Agonist-antagonist interactions in the skin: comparison of effects of loratadine and cetirizine on skin vascular responses to prick tests with histamine and substance P.

The skin vascular responses (weal, flare, blood flow measurements) elicited by intradermal administration by pricking of histamine (HS) and substance P (SP) were evaluated 6 h after a single intake of anti-H1 agents displaying different activity profile on skin tests at currently recommended dosages (loratadine 10 mg, cetirizine 10 mg) as compared to placebo (P). The weal and flare response and the increases of blood flow occurring in the usual flare area after HS and SP were almost completely abolished by cetirizine. Inhibition of HS- and SP-induced weal and flare reactions was less marked after loratadine and blood flow in the expanding flare after HS and SP showed significant fluctuations over time. In view of the present results and of data obtained in previous experiments with intradermal injection of agonists, we hypothesize that mode of administration of agonists significantly influences the size of the residual weal after anti-H1 agents. We demonstrate that SP weals induced by pricking are largely inhibited by a potent H1 blockade which supports the view that this phenomenon, as well as the SP-flare, is due to SP-induced histamine liberation. We also, for the first time, report on fluctuations recorded at the edge of the developing flare with laser Doppler flowmetry early after prick testing with a weak H1 blockade. This opens up new avenues in dynamically testing H1-receptor occupancy in vivo and in situ in human skin.     

Effects of cetirizine and epinastine on the skin response to histamine iontophoresis

Epinastine and cetirizine are second-generation, nonsedating and long-lasting antihistamines that are now frequently used for the allergic disorders. We have examined the inhibitory effects of these two drugs on the histamine-induced flare and wheal responses using iontophoresis at 1, 2, 4, 8 and 24 h after the oral administration by a double-blind, cross-over and placebo-controlled study. Both cetirizine and epinastine significantly inhibited the histamine-induced flare and wheal responses at 2 h after the oral administration when compared with placebo. The inhibitory effects of cetirizine and epinastine on the flare response lasted long until at 24 h, however, epinastine was less potent than cetirizine. The inhibitory effects on the wheal response was also clearly and significantly evident at 2-8 h by cetirizine and epinastine. At 24 h cetirizine only showed the significant inhibition on the histamine-induced wheal response. In contrast, epinastine seemed to exhibit the inhibitory capacity earlier than did cetirizine. The inhibitory action of the drugs on the histamine-induced wheal response peaked at 4 h after the oral administration. The histamine-induced itch sensation was also markedly or completely suppressed at 2-8 h by the drugs. Thus, both drugs exhibited the potent and long-lasting antihistamine activity on the skin responses induced by histamine iontophoresis.     

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.     

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.     

Histamine is released following aminolevulinic acid-photodynamic therapy of human skin and mediates an aminolevulinic acid dose-related immediate inflammatory response

Acute skin inflammation occurs following topical aminolevulinic acid-photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT), but its nature and mediation are ill defined. As we observed an urticarial response, a potential role for histamine was explored. In 13 healthy volunteers, we assessed the time course and dose-response of the acute cutaneous response(s) to ALA-PDT, the impact of H(1) antihistamine blockade, and measured dermal histamine release. An ALA dose series was iontophoresed into ventral forearm skin and exposed to red light. All participants exhibited an immediate urticarial response, both wheal and flare correlating with log ALA dose. Subsequently, a dose-related erythema developed at treatment sites by 3 hours and persisted at 24 hours. H(1) blockade with oral cetirizine doubled the median minimal urticating dose of ALA and reduced the slope of dose-response for wheal and flare, whereas at the highest ALA dose, mean wheal and flare areas reduced by 68 and 60%, respectively. In contrast, cetirizine did not influence the 24 hour minimal phototoxic dose or erythema dose-response. Histamine release after ALA-PDT mirrored the urticarial response, levels peaking within 30 minutes and returning to baseline by 24 hours. Thus, two discrete acute inflammatory responses to topical ALA-PDT occur in human skin; histamine mediates the immediate response, but does not appear involved in the delayed phototoxicity.     

