Meclizine hydrochloride

What it is

Meclizine hydrochloride is a synthetic small-molecule drug, not a nutrient or a natural product: the label describes it as a white or slightly yellowish crystalline powder and names it chemically as a substituted piperazine dihydrochloride monohydrate. It is sold both as a prescription tablet for vertigo and as an over-the-counter tablet for motion sickness. It belongs to the first generation of antihistamines, the group that also contains dimenhydrinate and cinnarizine.

What the research says

The honest summary is that the evidence is thin and mostly about the drug class rather than meclizine itself. A 2022 Cochrane review found that first-generation antihistamines probably prevent motion sickness symptoms under real travel conditions compared with placebo, but every trial it could pool under natural conditions used cinnarizine or dimenhydrinate, not meclizine. For acute vertigo a 2022 JAMA Neurology meta-analysis found single-dose antihistamines beat single-dose benzodiazepines at two hours but were not shown to beat placebo, and daily use may not help at all. For benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, the commonest cause of positional dizziness, a 2023 meta-analysis found vestibular suppressants may have no effect on symptom resolution and that repositioning manoeuvres were better. Sedation is the main documented harm.

Evidence grade: Limited evidence.

How it works

Drug class: First-generation piperazine H1-antihistamine with anticholinergic properties, used as a vestibular suppressant and antiemetic

Meclizine blocks histamine H1 receptors, and the label states plainly that nobody has established exactly how that produces its effect on vertigo and motion sickness. It is a first-generation antihistamine, so it crosses into the brain and also blocks acetylcholine receptors, which is why sedation, dry mouth and blurred vision occur. It is broken down mainly by the liver enzyme CYP2D6, with a plasma half-life of about 5 to 6 hours. (Source 1)

What it is used for

• This is the only indication on the US prescription label. The trial evidence behind it is small: a 2022 meta-analysis found single-dose antihistamines better than single-dose benzodiazepines at two hours but not shown better than placebo, and a 40-patient emergency-department trial found meclizine no different from diazepam. Evidence: limited. (Source 2)
• Approved on the over-the-counter label. Class-level evidence is moderate-certainty in favour of first-generation antihistamines under real travel conditions, but no meclizine trial contributed to that pooled estimate, so the support is for the class rather than this molecule. Evidence: limited. (Source 3)
• Widely prescribed for positional vertigo, but a 2023 meta-analysis of five RCTs found vestibular suppressants may have no effect on symptom resolution, and repositioning manoeuvres were better. The 2017 otolaryngology guideline recommends against routine use. Evidence: not-supported. (Source 4)
• Taken daily rather than as single doses, antihistamines were not shown to be superior to placebo for acute vertigo at one week or one month, and the meta-analysis explicitly says daily antihistamine use may not benefit these patients. Evidence: not-supported. (Source 5)

Interactions

• Alcohol (label): Drinking alcohol while taking meclizine adds to the drug's sedating effect. Both the prescription and the over-the-counter labels tell patients to avoid alcohol; the instruction rests on the known pharmacology of first-generation antihistamines rather than on a published interaction trial. (Source 6)
• Other CNS depressants (sedatives, tranquillisers, opioids) (label): Taken with other drugs that slow the central nervous system, meclizine can deepen drowsiness and impair driving. The over-the-counter label names sedatives and tranquillisers specifically. (Source 7)
• CYP2D6 inhibitors (for example paroxetine, fluoxetine, bupropion, quinidine) (label): Meclizine is broken down by the liver enzyme CYP2D6, so drugs that block that enzyme can raise meclizine levels. The label says this on the basis of in-vitro work, not a human interaction study, and asks only for monitoring. Limit: The label's statement that meclizine is broken down by CYP2D6 comes from laboratory (in-vitro) work, not from a study in people. No human interaction study is cited, and the label asks only for monitoring. The size of any real-world interaction is unknown. (Source 8)
• Dietary supplements (no specific supplement interaction is documented) (label): We found no supplement-specific interaction for meclizine in the label or in the trials we read. The label's only interaction entries are CNS depressants and CYP2D6 inhibitors, so any concern about a supplement would have to come from that supplement inhibiting CYP2D6 and is untested for meclizine. Limit: The label's statement that meclizine is broken down by CYP2D6 comes from laboratory (in-vitro) work, not from a study in people. No human interaction study is cited, and the label asks only for monitoring. The size of any real-world interaction is unknown. (Source 8)
• Food (label): No food interaction is documented. The label's pharmacokinetic section reports absorption with a median time to peak of about three hours and does not describe any food effect; the chewable form is designed to be taken with or without food. (Source 9)

