Effect of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics of ebastine after single and repeated dosing in healthy subjects

Objectives: Ebastine is a potent and selective H1-receptor antagonist indicated for allergic rhinitis which undergoes extensive first pass metabolism by CYP3A4 to form an active metabolite, carebastine. The purpose of the study was to determine age- and gender-related differences in the pharmacokinetics of ebastine and carebastine. Methods: The upper recommemded oral dose of 20 mg once daily was administered to 12 healthy young (22 to 38 years) and 12 healthy elderly (50 to 92 years; 8 in and 4 f) subjects for 5 days. Plasma concentrations of ebastine and carebastine were determined for 24 hours following the initial dose on Day 1 and for 72 hours following the dose on Day 5 using a sensitive LC/MS/MS assay. The minimum quantifiable limit (MQL) for the assay was 0.05 ng/ml and 1.0 ng/ml for ebastine and carebastine, respectively. Results: Mean area under the curve and C-max values on Day 1 and Day 5 were similar for ebastine but approximately doubled for carebastine due to its longer half-life. Mean carebastine concentrations were approximately 10 to 20 fold higher than mean ebastine concentrations. For young subjects, the mean (%CV) ebastine t(1/2) was 5.76 (28.47)h and 20.38 (46.19)h on Day 1 and Day 5, respectively. Similarily, for young subjects, the mean (%CV) for carebastine t(1/2) was 7.03 (23.21)h and 26.12 (23.39) h on Day 1 and Day 5, respectively. This apparent prolongation t(1/),(2) was probably due to lack of proper estimation of terminal half-life on Day 1 as fewer samples were collected for a shorter duration on Day 1. Using a multicomparison test for Cmin values, it was determined that steady state conditions were achieved by Day 5 for both age groups for ebastine and in young subjects for carebastine. The variability in ebastine pharmacokinetic parameters was higher than carebastine. A 50% increase in ebastine AUC(0-24) and C-max values in elderly subjects, with no changes in t(1/2) could be explained by either increased absorption of ebastine in elderly subjects or due to a decrease in First pass metabolism. As ebastine shows a high first-pass effect, even a small change in this first pass can cause large changes in plasma exposure. The ebastine pharmacokinetic parameters for elderly subjects in this study lie between the values reported in young subjects in earlier studies. Hence, the apparent age-related pharmacokinetic difference for ebastine is probably due to the inherent variability in ebastine pharmacokinetics. There were no gender-related differences in either young or elderly subjects for mean AUC, Cmax, t(max) and t(1/2) ebastine and carebastine values. Ebastine was absorbed rapidly with a median t(max) of 1.25 to 2.25 h for both healthy young and elderly males and females on Day 1 and Day 5. There was a delayed appearance of carebastine as expressed by median t(max) of 4.0 to 5.0 h, which did not change with age, gender or repeated administration. There were no clinically relevant differences between the groups of subjects with respect to adverse events or safety parameters. Conclusions: Thus, ebastine can be safely administered to elderly subjects vith no clinically important age- or gender related differences in the pharmacokinetics of ebastine/carebastine.