Video-optical monitoring of wheal and flare reactions

Background/aims: In order to monitor the dynamics of experimentally-induced cutaneous inflammation in humans, we developed an objective, computerized video-optical method for wheal and flare area determination.
Methods: The method was used for evaluation of PAF-acether-induced experimental inflammations on the volar aspect of the forearms of human volunteers. The study design was double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled. Repeated measurements can be performed, e.g., with intervals of 1 min to reveal the time-course of the inflammatory reaction. In the present study, the effect of topical application of creams containing 3 different concentrations of the putative anti-inflammatory drug sodium sucrose-sulphate (SoS) on cutaneous inflammation was investigated.
Results: 30 min after intracutaneous PAF-acether injection, a statistically significantly increased (p<0.05) wheal area was found in skin sites treated by either 1%, 3% and 9% SoS cream, whereas no influence of sucrose-sulphate could be demonstrated on the flare area. The reduction of the wheal area was significantly faster in the SoS-treated areas than in the placebo (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Computerized video-optical quantification of acute skin inflammatory reactions may be a suitable experimental tool for objective dynamic monitoring of both wheal and flare reactions and hence for quantification of the effect of anti-inflammatory drugs in humans. Topical application of SoS surprisingly increased PAF-acether-induced skin oedema (wheal), significantly whereas no effect was found on the flare reaction. No concentration-related effect of SoS could be shown.     

Suppression of wheal and flare in histamine test by the main H1 antihistamines commercialized in Brazil

Background:Several dermatoses are mediated by histamine, such as urticaria, angioedema, and papular urticaria. There are no Brazilian studies comparing the potency of antihistamines.Objectives:To evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of the main commercial brand and generic H1 antihistamines, regarding the suppression of the wheal and flare to the histamine test.Methods:A quasi-experimental, open study with 10 healthy adults submitted to the histamine test on the ventral aspect of the forearms. After 20 minutes, wheal and flares were measured. The tests were performed after two hours of intake of dexchlorpheniramine, hydroxyzine, levocetirizine, fexofenadine, cetirizine, loratadine, ebastine, desloratadine, epinastine and rupatadine, as well as generics of loratadine, cetirizine and fexofenadine.Results:All antihistamines presented a reduction in the wheal compared to the control (p <0.02), as well as in the flare, except for rupatadine (p = 0.70). In the internal comparison, cetirizine, fexofenadine, epinastine, levocetirizine, dexchlorpheniramine and hydroxyzine were the most potent, with no difference between them (p > 0.1). As for halo, cetirizine, epinastine, hydroxyzine and fexofenadine were the most potent, with no difference between them (p > 0.1). The most common adverse effect was drowsiness, which was more prevalent among first-generation drugs (p < 0.01). Generic loratadine, fexofenadine and cetirizine halos were higher than their controls (p >0.03)..Study limitations:A single-center study evaluating only aspects related to histamine.Conclusions:Brazilian commercial antihistamines presented different profiles of inhibition of wheal and flares in the histamine test, as well as adverse effects. Generic loratadine, fexofenadine and cetirizine presented larger flares than brand drugs.     

息斯敏和息斯敏联合雷尼替丁对组胺诱导人皮肤反应强度的比较

目的探讨组胺Ｈ１和Ｈ２受体拮抗剂联合使用治疗Ⅰ型过敏性疾病的可行性。方法对三组志愿者（每组１２人）分别服用息斯敏１０ｍｇ,１次／ｄ;息斯敏１０ｍｇ和雷尼替丁３００ｍｇ,各１次／ｄ,息斯敏１０ｍｇ,１次／ｄ和雷尼替丁３００ｍｇ,每１２ｈ１次。５天后停雷尼替丁,继续服用息斯敏２天。第１～５天,每日比较服药前和服药后第３ｈ、第６ｈ组胺（１００μｇ）诱导即刻型皮肤（风团和红晕）的反应强度（％）。第８天组胺皮试重复１次。结果息斯敏１０ｍｇ,１次／ｄ和雷尼替丁３００ｍｇ,每１２ｈ１次组对组胺诱导皮肤风团和红晕的反应强度在各个时间点均明显低于息斯敏１０ｍｇ,１次／ｄ组,统计学处理除第２次服药前风团强度无显著性差异外（Ｐ＞０．０５）,其它各时间点均有显著性差异（Ｐ＜０．０１或＜０．０５）。结论息斯敏联合雷尼替丁与息斯敏单独使用相比,明显加快和加强组胺诱导皮肤反应抑制作用,该方案为临床治疗Ⅰ型过敏反应性疾病提供了可行性依据。     