Stopping it

• We found no deprescribing trial, no tapering schedule and no withdrawal syndrome described for meclizine in the literature we searched. What is on record is that the drug clears quickly, with a plasma half-life of about five to six hours, so the pharmacological effect is short-lived once dosing stops. (Source 9)
• For positional vertigo the direction of the evidence is towards stopping rather than continuing: the pooled trials suggest repositioning manoeuvres, not vestibular suppressants, should be the primary treatment. (Source 4)
• In people aged 65 and over, strongly anticholinergic medicines are the kind of drug covered by the AGS Beers Criteria, an explicit list of medicines typically best avoided in that age group; that is a deprescribing prompt rather than a withdrawal risk. (Source 10)

What goes wrong

Antihistamines caused more sedation than placebo in motion sickness trials. (Source 11)

• Systematic review, Low certainty.
• Size: 190 participants across 2 studies.
• Who: Motion-sickness-susceptible adults.
• How long: Single-dose prophylaxis during travel.
• Result: Sedation 44% with placebo vs 66% with antihistamines; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.02; low-certainty evidence.
• Funding: Cochrane review.

Limit of this finding: The review says it included nine randomised trials and then that motion sickness was induced naturally in six studies and experimentally in four, which adds up to ten. One study is probably counted in both settings, or one of the counts is a slip. It does not change any of the effect estimates, but the number of studies behind each comparison is the figure to rely on, not the six-and-four split.

When compared to placebo, antihistamines may be more likely to cause sedation (sedation: 44% placebo; 66% antihistamines) (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.02; 2 studies; 190 participants) (low-certainty);

A single 25 mg dose of meclizine measurably reduced short-term memory accuracy in healthy volunteers and increased sleepiness. (Source 12)

• Randomized trial, Low certainty.
• Size: Healthy male volunteers (crossover; exact n not given in the abstract)
• Who: Healthy males.
• How long: Single doses, repeated-measures crossover.
• Result: Meclizine reduced accuracy on the Sternberg working memory task; increased sleepiness reported.
• Funding: not stated.

Limit of this finding: The same paper concludes that meclizine, together with dimenhydrinate plus cinnarizine, had the most acceptable combination of side effects among the drugs tested, so this result should not be read as meclizine being the worst of the group. It was a single dose given to healthy male volunteers, the abstract gives no sample size, and it says nothing about people taking meclizine as treatment.

Meclizine decreased the accuracy on the Sternberg working memory task and thus seemed to affect short-term memory. A reported side effect was increased sleepiness.

Higher cumulative use of strongly anticholinergic medicines, a group whose commonest members include first-generation antihistamines, was associated with a higher rate of later dementia; this is an association in a cohort, not a demonstration that meclizine causes dementia. (Source 13)

• Cohort study, Low certainty.
• Size: 3,434 adults aged 65 or older without dementia at entry; 797 (23.2%) developed dementia.
• Who: Members of an integrated health system in Seattle.
• How long: Mean follow-up 7.3 years, exposure measured over 10 years.
• Result: Adjusted HR for dementia vs non-use: 0.92 (95% CI 0.74-1.16) for 1-90 total standardised daily doses; 1.19 (0.94-1.51) for 91-365; 1.23 (0.94-1.62) for 366-1095; 1.54 (1.21-1.96) above 1095. Test for trend P < .001.
• Funding: independent (NIH-supported)

