Evaluation of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine and levocetirizine during a 24‐h period: A double‐blind,randomized, cross‐over,placebo‐controlled comparison in skin responses induced by histamine iontophoresis

The antihistamine effects of olopatadine and levocetirizine, in standard‐dose application described in their information (5 mg twice a day for olopatadine; 5 mg once daily for levocetirizine), were examined from 11.5 to 24 h after application. The test was designed in a double‐blind, randomized, cross‐over, placebo‐controlled study of 12 healthy volunteers on histamine‐induced flare and wheal response using an iontophoresis technique. The suppressive effect of olopatadine on the wheals induced by a 0.1‐mA histamine iontophoresis lasted for 24 h after dosing. Both drugs inhibited flare induced by histamine iontophoresis almost completely until 24 h after the first administration. Suppression of the 0.2‐mA‐induced wheal response by levocetirizine, taken once daily, decreased with time, although 0.1‐mA‐induced flare was almost completely suppressed by the drug. Olopatadine completely suppressed even the wheal response induced by a 0.2‐mA histamine iontophoresis. Compared with the placebo, the two drugs significantly suppressed the subjective itching assessed by visual analog scale at all intervals. There were no significant differences in subjective drowsiness and objective cognitive function between drug‐ and placebo‐treated subjects. These results demonstrate that olopatadine seems to be more potent than levocetirizine when administrated in a standard dose. In conclusion, mild to moderate urticaria could be controlled by standard application as described in their information. On the other hand, severe urticaria could be managed by a standard application of olopatadine, but levocetirizine may need an additional dose to control severe urticaria.     

Multiple H1-antihistamine-induced urticaria

H₁‐antihistamines are widely used in the treatment of various allergic diseases. Particularly, a cornerstone of the management of chronic idiopathic urticaria is treatment with H₁‐antihistamines. However, a few cases of H₁‐antihistamine‐induced urticaria have been reported. A 34‐year‐old woman presented with a 4‐month history of recurrent urticaria, which was prominently exacerbated by the administration of H₁‐antihistamines. The patient consented to a provocation test of fexofenadine among drugs including cetirizine and hydroxyzine, which were suspected of inducing severe symptoms in episodes. One hour after challenge with 12 mg fexofenadine (one‐fifth of the therapeutic dose), a urticarial reaction rapidly developed on nearly the entire body with remarkably increased levels of plasma histamine (190 nmol/L) and plasma leukotriene B4 (150 pg/mL). In challenge tests with other antihistamines, generalized urticaria occurred 5 and 1 h after intake of 10 mg loratadine and 10 mg bepotastine, respectively, whereas challenges with chlorpheniramine, mequitazine and azelastine were all negative. Skin prick tests with H₁‐antihistamines used in the challenges were all negative, indicating that the urticarial reactions after challenges with the causative drugs might not be immunoglobulin E‐mediated. Among the causative drugs in our case, cetirizine and hydroxyzine are the piperazine derivatives, whereas fexofenadine, bepotastine, ebastine and loratadine are the piperidine derivatives. The chemical structures of both derivatives are very similar. Therefore, in this case, H₁‐antihistamine‐induced urticaria may have been due to cross‐reactivity between metabolites of these drugs, but not to drugs before metabolization. Hypersensitivity to H₁‐antihistamines should be considered when urticarial lesions worsen after H₁‐antihistamine treatment.     

Effects of acrivastine, loratadine and cetirizine on histamine-induced wheal and flare responses

It is accepted that studies evaluating histamine-induced wheal and flare reactions in the skin represent a simple and reliable method for demonstrating pharmacodynamic activity and pharmacokinetics of the H1-receptor antagonists. In this study, the effects of single oral doses of acrivastine (8 mg), loratadine (10 mg) and cetirizine (10 mg) on the histamine-induced wheal and flare reactions were compared in 60 healthy volunteers. The wheal and flare responses were produced by prick test using 1% histamine solution. Measurements were performed before the ingestion of antihistamines (baseline values) and afterwards at 15, 30, 90, 240, 360 min and 24 h. The values obtained for each antihistamine were compared with each other and with baseline values. Cetirizine was found to be superior to acrivastine and loratadine for the suppression of wheal and flare responses at 240, 360 min and 24 h (P < 0.05) and acrivastine was superior to the other two antihistamines for the suppression of flare response at 30 min (P < 0.05). Our results indicate that a single dose of cetirizine provides a more effective and long acting suppression on wheal and flare reactions in urticaria when compared to acrivastine and loratadine.     