比拉斯汀在荨麻疹治疗中的应用

比拉斯汀是一种新型的H1受体拮抗剂,口服可治疗过敏性鼻炎和荨麻疹,其吸收较快,但食用食物和果汁后吸收减慢.已有数据证实,相比其他受体,比拉斯汀对H1的亲和力更高,并能降低组胺和细胞因子水平.在由组胺引起的皮肤风团和红斑上,比拉斯汀20 mg与西替利嗪10 mg相比具有等同疗效,可能有更快的抑制作用.比拉斯汀无抗胆碱作用,不影响驾驶,除此之外,比拉斯汀还具备良好的耐受性,无镇静作用、心脏毒性和肝脏毒性等优点.     

Start and end of the effects of terfenadine and astemizole on histamine-induced wheals in human skin

A study was made of effects of two antihistamines, terfenadine (60 mg twice daily) and astemizole (10 mg once daily) on wheals induced by histamine dihydrochloride (10 mg/ml) in the prick test on the upper back of 15 healthy students. The suppressive effects of terfenadine on the histamine wheal appeared earlier (2 h), and disappeared earlier (within 1 day) than those of astemizole (3 days and 28 days, respectively). No difference between the maximal effects of the two drugs was seen.     

Comparison of the potency of antihistamines

ABSTRACT: First- and second-generation antihistamines have proven effective in the management of patients with urticaria and allergic rhinitis; however, the efficacy of first-generation antihistamines has been compromised by undesirable side effects such as sedation, dry mouth, and blurred vision. Second-generation antihistamines, on the other hand, are less sedating and have fewer side effects than first-generation agents. Recently second-generation agents have been compared for their pharmacologic activities using an epicutaneous histamine-induced wheal and flare model in normal volunteers. Cetirizine was found to be superior to epinastine, ebastine, fexofenadine, terfenadine, loratadine, and placebo in inhibiting the wheal and flare response. Epinastine had the fastest onset of action at 30 minutes and terfenadine proved to be superior to its metabolite fexofenadine.     

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.     

The intradermal effects of the H3 receptor agonist R α methylhistamine in human skin

We have investigated the possible existence of the H₃ histamine receptor in human skin with the highly selective ligands R α methylhistamine (RAMHA) (H₃ agonist) and thioperamide (H₃ antagonist). We compared the intradermal effects of RAMHA with histamine, and studied their potential modulation by the H₁ antagonist terfenadine, and H₂ antagonist cimetidine. The effects of RAMHA and thioperamide on codeine phosphate-, substance P- and histamine-induced weal and flare responses were also studied. RAMHA produced dose-related weal and flare responses that were approximately 10- and fivefold less, respectively, than responses to histamine. Flare responses to RAMHA were significantly inhibited by oral terfenadine ( P  < 0.05). Weal and flare responses to histamine after oral cimetidine showed much intersubject variation, and cimetidine did not significantly alter either RAMHA- or histamine-induced weal and flare responses. Codeine phosphate-, substance P- and histamine-induced responses were not significantly affected by concurrent administration of RAMHA. Thioperamide was not found to influence codeine phosphate-, substance P-, RAMHA- or histamine-induced effects. RAMHA induces vascular (weal and flare) responses in human skin, and these responses are partially inhibited by terfenadine. There is a trend for RAMHA to have an additive effect to the weal induced by substance P and histamine, although our results largely do not reach statistical significance. Thioperamide does not affect the vascular responses to RAMHA, codeine phosphate, histamine or substance P. We cannot conclude that the effects of RAMHA are induced by H₃ receptors on cutaneous endothelial or mast cells.     