For dementia, adjusted hazard ratios for cumulative anticholinergic use compared with nonuse were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74-1.16) for TSDDs of 1 to 90; 1.19 (95% CI, 0.94-1.51) for TSDDs of 91 to 365; 1.23 (95% CI, 0.94-1.62) for TSDDs of 366 to 1095; and 1.54 (95% CI, 1.21-1.96) for TSDDs greater than 1095.

The prescription label lists the adverse reactions seen with meclizine but says their frequency cannot be reliably estimated. (Source 14)

• Official position, Certainty not rated.
• Size: Clinical studies plus spontaneous postmarketing reports of uncertain denominator.
• Who: Adults taking prescription meclizine.
• How long: Not stated.
• Result: Anaphylactic reaction, drowsiness, dry mouth, headache, fatigue, vomiting; blurred vision on rare occasions. No rates and no placebo comparison are given.
• Funding: not applicable (regulatory document)

Anaphylactic reaction, drowsiness, dry mouth, headache, fatigue, and vomiting. On rare occasions blurred vision has been reported.

The American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria is an explicit list of medicines typically best avoided in people aged 65 and over; strongly anticholinergic antihistamines are the kind of drug it covers. (Source 10)

• Official position, Certainty not rated.
• Size: Not applicable.
• Who: Adults aged 65 and older in ambulatory, acute and institutional care.
• How long: Not applicable.
• Result: An explicit avoid-list, intended to support rather than replace shared clinical decision-making.
• Funding: Professional society document (2023 update)

Limit of this finding: The Beers Criteria is written for use in the United States and its authors state explicitly that it is meant to support, not replace, a decision made between a patient and their clinician. It is a flag for a conversation about a medicine, not a rule that a medicine must be stopped. Its authorship is the AGS expert panel as a body, not named individual authors.

The AGS Beers Criteria® is an explicit list of PIMs that are typically best avoided by older adults in most circumstances or under specific situations, such as in certain diseases or conditions.

What the evidence supports

First-generation antihistamines probably reduce the chance of developing motion sickness symptoms under real travel conditions compared with placebo. (Source 11)

• Systematic review, Moderate certainty.
• Size: 240 participants across 3 studies (9 RCTs, 658 participants in the whole review)
• Who: Motion-sickness-susceptible adults aged 16 to 55 exposed to air, sea or land travel.
• How long: Single journeys / single-dose prophylaxis.
• Result: Symptoms prevented 25% with placebo vs 40% with antihistamines; RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.66; moderate-certainty evidence.
• Funding: Cochrane review; not stated for individual trials.

Limit of this finding: The review says it included nine randomised trials and then that motion sickness was induced naturally in six studies and experimentally in four, which adds up to ten. One study is probably counted in both settings, or one of the counts is a slip. It does not change any of the effect estimates, but the number of studies behind each comparison is the figure to rely on, not the six-and-four split.

Antihistamines are probably more effective than placebo at preventing motion sickness symptoms under natural conditions (symptoms prevented: 25% placebo; 40% antihistamines) (risk ratio (RR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.66; 3 studies; 240 participants) (moderate-certainty).

In acute vertigo a single dose of an antihistamine relieved vertigo more than a single dose of a benzodiazepine at two hours, but was no better than other active comparators. (Source 5)

• Meta-analysis, Moderate certainty.
• Size: 802 participants across 7 trials (17 trials, 1,586 participants pooled overall)
• Who: Adults with acute vertigo of two weeks' duration or less, from any cause.
• How long: 2 hours after a single dose.
• Result: Difference on a 100-point VAS 16.1 points (95% CI 7.2 to 25.0) vs benzodiazepines; 2.7 points (95% CI -6.1 to 11.5) vs other active comparators.
• Funding: not stated.