Release of histamine and leukotriene C4 in immediate allergic wheal reaction as measured with the microdialysis technique

Abstract Other mediators as well as histamine can contribute to the allergic wheal reaction. In this study, the microdialysis technique was used to monitor the release of histamine, leukotriene C₄ (LTC₄) and prostaglandin D₂ (PGD₂) in prick-test wheal reactions induced by cow dander allergen. Of 31 atopic subjects, 25 showed detectable histamine release that correlated significantly with the number of tryptase-positive mast cells and serum cow-specific IgE but not with the wheal size. Detectable LTC₄ release was shown by 16 of 18 subjects, but PGD₂ release was shown by only 7 of 17 subjects, and neither mediator was associated with tryptase-positive mast cells, IgE levels or wheal size. An inverse association between histamine release and LTC₄ release in these 18 subjects was found rather than a direct correlation. With advancing age of the subject histamine release (n = 31) tended to decrease, although insignificantly, but LTC₄ release (n = 18) and sensitivity to histamine prick increased significantly, which seemed to parallel the changes in the wheal size induced by cow allergen. In conclusion, the results showed that the release of histamine, LTC₄ or PGD₂ alone cannot explain the extent of the wheal reaction. In addition, the amount of histamine released was not related to the amount of LTC₄ released, but rather an inverse association existed between these mediators. Received: 21 October 1999 / Revised: 21 February 2000 / Accepted: 25 February 2000     

Mizolastine in primary acquired cold urticaria

BACKGROUND: Treatment of primary acquired cold urticaria (CU) is quite difficult because of variable clinical effectiveness and side effects of classic antihistamines. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mizolastine, an antihistaminic with antiallergic properties, versus placebo in primary acquired CU. METHODS: This study was a phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study of mizolastine (10 mg, once daily) versus placebo in 28 patients with primary acquired CU. Efficacy was measured by the cold-stimulation time test, the wheal response, and pruritus intensity after an ice-cube test. RESULTS: Mizolastine delayed the cold-induced wheal reaction, reduced wheal response at 3 and 10 minutes, and reduced pruritus intensity. Statistically significant differences were observed versus placebo for the cold-stimulation time test, wheal response at 3 and 10 minutes, and pruritus intensity (P =.006,.015,.009, and.005, respectively). No clinically relevant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Mizolastine (10 mg, once daily) was shown to be superior to placebo for both delaying and reducing the cold-induced wheal reaction without significant adverse events. Results suggest that mizolastine may be effective in the treatment of CU.     

Cold urticaria patients exhibit normal skin levels of functional mast cells and histamine after tolerance induction

Cold urticaria is a skin condition characterized by rapid appearance of itchy wheals and occasionally angioedema in response to cold stimulation. Antihistamines do not sufficiently protect all patients from symptoms, even when used in higher than standard doses. In these patients, desensitization to cold can be beneficial. The aim was to investigate whether desensitization can lower temperature thresholds and reduce release of histamine in the skin. Cold urticaria patients were subjected to desensitization and assessed for skin responses to cold stimulation and codeine before and after. Histamine levels mediated by cold and codeine were determined by cutaneous microdialysis before and after desensitization in patients and healthy controls. Desensitization to cold resulted in protection from cold-induced symptoms and lower temperature thresholds in six out of nine patients. Desensitization also prevented histamine release after skin exposure to cold. Surprisingly, skin histamine levels and release after codeine injection were found to be normal in desensitized patients.     

A CASE OF COLD URTICARIA DUE TO A SERUM FACTOR BELONGING TO THE IGE CLASS

A case of cold urticaria showing a positive Prausnitz-Küstner (P-K) reaction was studied. The results obtained were as follows: 1) the P-K reaction was positive, 2) skin fixation time was 21 days, 3) the P-K reaction could be blocked by heating the serum for 2 hours at 56°C, and 4) the P-K reaction became negative after adsorption of IgE from the serum. These data suggest that the serum factor responsible for cold urticaria in this case belongs to the IgE class. The effect of histamine liberator 48/80, histological examination of the skin and results of the estimation of serum histamine concentration by a fluorometric method all suggest that this wheal formation is due to a histamine release from mast cells in the skin.     

