Effect of topical vapocoolant spray on skin test wheal, flare, and pain responses.

BACKGROUND: Skin puncture and intradermal tests are commonly used to evaluate allergic rhinitis. Ethyl chloride, a topical vapocoolant spray, provides skin analgesia before venipuncture, but it has not been studied with allergy skin testing. Objective: To determine the effects of ethyl chloride vs placebo on skin puncture testing (SPT) and intradermal allergy testing. METHODS: We enrolled 20 healthy adults with a history of positive aeroallergen skin test results in a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study. Ethyl chloride and placebo sprays were randomly placed on the upper back. Paired SPT was performed with saline, histamine, and standardized aeroallergens, including Bermuda grass, Kentucky blue grass, timothy grass, cat, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, and Dermatophagoides farinae. Serial dilutional end-point intradermal tests were then performed using 1 standardized aeroallergen. Wheal and flare areas were outlined, scanned, and digitally measured. Participants used a 10-cm visual analog scale to record pain during skin testing. RESULTS: Eighteen individuals completed the study. Compared with placebo, ethyl chloride had no significant effect on histamine wheal (P = .53), histamine flare (P = .39), aeroallergen wheal (P = .10), or aeroallergen flare (P = .71) area for SPT. Serial dilutional end-point intradermal testing was similar after ethyl chloride and placebo application (P = .75). Mean pain scores for SPT were improved with ethyl chloride compared with paired placebo skin tests, although pain scores did not reach significance for SPT (P = .21) or intradermal testing (P = .87). CONCLUSIONS: Ethyl chloride does not significantly reduce histamine and aeroallergen wheal and flare areas during SPT and intradermal allergy skin testing. Ethyl chloride, vs placebo, reduced pain in some individuals during skin testing, although this did not attain statistical significance.     

Influence of the histamine control on skin reactivity in skin testing

We investigated the effect of the histamine control (1 mg/ml) on the results of skin prick and intradermal testing with bee and wasp venom. Skin tests were done on the patients' forearms: on the right arm the histamine control and the bee venom dilutions, on the left arm the wasp venom dilutions only, at distances of 4-5 cm. In intradermal testing 11 (9%) of 122 patients showed a positive wheal and flare reaction to the bee venom solution positioned next to the histamine control. The subsequent solutions in higher concentrations did not produce any skin reactions. The results of intradermal testing with bee venom did not occur in intradermal testing with wasp venom or in skin prick testing with both allergens. Our results show clearly that in skin prick tests a distance of 4-5 cm is sufficient to avoid false positive skin reactions. However, using the same distance in intradermal testing showed that histamine affects the skin reactions produced by adjacent allergen solutions. Therefore false positive results may occur.     

Quantitative skin prick testing

Dose-response curves of histamine- and allergen-induced wheal areas were evaluated in seven normals (defined as negative skin prick test (SPT) to inhalant allergens and no clinical signs of allergy), seven latent allergics (positive SPT without allergic symptoms), and 20 manifest allergics (positive SPT and allergic symptoms). Three concentrations of histamine HCl (1, 10 and 100 mg/ml) and three 10-fold concentrations of nine inhalant allergens (birch, timothy, mugwort, horse, dog, cat, house dust mite, Cladosporium and Alternaria) in concentrations 1,000 10,000 and 100,000 BU/ml were used and linear regression was performed on the skin reactions. Only tests with an SD% less than 40%, a log slope greater than 0.1, and a correlation coefficient greater than 0.95 were accepted. In normals a significantly higher concentration of histamine was needed to elicit a wheal reaction of 2 mm2 (end-point) compared with allergics. Likewise, normals had a significantly higher slope i.e. steeper dose-response curve of histamine than manifest allergics. The slope of the allergen-induced wheal area was significantly higher than the histamine slope. No relation between corresponding slope of histamine and allergens was found (Rho = 0.15). The skin sensitivity equivalent to histamine calculated as the allergen concentration eliciting a wheal equal to histamine showed a median increase of 5-6 fold in allergen concentration by a 10-fold increase of histamine concentration. The highest correlation between the wheal area of a single allergen concentration and the skin sensitivity was found for allergen concentration 100,000 BU.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of the effects of levocetirizine and loratadine on histamine-induced wheal, flare, and itch in human skin