Limit of this finding: The authors end by saying that larger randomised trials comparing both antihistamines and benzodiazepines with placebo are needed to clarify how these drugs really compare. The single-dose result is a comparison between two active drugs, not evidence that either beats no treatment.

single-dose antihistamines resulted in significantly more improvement on 100-point VAS scores compared with benzodiazepines (difference, 16.1 [95% CI, 7.2 to 25.0]) but not compared with other active comparators (difference, 2.7 [95% CI, -6.1 to 11.5]).

What the evidence does not support

The Cochrane motion sickness evidence under real travel conditions does not include any meclizine trial; it rests on cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate. (Source 11)

• Systematic review, Moderate certainty.
• Size: 6 naturally induced studies within a 9-RCT review.
• Who: Motion-sickness-susceptible adults.
• How long: Single journeys.
• Result: No pooled meclizine estimate exists for prevention under natural conditions.
• Funding: Cochrane review.

Limit of this finding: The review says it included nine randomised trials and then that motion sickness was induced naturally in six studies and experimentally in four, which adds up to ten. One study is probably counted in both settings, or one of the counts is a slip. It does not change any of the effect estimates, but the number of studies behind each comparison is the figure to rely on, not the six-and-four split.

All the naturally induced studies only evaluated first-generation antihistamines (cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate).

Under laboratory rotating-chair conditions the review could not tell whether antihistamines prevent motion sickness at all. (Source 11)

• Systematic review, Very low certainty.
• Size: 62 participants across 2 studies.
• Who: Healthy volunteers in a rotating chair.
• How long: Single exposure.
• Result: SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.83; very low-certainty evidence.
• Funding: Cochrane review.

Limit of this finding: The review says it included nine randomised trials and then that motion sickness was induced naturally in six studies and experimentally in four, which adds up to ten. One study is probably counted in both settings, or one of the counts is a slip. It does not change any of the effect estimates, but the number of studies behind each comparison is the figure to rely on, not the six-and-four split.

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antihistamines on preventing motion sickness under experimental conditions (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.83; 2 studies; 62 participants) (very low-certainty).

Taken daily, antihistamines were not shown to beat placebo for acute vertigo at one week or one month. (Source 5)

• Meta-analysis, Low certainty.
• Size: Subset of the 17 pooled trials reporting 1-week and 1-month outcomes.
• Who: Adults with acute vertigo.
• How long: 1 week and 1 month.
• Result: Neither daily benzodiazepines nor daily antihistamines reported superior to placebo; the review notes these longer-term trials had a high risk of bias.
• Funding: not stated.

Limit of this finding: The authors end by saying that larger randomised trials comparing both antihistamines and benzodiazepines with placebo are needed to clarify how these drugs really compare. The single-dose result is a comparison between two active drugs, not evidence that either beats no treatment.

At 1 week and 1 month, neither daily benzodiazepines nor antihistamines were reported to be superior to placebo.

In benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, vestibular suppressants such as meclizine may have no effect on symptom resolution, and repositioning manoeuvres did better. (Source 4)

• Meta-analysis, Low certainty.
• Size: 296 patients across 5 RCTs.
• Who: Patients with BPPV.
• How long: Longest follow-up 14 to 31 days in four studies.
• Result: Standardised mean difference -0.03 points, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.47 for symptom resolution; canalith repositioning better as a dichotomous outcome, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.78.
• Funding: not stated.

We found that vestibular suppressants may have no effect on symptom resolution at the point of longest follow-up (14-31 days in four studies) when evaluated as a continuous outcome (standardized mean difference -0.03 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.53 to 0.47).

