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.     

Rapid effects of olopatadine hydrochloride on the histamine-induced skin responses

Olopatadine hydrochloride is one of the second-generation nonsedating antihistamines that are used for treating allergic disorders such as urticaria, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. We examined the inhibitory effects of this drug on the flare and wheal responses induced by histamine iontophoresis at 30, 60, and 90 min after oral administration in a double-blind, cross-over, and placebo-controlled study. Olopatadine hydrochloride significantly inhibited the histamine-induced flare and wheal responses as early as 60 min after oral administration when compared with placebo. Significant inihibitory effects of olopatadine hydrochloride on the itch responses were seen at 90 min after administration. Thus, olopatadine hydrochloride exhibited a very rapid and potent antihistamine effect on the histamine-induced skin responses.     

Effects of single therapeutic doses of promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine on psychomotor function and histamine-induced wheal- and flare-responses: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study in healthy volunteers

Since most first-generation antihistamines have undesirable sedative effects on the central nervous systems (CNS), newer (second-generation) antihistamines have been developed to improve patients’ quality of life. However, there are few reports that directly compare the antihistaminic efficacy and impairment of psychomotor functions. We designed a double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study to concurrently compare the clinical effectiveness of promethazine, a first-generation antihistamine, and fexofenadine and olopatadine, second-generation antihistamines, by measuring their potency as peripheral inhibitors of histamine-induced wheal and flare. Further, we investigated their sedative effects on the CNS using a battery of psychomotor tests. When single therapeutic doses of fexofenadine (60 mg), olopatadine (5 mg) and promethazine (25 mg) were given in a double-blind manner to 24 healthy volunteers, all antihistamines produced a significant reduction in the wheal and flare responses induced by histamine. In the comparison among antihistamines, olopatadine showed a rapid inhibitory effect compared with fexofenadine and promethazine, and had a potent effect compared with promethazine. In a battery of psychomotor assessments using critical flicker fusion, choice reaction time, compensatory tracking, rapid visual information processing and a line analogue rating scale as a subjective assessment of sedation, promethazine significantly impaired psychomotor function. Fexofenadine and olopatadine had no significant effect in any of the psychomotor tests. Promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine did not affect behavioral activity, as measured by wrist actigraphy. These results suggest that olopatadine at a therapeutic dose has greater antihistaminergic activity than promethazine, and olopatadine and fexofenadine did not cause cognitive or psychomotor impairment.     

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.     

Correlations between histamine-induced wheal,flare and itch

Correlations between the skin reactions wheal and flare and the subjectively reported degree of itch were investigated in response to 1% histamine, intradermally applied by standardized skin prick and by iontophoresis. Experiments were performed with 15 male volunteers using a threefold repeated measures design (skin prick, and iontophoresis with 0.13 mA for 10 s and with 2.0 mA for 10 s). Skin reactions (perpendicular diameters) were determined at the time of their maximum (10 min). Itch was rated on a computerized visual analogue scale which was anchored upon the individual scratch threshold. Most effective in producing itch was the skin prick which caused strong sensations markedly above the scratch threshold during the entire period of measurement (30 min), whereas iontophoresis induced only transient itch sensations. On the other hand, the largest wheals were generated by iontophoresis of both intensities (mean 10 or 14 mm vs 6 mm with skin prick). The higher current induced higher itch, wheal and flare responses, but after eliminating this effect of stimulus intensity, no correlations were found. In contrast, skin prick-induced flare reactions varied with the degree of itch above the scratch threshold ( r = 0.56; P < 0.01). Repeated measurements showed a higher stability for the itch reaction with skin prick compared with iontophoresis. It is hypothesized that in iontophoresis the brief (10-s) histamine bolus passed the most superficial pruritoceptive C fibres too quickly to induce long-lasting itch sensations, whereas the skin prick caused a deposit at the dermal-epidermal junction releasing histamine during the entire time of measurement. Consequently, both the C fibre-mediated itch and the axon reflex flare were more pronounced with the skin prick, and the wheal resulting from a permeability increase in the postcapillary venule walls was an independent phenomenon. Received: 21 June 1995     