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, crossover study compared the effects of the R-enantiomer of cetirizine, levocetirizine, with those of loratadine on the wheal, flare, and itch response to histamine in human skin. METHODS: Levocetirizine (5 mg), loratadine (10 mg), or placebo was taken orally 4 h before the intradermal injection of histamine (20 microl, 100 microM) or the control vehicle into the forearm skin of healthy volunteers. Flare areas were assessed by scanning laser Doppler imaging before and at 30-s intervals for a period of 9 min. Wheal areas were measured by planimetry at 10 min. Itch was scored every 30 s with a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: After placebo administration, the mean peak flare area was 23.01+/-1.94 cm(2), the wheal area 248+/-27 mm(2), and the cumulative itch score 28.8+/-4.6% (mean+/-SEM). Levocetirizine reduced the flare, wheal, and itch by 60%, 68%, and 91%, respectively (all P<0.001, Student's t-test for paired data). The effects of loratadine were variable and not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Levocetirizine (5 mg) is a potent inhibitor of the effects of histamine in human skin with an efficacy that exceeded that of loratadine (10 mg) when single doses of the drugs were administered 4 h before the test.     

Reliability of allergy skin testing

Background

Percutaneous allergen skin testing remains an established benchmark for diagnosing atopic disease. The reliability of skin testing depends greatly on the performance of allergen extracts used, methods used, and the presence of antihistamine medications.

Duration of the antihistaminic effect after discontinuationof ebastine

BACKGROUND: The inhibitory effect of antihistamines on allergen-induced skin reactions can impair the results of allergen skin testing, which are necessary for the diagnosis of atopic diseases. This study was designed to determine the time period required for the inhibitory effect of ebastine on allergen-induced skin reactivity to disappear completely. METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study including 23 out of 27 randomized patients. They received either ebastine 20 mg or placebo once daily for 7 days. At the end of treatment, allergen challenge was performed daily for 7 days. Histamine challenge was performed on day 1 (6 and 24 h) and day 5 after treatment. The wheal and flare surface areas were measured and analyzed. RESULTS: Highly significant inhibition of the wheal and flare response induced by allergen was observed after ebastine treatment on days 1 and 2 as compared with placebo (P < 0.01 for both). The inhibition was reduced, although still significant, by day 3 (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed by day 4 between the ebastine and the placebo groups. The effects of histamine challenge were significantly reduced in the ebastine compared with the placebo group at day 1 (6 and 24 h), and were similar at day 5 after treatment. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the wheal and flare response to allergen after ebastine discontinuation returns to placebo values after 4 days. Therefore, patients using ebastine need to be antihistamine-free for 4 days before the skin prick test. This is valuable information for the allergologist seeking to diagnose allergen sensitivity.     

Time of onset of action of acrivastine in the skin of pollen-allergic subjects

The purpose of this study was to assess the time of onset of action of acrivastine in suppressing the wheal response to histamine (10 mg/ml) and allergen (10000 and 100000 BU/ml) in the skin prick test. Ten subjects with a well-documented allergy to pollen received single doses of 8 mg of acrivastine and placebo according to a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover treatment design. Duplicate skin prick tests were performed 0, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 60 min after medication. The results demonstrated a statistically significant suppression of the wheal reactions 15–20 min after medication, depending on the reaction producers used. The sum of all three producers showed a statistically significant effect on the wheal reaction 15 min after medication. The upper 95% confidence limit for time lag from dosing of acrivastine until reduction from placebo level commences was 6.5 min. The study substantiates that orally administered acrivastine has a rapid onset of action in the skin of allergic subjects. The results indicate that allergen SPT is a more sensitive tool for studying antihistaminergic activity than histamine SPT.     