A small emergency-department trial found no difference between oral meclizine 25 mg and oral diazepam 5 mg for acute peripheral vertigo, but it was far too small to exclude a real difference. (Source 15)

• Randomized trial, Low certainty.
• Size: 40 patients (20 per arm)
• Who: Adults presenting to a suburban teaching emergency department with acute peripheral vertigo.
• How long: 60 minutes.
• Result: Mean VAS improvement 36 (diazepam) vs 40 (meclizine); difference -4, 95% CI -20 to 12, p = 0.60. Powered only to detect a 20 mm difference.
• Funding: not stated.

Limit of this finding: The paper is titled a placebo-controlled trial, but the methods it reports have only two active arms, meclizine and diazepam, with no placebo group and no placebo result. Its title also says the two drugs 'Are Equally Effective', which the data cannot show: with 20 patients per arm the difference was -4 mm on a 100 mm scale with a 95% confidence interval from -20 to +12, wide enough to include a 20 mm difference in either direction, which is the size the authors themselves called clinically important. This is a study too small to find a difference, not a study showing the drugs are the same.

At t60, the mean improvements in the diazepam and meclizine groups were 36 and 40, respectively (difference -4; 95% confidence interval -20 to 12; p = 0.60).

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery recommends against routinely treating BPPV with vestibular suppressants such as antihistamines. (Source 16)

• Official position, Certainty not rated.
• Size: Guideline built on 2 clinical practice guidelines, 20 systematic reviews and 27 RCTs.
• Who: Adults aged 18 or over with suspected or potential BPPV.
• How long: Not applicable.
• Result: A recommendation against routine vestibular suppressant use; one of the guideline's stated purposes is reducing inappropriate use of these drugs.
• Funding: Professional society guideline (2017)

and (3) routinely treating BPPV with vestibular suppressant medications such as antihistamines and/or benzodiazepines.

Where the research disagrees

Whether meclizine and other vestibular suppressants should be used for positional vertigo at all

• American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (2017 guideline), Clinical practice guideline built on 2 guidelines, 20 systematic reviews and 27 RCTs: and (3) routinely treating BPPV with vestibular suppressant medications such as antihistamines and/or benzodiazepines. (Source 16)
• Haynes and colleagues, Academic Emergency Medicine (2023 meta-analysis), Systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 RCTs, 296 patients; found no effect on symptom resolution and uncertain effects on harms: Vestibular suppressants had an uncertain effect on adverse events. (Source 4)
• Hunter and colleagues, JAMA Neurology (2022 meta-analysis), Meta-analysis of 17 RCTs, 1,586 participants; found a two-hour benefit over benzodiazepines in acute vertigo of any cause: single-dose antihistamines resulted in significantly more improvement on 100-point VAS scores compared with benzodiazepines (difference, 16.1 [95% CI, 7.2 to 25.0]) but not compared with other active comparators (difference, 2.7 [95% CI, -6.1 to 11.5]). (Source 5)

How much

• Reference intake: There is no reference intake for meclizine, because it is a medicine and not a nutrient. Dosing is set by the prescriber; the US prescription label records a range of 25 mg to 100 mg daily in divided doses, chosen according to clinical response. This is the label's position, dated by its SPL version, not a recommendation to any reader. (Source 17)
• Upper limit: No tolerable upper intake level exists. The highest daily amount on the US prescription label is 100 mg per day in divided doses; the over-the-counter label allows 1 to 2 tablets once daily. Reported as the labels' positions only. (Source 17)
• Studied: An emergency-department randomised trial gave a single oral 25 mg dose of meclizine (compared with diazepam 5 mg) to adults with acute peripheral vertigo. (Source 15)
• Studied: A double-blind crossover study in healthy men used meclizine 25 mg alongside baclofen 10 mg, dimenhydrinate 40 mg plus cinnarizine 25 mg, and promethazine 25 mg plus d-amphetamine 10 mg. (Source 12)

A common belief, and what the research shows

The belief: Meclizine is a proven treatment for dizziness, so it is the right first thing to take when the room spins.