Effects of bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine on histamine-induced wheal-and flare-response, sedation, and psychomotor performance

Although many antihistamines are now in clinical use, few studies directly compare their pharmacodynamic and sedative activities in humans in vivo. We designed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study to compare the inhibitory effects of bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine on histamine-induced flare-and-wheal response. Systemic sedative effects and impaired psychomotor activities by these drugs were also evaluated. Bepotastine (10 mg twice a day), cetirizine (10 mg once a day), fexofenadine (60 mg twice a day), and olopatadine (5 mg twice a day) or placebo was given in a double-blind manner to seven healthy volunteers before histamine challenge by iontophoresis. At 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h following the oral administration of these drugs, histamine iontophoresis-induced wheal-and-flare response was measured. Sedative effects by the drugs were also evaluated by a visual analogue scale for subjective sedation, and by word processor test for psychomotor activity. Each volunteer was tested with all of the drugs (including placebo), administered in a random order with a washout period of at least 1 week. Histamine iontophoresis induced marked wheal-and-flare response in all participants. Bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine yielded significant reduction of histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response compared to placebo (P < 0.01). Among the drugs, olopatadine and cetirizine suppressed most markedly and persistently histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response, while bepotastine and fexofenadine produced a significant, but less persistent suppression. Olopatadine, fexofenadine, and cetirizine showed a significant systemic sedative effect in this order with bepotastine showing the least sedative effect. Moreover, olopatadine affected psychomotor performance most markedly, which was followed by fexofenadine and cetirizine. These results indicate that bepotastine, cetirizine, fexofenadine, and olopatadine inhibit histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response of humans in vivo and induce a variable systemic sedative effect and impaired psychomotor activity. Although olopatadine and cetirizine showed the strongest and most persistent suppression of histamine-induced wheal-and-flare response, olopatadine showed a considerable sedative effect with impaired psychomotor performance.     

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.     

Skin reactions and itch sensation induced by epicutaneous histamine application in atopic dermatitis and controls

Itch sensations and skin reactions induced by histamine iontophoresis at six different current intensities were studied in 27 atopic dermatitis (AD) patients and 20 healthy controls. Subjective itch ratings were assessed on a visual analogue scale (VAS) for 8-min periods after 10-sec histamine application, while changes of skin blood flow were simultaneously measured using two Laser Doppler flowmeters. Ten minutes after each histamine application, the areas of wheal and flare reactions were planimetrically evaluated. When no or weak current was applied, AD patients revealed stronger wheal and flare reactions than controls, possibly due to disturbed skin barrier function. Higher histamine doses, however, produced weaker subjective and vascular reactions in AD patients. In contrast to the controls, AD patients were unable to distinguish between weak and strong histamine stimulation, as shown by their VAS ratings. These results imply that AD patients have an altered histamine response. In particular, their afferent cutaneous nerve fibers show a decreased ability to signal itching to the central nervous system and to release vasoactive neuropeptides upon histamine stimulation.     

Effects of local corticosteroids on acute experimental urticaria

Corticosteroids are often used in the treatment of acute or chronic urticaria. However, their effects on mastocyte activation as well as on the histamine-induced dermal oedema remain poorly investigated. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of corticosteroids (CS) on the development of acute experimental urticaria induced by prick-tests with histamine and codeine. This experimental model corresponds to the common form of urticaria. CS were administered at the site of the histamine and codeine prick tests in order to test for a direct effect on the development of acute urticaria. Two types of experiments were performed: 1) after a 48-hour period of topical CS application on the forearm, 7 healthy volunteers were skin prick-tested with histamine and codeine simultaneously in duplicate, one series in the pretreated area and the other in a non-treated area. 2) six other volunteers were prick-tested with histamine and codeine on their forearm, in duplicate. Immediately after testing, intradermal methyprednisolone was injected at the site of the prick-tests in the last series. Skin wheal and flare responses were measured after 20 mns and statistically compared with and without CS treatment. Whereas short-term CS topical application did not appear to modify cutaneous reactivity to histamine and codeine, local CS injection was associated with a significant increase in the flare induced by histamine and codeine (respectively + 18 +/- 3% and + 38 +/- 3%; P = 0.05). The wheal tended to be increased after injected CS. In conclusion, these results show that CS are neither able to prevent nor to improve experimental urticaria, i.e. wheal and flare, and even increase the histamine and codeine-induced erythema. That a similar result could apply to patients with chronic urticaria and with systemic CS remains to be studied.     