Diagnosis and Immunotherapy of Mould Allergy

To determine reproducibility and the optimal way of expressing skin sensitivity, simultaneous skin prick tests (SPT) and intradermal tests (ICT) were performed on 25 mould-allergic patients. The patients had a well-documented history of allergy to Cladosporium and Alternaria and were tested with partially purified standardized extracts of these two mould species. Skin prick tests were carried out on the volar side of the forearm and intradermal tests on the backs of the patients. The skin tests were performed as titration using quadruplicate determinations of 10-fold allergen dilutions. The area of the skin reactions measured by planimetry were plotted in a log-log system as a function of the allergen concentration. The reproducibility (SD/mean area X 100%) of the ICTs was significantly higher than that of the SPTs (17% versus 29%). A very low reproducibility was found with wheal areas less than 5 mm2. The dose response curve of the SPT wheal area was steeper than that obtained with ICT, both concerning ICT wheal and flare. Increasing the allergen concentration with a factor 10 resulted in a doubling of the wheal area in SPT, in contrast to a factor 1.7 using ICT. The coefficient of correlation using linear regression on the dose response curve was always higher than 0.9 with SPT and ICT wheal, but significantly lower with ICT flare. Skin sensitivity was estimated as end-point and histamine equivalent reaction. No significant correlation between SPT and ICT end-point titration was found contrary to the histamine equivalent reaction.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of standard and modified SPT method

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to compare clinical significance and economical factors of commonly used standard skin prick tests (SPT) method with new, modified and more handy way of performing SPT. METHODS: Twenty-one subjects [with an average age of 23 years (SD +/- 2.72)] with known sensitivity to examined allergen extracts were tested with histamine, negative control solution and standard allergen extracts (Allergopharma, Reinbeck, Germany). SPT were applied to the volar surface of randomly assigned forearm with two methods: standard technique using lancet needle to prick the epidermis under small drop of extract and tested method using lancet needle which was dipped in extract before prick. In this method all extracts were placed in marked, small, plastic chambers. RESULTS: Mean wheal to histamine was 5.49 (standard method) and 5.01 (modified method). There was no statistical difference between the standard and modified method for size of wheal to histamine (P = 0.654) and to allergen extracts (n = 36, P = 0.824, Wilcoxon test). Economical analysis revealed that examined SPT technique is cheaper than standard method. CONCLUSION: Examined method may be considered to be an alternative for performing SPT as it is safe, cheaper and more convenient than standard technique. Summary statement: Comparison of standard and modified SPT method revealed the new method to be more economical.     

Cetirizine inhibits bradykinin-induced cutaneous wheal and flare in atopic and healthy subjects

BACKGROUND: Kinins are vasoactive mediators involved in allergic reactions. When applied on the skin or in the nose, bradykinin (BK) elicits inflammation that is poorly affected by previous H1-blockade. The aim of this study was to compare the possible effect of cetirizine (an H1-antagonist) on wheal and flare responses to BK, histamine, and compound 48/80 in atopic and healthy subjects. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, crossover study, eight atopic and eight healthy subjects received cetirizine (10 mg/day) or placebo for 3 days before cutaneous tests. Intradermal tests (IDT) and prick tests (PT) were performed with BK (20 nmol/ml for IDT and 20 micromol/ml for PT), histamine (100 microg/ml IDT and 100 mg/ml PT), and compound 48/80 (100 microg/ml IDT and 100 mg/ml PT) as positive controls and saline as negative control. The skin responses were monitored by measurement of wheal and flare areas. RESULTS: BK, histamine, and 48/80 induced wheal and flare reactions in all placebo-treated subjects. Histamine elicited larger wheal and flare reactions than BK and 48/80. IDT with BK induced four- to sixfold larger wheal and flare reaction than PT. No differences in BK-induced wheal and flare were observed between atopic and healthy subjects. In atopic subjects, cetirizine induced a significant reduction of flare reactions after the BK test (80% for IDT, and 94% for PT [P < 0.01]). Moreover, cetirizine reduced significantly BK-induced wheals by 70% for IDT (P < 0.01) and 65% for PT (P < 0.01). A similar inhibiting effect of cetirizine was also observed in healthy subjects. CONCLUSIONS: These findings showed that the wheal and flare reactions induced by BK challenge were markedly inhibited by previous intake of cetirizine. The mechanism by which this effect is mediated cannot be established at present.     

