a 2nd generation antihistamine used to treat allergic rhinitis, dermatitis and urticaria. It is taken orally as a tablet. Loratadine blocks the effects of histamine, which is released in the body during allergic reactions. It does this by occupying the histamine H1 receptors. As a side effect, drowsiness is much less common than with 1st generation antihistamines.
The warnings are checked for the combination of several active substances. For the individual substances, please consult the relevant specialist information.
Since only loratadine was entered without any further substances, no pharmacokinetic interaction can be detected.
The pharmacokinetic parameters of the average population are used as the starting point for calculating the individual changes in exposure due to the interactions.
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|
Rating: According to our knowledge, loratadine does not increase serotonergic activity.
|Kiesel & Durán b||1||+|
Recommendation: As a precaution, attention should be paid to anticholinergic symptoms, especially after increasing the dose and at doses in the upper therapeutic range.
Rating: Loratadine only has a mild effect on the anticholinergic system. The risk of anticholinergic syndrome with this medication is rather low if the dosage is in the usual range.
QT time prolongation
We do not know of any QT-prolonging potential for loratadine.
General adverse effects
|Side effects||∑ frequency||lor|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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.