The effect of capsaicin on some experimental inflammations in human skin

Topical application of capsaicin is thought to deplete substance P from local sensory nerve terminals. In experiments on human skin inflammation was induced by injection of substance P (SP) or histamine intradermally, UV irradiation, non-immunologic contact urticaria, tuberculin reaction, contact allergens and benzalkonium chloride with or without capsaicin pretreatment. The flare response to SP and histamine was suppressed by capsaicin pretreatment whereas the wheal was enlarged. Interestingly, capsaicin pretreatment enhanced the responses to all other inflammatory agents.     

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.     

Bilastine: a new H1‐antihistamine with an optimal profile for updosing in urticaria

This review set out to examine published papers detailing the efficacy of bilastine in skin models and urticaria to assess whether it meets the optimal profile for updosing in urticaria, that is, strong clinical efficacy and freedom from unwanted side effects, particularly sedation. Bilastine is a highly effective H₁‐antihistamine even when used at the basic dose of 20 mg daily. Its facilitated uptake after oral dosage gives it a rapid onset and long duration of action. In both wheal and flare studies and in urticaria updosing fourfold showed increased effectiveness. With respect to somnolence, bilastine is a substrate for P‐glycoprotein, a membrane pump which prevents it crossing the blood–brain barrier. Consequently, bilastine is a practically ‘non‐sedating’ H₁‐antihistamine. In conclusion, the excellent profile of bilastine in both efficacy and safety make it the ideal H₁‐antihistamine for updosing the daily dose fourfold in difficult‐to‐treat urticaria as recommended by the EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the management of urticaria.     

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.     

Solar urticaria confined to areas of bruising

Solar urticaria is a rare immunoglobulin E‐mediated photodermatosis characterized by the development of a pathognomic wheal and flare within minutes of photoexposure. A 26‐year‐old man presented with a history of sun‐induced urticaria only in areas of pre‐existing bruising, which we were able to replicate with monochromator testing. We were also able to demonstrate, by autologous in vitro studies, that a serum factor was responsible.     

Comparison of Efficacy,Safety and Cost-effectiveness of Rupatadine and Olopatadine in Patients of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Randomized,Double-blind,Comparative, Parallel Group Trial

Objective:To compare efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria.Results:Both the drugs significantly reduced the MTSS, number of wheals, size of wheal, scale for interference of wheals with sleep, but olopatadine was found to be superior. In olopatadine group, there was significantly higher reduction in MTSS (p = 0.01), Number of wheals (P < 0.05), Size of wheals (p < 0.05), Scale for intensity of erythema (p < 0.05) and change in eosinopils count (p = 0.015) than that of rupatadine. Incidence of adverse effects was found to be less in olopatadine group when compared with rupatadine group. Cost effectiveness ratio was less in olopatadine group as compared to rupatadine group throughout the treatment.Conclusions:Olopatadine is a better choice in chronic spontaneous urticaria in comparison to rupatadine due to its better efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness profile.     

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.     

Preheated autologous serum skin test in localized heat urticaria

Localized heat urticaria (LHU) is a rare type of physical urticaria, characterized by itching and erythema and well‐demarcated weals, appearing within minutes at heat‐exposed body sites. Its pathogenesis has not yet been clarified. We report the case of a 46‐year‐old woman with a generalized form of LHU, which was induced by exposure to warm baths, and consumption of warm food and drinks. Weal reaction was obtained 10 min after application of a metal cylinder heated to 43 °C. Interestingly, only serum previously heated to 56 °C and injected intradermally for autologous serum skin test induced a weal and flare reaction, whereas serum preheated to 45 °C did not induce any reaction. Our patient did not respond to high‐dose antihistamines, and refused a heat desensitization programme. Treatment with colchicine 1 mg/day or ciclosporin A 3.5 mg/kg/day for 1 month yielded no improvement. Mild improvement was obtained with intramuscular injection of triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg every 2 weeks for 2 months.     