Skin prick test responses to codeine, histamine, and ragweed utilizing the Multitest device

Epicutaneous skin testing is a useful diagnostic tool in evaluating allergic disorders. Utilizing the Multitest device, skin prick test responses to codeine phosphate, histamine phosphate, and ragweed were examined in 56 human subjects. Relationships between the two positive controls, codeine and histamine, and their use as a reference denominator for ragweed reactions were assessed. Ragweed elicited detectable wheals in 15/56. Histamine phosphate (2.75 mg/mL) elicited a positive wheal response in 52/56 subjects, while codeine phosphate elicited a positive wheal in 39/56 and 30/56 subjects at 30 and 3 mg/mL, respectively. Wheal sizes for codeine phosphate at both 30 and 3 mg/mL showed significantly concordant relationships with histamine phosphate-induced wheal sizes (Spearman rho, P = .0084 and .0155, respectively); however the intersubject coefficient of variation was lower for histamine-induced wheal sizes (44%) than for codeine-induced wheal sizes (64% and 65%, respectively for 30 and 3 mg/mL). When a ratio of allergen to positive control reaction size was used to grade ragweed reactions, different patterns were observed using codeine compared with histamine. These results have implications in utilizing codeine phosphate as a positive skin prick test control for allergy testing.     

Optimization of skin testing

Standardized extracts of Phleum pratensis (grass) and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (house-dust mite) were used as test allergens for multiple regression in order to determine optimum concentrations and cutoff values with regard to diagnostic capacity and safety. If a RAST value of class 1 or more was taken as an indication of sensitization, it was found that the optimum concentrations for the detection of sensitization are in the range 10–100 BU/ml and 1500–10000 BU/ml for intracutaneous tests (ICT) and skin prick tests (SPT), respectively. The skin test results were expressed as histamine ratios. Using allergen concentrations of 30 and 3000 BU/ml, we found cutoff values of 0.87 and 0.53 and predictive values of 87.1% and 19.1% for ICT and SPT, respectively. The maximum wheal size (mean wheal size + 2 SD) to be expected in 95% of the population was 26.6 mm (ICT) and 10.9 mm (SPT), sizes regarded as safe by most clinicians. In conclusion, by using this method with a limited number of patients, one can probably improve the diagnostic precision and safety of the skin test. In the second part of this study, these hypotheses were prospectively tested in a multicenter study.     

Reliability of skin prick tests during terfenadine treatment in adults with pollen rhinitis

The variation in skin prick test (SPT) results was evaluated clinically during terfenadine treatment in 39 adult patients with pollen rhinitis. A change in the perceived state of the patient as regards sensitization to a specific pollen allergen or atopic constitution was judged to be clinically important. A randomized, double-blind, crossover design was used, comprising 2 weeks on terfenadine 120 mg once a day and 2 weeks on placebo. SPT for two pollen allergens and histamine (10mg/ml) were evaluated at the start of the study and at the end of each period. When SPT was used as a discovery test and liberal definitions were applied, predictive values for a positive test were 100%. 1-Sensitivity ranged between 10 and 54% with substantially lower values when a histamine wheal reaction was noted. The inhibitory effect of terfenadine was detectable 2 weeks after withdrawal as a reduction in the median of the mean diameter for the histamine-induced wheal response of 1 mm (0–1.5). The data implied that a positive SPT is reliable when liberal definitions are adopted for sensitization and atopy; a negative SPT is presumably reliable when the measurement artifact is considered and the wheal reaction to histamine is detectable.     