What the research shows: For the commonest cause of positional spinning, BPPV, the pooled randomised evidence points the other way: "We found that vestibular suppressants may have no effect on symptom resolution at the point of longest follow-up (14-31 days in four studies) when evaluated as a continuous outcome (standardized mean difference -0.03 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.53 to 0.47)." and the 2017 otolaryngology guideline recommends against "and (3) routinely treating BPPV with vestibular suppressant medications such as antihistamines and/or benzodiazepines." What single-dose antihistamines have been shown to do is beat benzodiazepines at two hours in undifferentiated acute vertigo; they have not been shown to beat placebo.

Questions and answers

What is it?

Meclizine hydrochloride is a synthetic medicine, not a nutrient or a natural substance. The label describes it as a histamine H1 receptor antagonist that appears as a white or slightly yellowish crystalline powder, and gives its chemistry as a substituted piperazine dihydrochloride monohydrate. It is one of the first-generation antihistamines, the group that crosses into the brain. It is sold as a prescription tablet for vertigo and over the counter for motion sickness. (Source 18)

What does it do in the body?

It blocks histamine H1 receptors, and the label is candid that the exact route from that to its effect on vertigo is unknown. Because it is a first-generation antihistamine it also blocks acetylcholine receptors and enters the brain, which is where the drowsiness, dry mouth and blurred vision come from. It is cleared by the liver enzyme CYP2D6 with a half-life of about five to six hours. (Source 1)

Is it good or bad for you?

It depends entirely on the situation. For preventing motion sickness on a real journey, first-generation antihistamines probably help: 40% of people stayed symptom-free on an antihistamine versus 25% on placebo (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.66, moderate certainty), although no meclizine trial contributed to that figure. For benign paroxysmal positional vertigo it appears not to help and may delay the repositioning manoeuvre that does. The cost side is real: sedation rose from 44% on placebo to 66% on antihistamines. (Source 11)

How do you get more of it?

This question does not apply in the way it does to a nutrient: you do not accumulate meclizine, and more is not better. The amount a person takes is set by a prescriber, and the US prescription label records a range of 25 mg to 100 mg daily in divided doses depending on clinical response. The over-the-counter motion-sickness product is a separate, lower-intensity product with its own directions. Nothing here is advice about what any reader should take. (Source 17)

If it is harmful, what reduces it?

Meclizine leaves the body on its own fairly quickly: the label records a plasma elimination half-life of about five to six hours, so blood levels fall within a day of the last dose. There is no antidote or binding agent in the literature we searched, and no accelerated elimination procedure is described. Its clearance depends on the liver enzyme CYP2D6. (Source 9)

Why might someone be low in it or missing it?

Nobody is naturally low in meclizine; it is not made by the body. The nearest real version of this question is why the same dose does very different things in different people, and the answer on record is genetics: CYP2D6 comes in poor, intermediate, extensive and ultrarapid metaboliser forms, which the label says could produce large differences in meclizine exposure between individuals. (Source 19)

Which whole foods contain it or feed it?

No whole food contains meclizine and no food feeds it. It is a laboratory-made piperazine compound, named in the label by its full chemical structure. There is nothing to eat to raise or lower it. (Source 18)

We searched: We looked in the FDA label's DESCRIPTION and PHARMACOKINETICS sections and searched PubMed for meclizine dietary and food sources; meclizine is a synthetic compound with no dietary occurrence described anywhere we looked.

What happens if you do not have it?

Nothing is lost by not having meclizine, because it is not something the body needs. For the specific case of positional vertigo, going without it appears not to cost anything either: the pooled trials found vestibular suppressants may have no effect on symptom resolution and concluded that a canalith repositioning manoeuvre, not a suppressant drug, should be the primary treatment. (Source 4)

How can you test for it?