Comparative biorelease study of fluticasone in combination with antibacterial (Neomycin) and or antifungal (coltrimazol, miconazole) agents by histamine percutaneous reaction method in healthy volunteers

Fluticasone propionate is a novel, potent and topically active synthetic corticosteroid preparation with a much reduced potential, in relation to its anti-inflammatory potency, for unwanted systemic side effects. It is indicated for the treatment of eczema, dermatitis etc. The objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare the biorelease of fluticassone with placebo (base formulation); its combination with antifungal (miconazole, clotrimazole) and / or antibacterial agents based on the attenuation of histamine induced wheal and flare reaction and flare intensity (on visual analouge scale) by McNemar test. In the present study, fluticasone alone and in combination with clotrimazole, miconazole and neomycin significantly reduced the wheal and flare response of histamine prick test. The flare intensity response was also significantly inhibited by these treatments. Furthermore, there was no difference in the anti-inflammatory activity of various treatment groups. It may, therefore, be concluded that antibacterial (neomycin) and / or antifungal (miconazole, clotrimazole) agents in combination with steroid (fluticasone) do not alter the pharmacodynamic response of the latter.     

Effect of topical capsaicin on the cutaneous reactions and itching to histamine in atopic eczema compared to healthy skin

Abstract Capsaicin (trans-8-methyl-N-vanillyl-6-nonenamide) is thought to produce analgesic and possibly also antipruritic effects when applied topically. Capsaicin 0.05% was applied three times daily over a 5-day period to the same infrascapular region. The effects of the pretreatment upon the pruritogenic and wheal and flare reactions to subsequent histamine iontophoresis (20 mC) were evaluated on the following day. The antipruritic effects of the pretreatment were compared with the effects of placebo pretreatment and no pretreatment. Wheal and flare areas were evaluated planimetrically. Itch or pain were rated every minute over a 24-min period. The areas of alloknesis, i.e. the induction of perifocal itch sensation by usually nonitching (e.g. mechanical) stimuli, were also evaluated. In control subjects, but not in atopic eczema (AE) patients, capsaicin pretreatment significantly reduced the flare area. Compared with control subjects, AE patients showed a lack of alloknesis or significantly smaller areas of alloknesis in pretreated and nonpretreated skin. In control subjects, capsaicin pretreatment significantly reduced itch sensations compared with nonpretreated skin, whereas in AE patients no differences were seen. Itch sensations in capsaicin-pretreated skin were significantly lower in control subjects than in AE patients. We conclude that capsaicin does effectively suppress histamine-induced itching in healthy skin but has less effect in AE. The diminished itch sensations and the absence of alloknesis in atopic individuals indicate that histamine is not the key factor in itching in AE. Received: 24 July 1997     

Levocetirizine in the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: Chronic urticaria is a common skin condition. It is frequently a disabling disease because of the persistence of clinical symptoms, the unpredictable course and its negative influence on the quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether levocetirizine is efficacious in the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in 106 patients with a diagnosis of chronic idiopathic urticaria. A 1-week single blind placebo run-in period (baseline) was followed by a 6-week double blind active treatment period. The patients were randomized to receive one of the following treatments once daily: (a) oral levocetirizine 5 mg, or (b) oral placebo. The study ended after another 1-week single blind placebo washout period. RESULTS: The evaluable population consisted of 100 patients. Levocetirizine administered once daily is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of the symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria and in improving the patient's quality of life. Levocetirizine was superior to placebo in reducing the mean total symptoms score as well as individual symptoms, the number of daily episodes and the number of weals, the overall severity of symptoms and the quality of life. The significant beneficial effects of levocetirizine lasted only during the active trial, while at follow-up there was a significant worsening of all the variables evaluated in this study, after the end of the active trial (week 7). CONCLUSIONS: A global assessment indicates that levocetirizine 5 mg once daily is an effective agent in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria, as its action provides a rapid and satisfactory control of the symptoms and measures of subjective disease, although this is limited to the duration of treatment.