Treatment of Urticaria

Urticaria is a cutaneous syndrome characterized by dermal edema (wheal) and erythema (flare) that blanches with pressure. The lesions typically last less than 24 hours and are usually pruritic. In 1983, Christensen and Maibach summarized the theory behind the use of histamine H₁ receptor antagonists (antihistamines) in clinical dermatology. These agents remain the mainstay of treatment for urticaria. This article reviews the medical literature on the effectiveness of antihistamines in urticarial syndromes, including acute, chronic idiopathic and the physical urticarias. Older antihistamines, such as chlorpheniramine and hydroxyzine, are effective in the treatment of urticarias, but they also have marked sedative and anticholinergic effects. Newer nonsedating antihistamines (second-generation antihistamines) have been developed that have reduced adverse effects because they do not cross the blood-brain barrier; these agents (acrivastine, cetirizine, loratadine, mizolastine, fexofenadine, ebastine, azelastine and epinastine) cause significantly less sedation and psychomotor impairment than their older counterparts. A review of the literature reveals that there are few studies which document the efficacy of second-generation antihistamines in the treatment of acute urticaria, a biologic entity that usually resolves within 3 weeks. We did not identify controlled studies that suggested superiority of any antihistamine in the treatment of acute urticaria. Loratadine or cetirizine, and possibly mizolastine, appear to be treatments of choice for chronic idiopathic urticaria. For symptomatic dermatographism, the combination of an antihistamine and an H₂ antagonist, e.g. chlorpheniramine and cimetidine, appears to be effective. Very few studies have been conducted on the use of antihistamines in the treatment of cold, cholinergic, and pressure urticaria. Antihistamines are the mainstay of urticarial therapy. This evidence-based review suggests that there are efficacy differences between newer, nonsedating antihistamines and older agents in some forms of the disorder. Clearly, further well-controlled clinical trials in larger numbers of patients are needed to clarify the role of these agents in the treatment of urticaria.     

慢性荨麻疹患者血清组胺释放活性检测

目的 检测慢性荨麻疹患者血清组胺释放活性,探讨慢性荨麻疹的发病机制.方法 通过体外分离人皮肤肥大细胞,进行肥大细胞组胺释放试验,测定组胺释放率.结果 62例慢性荨麻疹患者中,自体血清皮肤试验阳性者24例占38.71%.混合细胞悬液中肥大细胞的组胺自发释放率<5%.血清活化皮肤肥大细胞引起的组胺释放率从3.1%～79.5%(16.44%±14.26%),明显高于正常人对照组(P<0.01),其中27例组胺释放率>15%(43.55%);自体血清皮肤试验(+)组的组胺释放率及阳性率均明显高于自体血清皮肤试验(-)组(P<0.01).结论 部分慢性荨麻疹患者血清中存在组胺释放活性,可直接活化肥大细胞,释放组胺等血管活性介质,引起荨麻疹.     

Evaluation of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine,cetirizine and fexofenadine during a 24 h period: a double-blind,randomized, crossover,placebo-controlled comparison in skin responses induced by histamine iontophoresis

Potency of the antihistamine effects of olopatadine, cetirizine and fexofenadine in standard-dose application were compared from 11.5 to 24 h after application. The test was designed in a double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled study of ten healthy volunteers on histamine-induced flare and wheal response using an iontophoresis technique. The suppressive effect of olopatadine on the wheals induced by a 0.1-mA histamine iontophoresis lasted for 24 h after dosing. Fexofenadine administered using the same regimen was the least effective among three drugs tested. Suppression of the wheal response by cetirizine, taken once-daily, decreased with time. Olopatadine completely suppressed even the wheal response induced by a 0.2-mA histamine iontophoresis, although fexofenadine and cetirizine were less effective on the wheals induced by the same histamine challenge. There were no significant differences in subjective drowsiness and objective cognitive function between drug- and placebo-treated subjects. These results demonstrate that olopatadine is the most potent antihistamine among the three H(1)-blockers when administered in a standard dosage.     

多种药物治疗人工性荨麻疹20例疗效报告

人工性荨麻疹是荨麻疹中最为难治的一型,目前国内外均尚无满意之疗法。我们三年多来采用抑制血管炎性反应、对抗组织胺、抑制组织胺等过敏介质的释放、脱敏和增强皮肤抵抗力的综合疗法,治疗本病20例,收到了极满意效果,现总结报告如下:     

Is there a role for antileukotrienes in urticaria?