Some effects of calcitonin gene-related peptide in human skin and on histamine release

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) produced a dose-related wheal and flare reaction in human skin at doses of 12.5 to 50 pmol. The flare response but not the wheal response to CGRP and substance P were inhibited by prior treatment of the subject with oral chlorpheniramine, 16 mg. CGRP, but not substance P, was potent in producing a delayed erythema and surrounding pallor in human skin, which peaked at 1 h and persisted for more than 3 h after injection, when wheal and flare responses had subsided. The delayed response was accompanied by infiltration of polymorphonuclear leukocytes. The delayed erythema and pallor produced in response to CGRP were not inhibited by oral chlorpheniramine, or by 4% prilocaine injected locally. CGRP released histamine from rat peritoneal mast cells over the concentration range 2.5-10 microM. CGRP was about fourfold less potent than substance P in releasing histamine. The substance P analogue, [D-Pro4, D-Trp7,9,10]SP4-11 10 microM, and benzalkonium chloride 10 microM inhibited histamine release from rat mast cells stimulated by either CGRP or substance P.     

Antipruritic effects of two different 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and an antihistamine in haemodialysis patients

Pruritus is the most distressing symptom in haemodialysis (HD) patients. Its aetiology has not yet been delineated, and thus there are no good therapeutical options. Case reports and series attribute antipruritic potency to the serotonin receptor antagonists of the 5-HT3 type in renal pruritus. It was the aim of this study to investigate the antipruritic effect of two different 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and an antihistamine in 11 patients undergoing HD. Pruritus was induced by iontophoresis with serotonin and histamine and recorded before and after HD. These data were compared to those obtained after oral pretreatment with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists tropisetron 5 mg and ondansetron 8 mg and the antihistamine cetirizine 10 mg. Ten healthy volunteers served as a control group. Vasocutaneous parameters (wheal and flare), skin temperature and alloknesis were also determined. Itching in HD patients and controls was not significantly diminished by oral pretreatment with the serotonin receptor antagonists. In controls, but not in HD patients, cetirizine significantly reduced itching, skin temperature and vasocutaneous parameters. Our data additionally demonstrate that there are no significant differences in vasocutaneous parameters, itching and alloknesis in HD patients before and after dialysis. We conclude that 5-HT3 receptor blockers such as tropisetron and ondansetron and the antihistamine cetirizine do not sufficiently reduce serotonin- and histamine-induced itching in haemodialyis patients.     

Double-blind, crossover comparison of olopatadine and cetirizine versus placebo: suppressive effects on skin response to histamine iontophoresis

Olopathadine, a newly developed histamine H1-receptor antagonist, was compared with cetirizine in its suppressive effects on histamine-induced wheal and flare reaction using an iontophoresis technique in a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled fashion. As a result, olopathadine was found to have effects comparable to cetirizine. This finding may predict the efficacy of this new H1-antagonist in treating pruritic skin diseases.     

Cutaneous drug eruption from cetirizine and hydroxyzine

Topical application of the antihistamines commonly leads to sensitization for patients, but skin reactions provoked by their systemic use are very rare. The antihistamines cetirizine and hydroxyzine are piperazine derivatives, on the structural basis of an ethylenediamine, but the cross-reactions between the 2 have rarely been reported. A 44-year-old man visited because of the generalized morbilliform eruptions with pruritus over his whole body, after intake of hydroxyzine (Ucerax) and azelastine (Azeptine), administered during a 2-day period for chronic urticaria. Previously, he had presented the same cutaneous reactions after oral administration of cetirizine (Lotec). Oral challenge tests performed with cetirizine and hydroxyzine led to the same cutaneous reactions. He was given the diagnosis of drug eruption from cetirizine and hydroxyzine, which suggests that there were cross-reactions among cetirizine, hydroxyzine, and ethylenediamine.     

Dose-response relationship between objective measures of histamine-induced weals and dose of terfenadine.