There is no validated clinical blood test for meclizine and no therapeutic drug monitoring in routine use; we found none in the label or in the studies we read. The closest thing described is genotyping of CYP2D6, and the label frames that only as a reason to watch for adverse reactions and clinical effect, not as a test to guide dosing. (Source 19)

We searched: We searched PubMed for meclizine therapeutic drug monitoring and plasma concentration assays, and read the label's PHARMACOKINETICS and CYP2D6 polymorphism sections; only research pharmacokinetic assays and the CYP2D6 phenotype caveat appear.

References

1. DailyMed (FDA Structured Product Labeling), SPL version 11, effective 2026-09-01. MECLIZINE hydrochloride tablets — 12.1 Mechanism of Action. 2026. Read the source
2. DailyMed (FDA Structured Product Labeling), SPL version 11, effective 2026-09-01. MECLIZINE hydrochloride tablets, for oral use — 1 INDICATIONS AND USAGE. 2026. Read the source
3. DailyMed (FDA Structured Product Labeling), SPL version 7, effective 2026-09-04. Dramamine Less Drowsy (meclizine hydrochloride) tablet — Use. 2026. Read the source
4. Acad Emerg Med. Vestibular suppressants for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. 2023. PMID 36268806, DOI 10.1111/acem.14608. Read the source
5. JAMA Neurol. Efficacy of Benzodiazepines or Antihistamines for Patients With Acute Vertigo: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.. 2022. PMID 35849408, DOI 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.1858. Read the source
6. DailyMed (FDA Structured Product Labeling), SPL version 11, effective 2026-09-01. MECLIZINE hydrochloride tablets — 5.1 Drowsiness. 2026. Read the source
7. DailyMed (FDA Structured Product Labeling), SPL version 7, effective 2026-09-04. Dramamine Less Drowsy (meclizine hydrochloride) tablet — When using this product. 2026. Read the source
8. DailyMed (FDA Structured Product Labeling), SPL version 11, effective 2026-09-01. MECLIZINE hydrochloride tablets — 7.2 CYP2D6 Inhibitors. 2026. Read the source
9. DailyMed (FDA Structured Product Labeling), SPL version 11, effective 2026-09-01. MECLIZINE hydrochloride tablets — 12.3 Pharmacokinetics. 2026. Read the source
10. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated AGS Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults.. 2023. PMID 37139824, DOI 10.1111/jgs.18372. Read the source
11. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Antihistamines for motion sickness.. 2022. PMID 36250781, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD012715.pub2. Read the source
12. J Psychopharmacol. Evaluation of the effects of anti-motion sickness drugs on subjective sleepiness and cognitive performance of healthy males.. 2014. PMID 24346808, DOI 10.1177/0269881113516201. Read the source
13. JAMA Intern Med. Cumulative use of strong anticholinergics and incident dementia: a prospective cohort study.. 2015. PMID 25621434, DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7663. Read the source
14. DailyMed (FDA Structured Product Labeling), SPL version 11, effective 2026-09-01. MECLIZINE hydrochloride tablets — 6 ADVERSE REACTIONS. 2026. Read the source
15. J Emerg Med. Diazepam and Meclizine Are Equally Effective in the Treatment of Vertigo: An Emergency Department Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial.. 2017. PMID 27789115, DOI 10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.09.016. Read the source
16. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Clinical Practice Guideline: Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (Update).. 2017. PMID 28248609, DOI 10.1177/0194599816689667. Read the source
17. DailyMed (FDA Structured Product Labeling), SPL version 11, effective 2026-09-01. MECLIZINE hydrochloride tablets — 2.1 Recommended Dosage. 2026. Read the source
18. DailyMed (FDA Structured Product Labeling), SPL version 11, effective 2026-09-01. MECLIZINE hydrochloride tablets — 11 DESCRIPTION. 2026. Read the source
19. DailyMed (FDA Structured Product Labeling), SPL version 11, effective 2026-09-01. MECLIZINE hydrochloride tablets — 8.8 Genetic CYP2D6 Polymorphism. 2026. Read the source