In vitro and in vivo clinical and experimental data have suggested that leukotrienes play a key role in inflammatory reactions of the skin. Antileukotriene drugs, i.e. leukotriene receptor antagonists and synthesis inhibitors, are a new class of anti-inflammatory drugs that have shown clinical efficacy in the management of asthma. We searched the MedLine database and carried out a manual search on journals specializing in allergy and dermatology for the use of antileukotriene drugs in urticaria. Montelukast might be effective in chronic urticaria associated with aspirin or food additive hypersensitivity or with autoreactivity to intradermal serum injection when taken with an antihistamine but not in moderate chronic idiopathic urticaria. Evidence for the effectiveness of zafirlukast and the 5-lipoxygenase inhibitor, zileuton, in chronic urticaria is mainly anecdotal. In addition, there is anecdotal evidence of effectiveness of antileukotrienes in primary cold urticaria, delayed pressure urticaria and dermographism. No evidence exists for other physical urticarias, including cholinergic, solar and aquagenic urticarias, vibratory angio-oedema, and exercise-induced anaphylaxis.     

Urticaria a frígore. Respuesta al tratamiento con montelukast

—Physical urticarias represent a group of diseases of indeterminate cause, whose treatment is at times difficult. Cold urticaria is brought on by the exposure of the skin to low temperatures, and patients who suffer from it must be studied to rule out cryopathy, especially the presence of cryoglobulins in the blood. Treatment of cold urticaria may be disappointing, and it is usually based on a combination of H1-antihistamines. According to published studies, leukotrienes are important mediators in cold urticaria, and its successful treatment using leukotriene antagonist drugs has been reported, alone or combined with antihistamines.We describe a case of cold urticaria that was controlled through the combined administration of cetirizine and montelukast.     

Treatment of acquired cold urticaria with cetirizine and zafirlukast in combination

Acquired cold urticaria is an infrequent physical urticaria that can provoke severe systemic reactions. Histamine is the primary mediator, but leukotrienes are also involved in the pathogenesis. H(1) antihistamines are recommended as first-choice treatment, but their efficacy is sometimes unsatisfactory. On the basis of pathogenic knowledge, it can be hypothesized that a combination therapy with antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists is more effective than each drug given alone. We tested this hypothesis in 2 patients with severe systemic cold urticaria poorly responsive to conventional therapy. The patients underwent 3 consecutive treatment regimens (each of 2 weeks): cetirizine (10 mg once a day); zafirlukast (20 mg twice a day); and their combination. They were clinically evaluated, after each regimen, by means of a visual analog scale and ice-cube test. The combination therapy was superior to the 2 drugs given alone, as testified by subjective and objective evaluations.     

Cold urticaria: inhibition of cold-induced histamine release by doxantrazole.

Thirteen patients with cold urticaria were studied to assess the effect of the systemic drug doxantrazole, which has actions resembling disodium cromoglycate, on cold evoked histamine release. The patients, all of whom developed an immediate local whealing response after cooling of the forearm, demonstrated release of histamine into venous blood draining that forearm. Following doxantrazole treatment, significant suppression of histamine release occurred. In some but not all patients this was accompanied by diminution of urtication in response to cooling. A double-blind study was carried out in 3 subjects, all of whom showed diminished cold-stimulated histamine release after doxantrazole. Two of these showed clinical improvement. Doxantrazole had no effect on erythema due to intradermal histamine, but did suppress the erythematous reaction to intradermal injection of compound 48/80. Our results suggest that doxantrazole or related anti-allergic agents might be useful in the treatment of cold urticaria.     

Therapeutische Alternativen bei Antihistamintherapie-refraktärer Urtikaria

Patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, the most frequent non-acute form of urticaria, generally exhibit a clinical picture of persistent disease, a high degree of disease activity, considerable impairment of quality of life, and poor response to treatment. More than half of the patients continue to develop symptoms despite standard therapy with non-sedating antihistamines. In these cases, the antihistamine dose should be increased (up to four times the daily dose). If this approach also does not result in symptom control, the high-dose antihistamine should be combined with a leukotriene antagonist and if necessary an H2 blocker. If the patient does not respond to this combination therapy, cyclosporin A, dapsone, or omalizumab should be administered.     