Terfenadine is a safe non-sedative H1-receptor antagonist. This study aimed to quantify the relative reduction in weal and flare area, thickness and erythema at 4, 8, 12 and 24 h following a single but variable oral dose of terfenadine compared with pre-treatment measurements, in order to compare the dose-effect relationship and time course of the different dosages. In a double-blind randomized cross-over study, 12 healthy volunteers were given 60, 120 or 240 mg of terfenadine or placebo. Twenty micrograms of histamine acid phosphate was then injected intradermally at 4, 8, 12 and 24 h. The weal and flare areas were measured by planimetry, the thickness of the weal by an A-scan pulsed ultrasound device and the redness of both the weal and flare by an erythema-meter. A definite dose-response relationship was demonstrated between the weal and flare areas and the three active treatments. For the weal area, there was a significant difference between 60 mg and 240 mg of terfenadine at 4 h (p less than 0.01), at 8 and 12 h (p less than 0.05). For the flare area there was a similar significant difference at 4 h (p less than 0.01) and at 8 h (p less than 0.05). A dose-response relationship was demonstrated between weal erythema and 120 mg or 240 mg and 60 mg of terfenadine (p less than 0.05). There was a correlation between the plasma levels of the major metabolite and the initial dose of terfenadine, demonstrating their expected proportionality. This metabolite was also demonstrated in tissue fluid.     

Cutaneous drug eruption with two antihistaminic drugs of a same chemical family: cetirizine and hydroxyzine

BACKGROUND: H1-antihistamines are widely used to relieve symptoms of allergic disorders. A few skins reactions to H1-antihistamines have been described in the literature. We report the first case of cutaneous drug eruption as fixed drug eruption with 2 antihistamines of the same chemical family: cetirizine and hydroxyzine. CASE REPORT: A 73 year-old man was admitted because of a third cutaneous eruption with the same morphologic features of the same sites as before. The first and second eruption appeared after 4 hours of cetirizine intake, the third eruption appeared after 4 hours of hydroxyzine intake. Healing was obtained after stopping the medication. Histology showed induced drug reaction. Patch tests with cetirizine and hydroxyzine were negative, except false positivity with dimethylsulfoxide vehicles. DISCUSSION: The diagnosis of cutaneous drug eruption as non pigmenting fixed drug eruption related to cetirizine and hydroxyzine was retained. Allergy to both H1 antihistamines can be explained by the fact that they've got the same chemical node that is piperazine, and by the fact that cetirizine is the main metabolite of hydroxyzine. Oral test provocation was omitted because the patient had already reexposed himself to the drugs. To identify the drug responsible for fixed drug eruption, peroral provocation tests are the most valuable method, but carry the risk of a strong reaction. Some authors use patch tests, but their positivity is inconstant. Their interest in fixed drug eruption is undergoing assessment.     

Doxepin affects acetylcholine induced cutaneous reactions in atopic eczema

BACKGROUND: Atopic eczema (AE) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease with strong itching as the prominent symptom. The pathology of itch is still in discussion, but acetylcholine (ACH) seems to be a relevant pruritogenic mediator in AE. Since efficient benefit on pruritus and excoriations has been demonstrated with tricyclic agents, we investigated how the topical treatment with doxepin (5%, Boehringer Standard, Mannheim, Germany), a tricyclic compound with anticholinergic properties, may influence ACH induced itch and cutaneous sensations (erythema, wheal, axonreflex flare). METHODS: Eleven patients with AE were included in this double blind study. For 3 days we applied doxepin cream to a defined area on the volar forearm and basic ointment to the other side 4 times daily. On day 4, ACH and sodium chloride were i.c. injected into the pretreated arms. Vasoreactions and cutaneous sensations were measured similar to studies described in previous publications from our group. RESULTS: Doxepin treatment over 3 days reduced ACH provoked flare size more than 53% (P<0.005) and wheal size about 48% (P<0.005) whereas the maximal antipruritic effect was similiar to the basic therapy. The itch intensity, which is expressed as the mean AUC value, was rated at 6.12 arbitrary units after the neutral cream application and 5.9 arbitrary units after doxepin. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and experimental effectiveness of doxepin as an antipruritic drug has been known for years. However, studies focusing on ACH as a pruritogenic mediator have not been performed. The duration of the doxepin application in our study seems to be appropriate since flare and wheal development were diminished. The reason why doxepin did not develop more antipruritic action compared to the vehicle cream may be due to the fact that the doxepin free cream already possessed an antipruritic action in this experimental study design. This is probably caused by rehydrating and moisturizing effects.