Case of cholinergic urticaria accompanied by anaphylaxis

Cholinergic urticaria occasionally occurs in combination with anaphylactic symptoms. However, this has not been widely reported. Herein, we report the case of a 14‐year‐old Japanese male who was diagnosed with cholinergic urticaria accompanied by anaphylaxis. The patient, who was suffering from atopic dermatitis and bronchial asthma, had developed wheals after exercising or bathing, which would have increased his core body temperature, since summer 2014. He experienced two episodes of severe systemic symptoms and wheal development when he took a bath after eating in December 2014 and the following January. His symptoms included wheezing, numbness of the lips, respiratory distress, blindness and fainting. Laboratory tests revealed the following results: serum IgE level, 7060 IU/mL; titers of specific immunoglobulin E antibodies against Malassezia and MGL_1304, 31.70 UA/mL and 112.5 ng/mL, respectively. A histamine release test against human sweat revealed a class 4 response. Skin prick and intradermal tests against autologous sweat produced immediate‐type positive reactions. According to these findings, we diagnosed him with the sweat‐hypersensitivity type of cholinergic urticaria accompanied by anaphylaxis. He was successfully treated with lafutidine, a histamine H₂ receptor antagonist, in combination with fexofenadine. It is important for dermatologists to be aware that cholinergic urticaria can progress to anaphylaxis.     

Acquired cold urticaria: H1 and H2 antagonists versus cold induced histamine release

Three patients with idiopathic cold urticaria were treated with either or both cyproheptadine (Histamine H₁ receptor antagonist) and cimetidine (Histamine H₂ receptor antagonist). Cold induced histamine release (CIHR) was significantly higher in the patients (71.0 ± 23.8 pm/ml) than in normal volunteers (4.5 ± 1.0 pm/ml). Improvement of clinical manifestations with reduced CIHR was obtained by combination therapy using cyproheptadine and cimetidine but no favorable response was noted with either drug alone. The combined therapy with both drugs completely suppressed pruritis and edema but failed to suppress the erythematous reaction. Single cyproheptadine therapy was rather favored by the patients despite positive CIHR with the therapy. Histamine release from patients' leukocytes under three different conditions (37°C, 4°C→37°C, 4°C) was not significantly different.     

The IgE- and calcium-dependent release of eicosanoids and histamine from human purified cutaneous mast cells

Cells dispersed from human foreskin were passively sensitized with IgE and then depleted or enriched in mast cells by density gradient centrifugation. Arachidonic acid metabolism was initially studied by radio-high-performance liquid chromatography analysis of incubation media from cells that had been prelabeled with [3H] arachidonic acid. In subsequent experiments with unlabeled cells the eicosanoids were quantified by radioimmunoassay. Prostaglandin (PG)D2 was the major cyclooxygenase product released from purified mast cells challenged with anti-IgE or A23187. In density gradient studies there was a significant correlation between PGD2 and histamine release (r = 0.52, p less than 0.01) and between PGD2 release and the numbers of mast cells (r = 0.42, p less than 0.02). There was no correlation with the total numbers of nucleated cells. Other cyclooxygenase products were also detected, the formation of 6-keto-PGF1 alpha and PGE2 being principally associated with gradient fractions containing endothelial cells. Leukotriene (LT)C4 was the major lipoxygenase product detected, reaching a maximum of 3.87 +/- 0.56 ng/10(6) mast cells upon activation with anti-IgE compared with 35.37 +/- 7.22 ng/10(6) mast cells of PGD2. When normalized to histamine release and expressed in molar terms, skin mast cells released approximately 20-fold more PGD2 than LTC4. Thus, the cutaneous mast cell is one likely source of the PGD2 and LTC4 released during cutaneous immediate hypersensitivity reactions.     

Inflammatory skin responses induced by icatibant injection are mast cell mediated and attenuated by H(1)-antihistamines

Icatibant, a bradykinin-2 receptor antagonist, is administered by subcutaneous injection for the treatment of attacks of type I and type II hereditary angioedema. Following injection, patients feel transient pain followed by a short-lived wheal and flare response at the injection site. We hypothesized that the icatibant-induced wheal and flare response follows histamine release from activated skin mast cells and would therefore be reduced by an H(1)-antihistamine. Intradermal injection of 100 μl of 100 μg/ml histamine and 10 mg/ml icatibant into the forearms of health volunteers caused wheal and flare responses of a similar magnitude which were reduced by cetirizine pretreatment by 49% and 41% (histamine) and 35% and 41% (icatibant). Studies in vitro showed that icatibant at 1 × 10(-4) and 1 × 10(-5) M caused significant (P < 0.05) histamine release from isolated human cutaneous mast cells. In conclusion, icatibant induces histamine-mediated wheal and flare responses that may be reduced in severity by prophylactic administration of an H(1)-antihistamine.