Comparison of the effects of desloratadine and levocetirizine on histamine-induced wheal,flare and itch in human skin

Objective: A previous study showed the inhibitory effects of loratadine on histamine-induced wheal, flare and itch in human skin to be very variable between individuals. It was hypothesised that this variability may have been due to differences in the rates of metabolism of loratadine to its active form, desloratadine. This double blind, crossover study examined the effects of desloratadine in 12 healthy volunteers. Levocetirizine was used as a comparator. Methods: Desloratadine (5 mg), levocetirizine (5 mg) or placebo was taken orally 4 h before an intradermal injection of histamine (20 l, 100 M) or vehicle control into the forearm skin. Flare areas were assessed by scanning laser Doppler imaging before and at 30 s intervals for a period of 9 min. Wheal areas were measured by planimetry at 10 min. Itch was scored every 30 s for 5 min using a visual analogue scale. Results: Following placebo administration, the mean (± SEM) wheal area at 10 min was 79.3 ± 6.9 mm², mean flare area for the first 5 min following challenge 26.6 ± 2.7 cm², and itch score for the same period 48.5 ± 7.6%. The effects of desloratadine were variable between individuals, mean reductions in the wheal and flare areas being 17% (P = 0.033) and 12% (P = 0.036). Desloratadine did not reduce itch significantly. Levocetirizine was more consistent in its effects, mean reductions in wheal, flare and itch being 51%, 67% 78% respectively (all P < 0.001). Conclusions: A single dose of 5 mg levocetirizine produced more consistent and greater inhibitory effects on histamine-induced wheal, flare and itch than did 5 mg desloratadine. The difference is suggested to reflect the basic pharmacokinetics of the two drugs.Received 21 May 2003; returned for revision 29 May 2003; accepted by M. Parnham 5 June 2003     

The results of skin prick testing in patients with allergic rhinitis: a comparison between a multiple lancet device and a single lancet

Skin prick testing (SPT) is widely used in the assessment of allergic disorders. Different SPT techniques are widely used. The aim of this study was to compare the response to SPT using a multiple lancet device (MLD) with the results of a single lancet (SL). Fifty patients with allergic rhinitis were included in this study. Initially, SPT was performed by a SL technique. After one week SPT was repeated using the MLD on all patients. The patients were tested with a panel containing 19 specific allergens including grass pollen, tree pollen, house dust mites, weed pollen allergen extracts, histamine and a negative control. The skin responses were recorded after 15 minutes for each device by measuring the diameter of the wheal and the erythema. The skin wheal responses for grass pollen, tree pollen, weed pollen and house dust mite allergen extracts obtained using the SL were generally significantly larger than those using the MLD. The comparison between the MLD and the SL methods revealed that SPT was positive with SL and negative with MLD in 176 tests (15.3%), and on the contrary SPT was positive with MLD and negative with SL in only 13 tests (1%). In conclusion, we claim that SPT using SL shows a higher degree of sensitivity and reproducibility.     

Twenty-four hours of activity of cetirizine and fexofenadine in the skin.

BACKGROUND: Cetirizine and fexofenadine, the active metabolite of terfenadine, are powerful and well-tolerated H1 receptor antagonists effective in the treatment of skin and nose atopic diseases. OBJECTIVE: We have compared the pharmacodynamic activity of the two antihistamines at therapeutic dosages, cetirizine at 10 mg and fexofenadine at 120 mg and 180 mg, on histamine-induced skin reactivity during a 24-hour period after single intake. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy volunteers participated in a randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study. The areas of wheal and flare induced by histamine (100 mg/mL) administered by prick test were measured at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 hours postdose. Statistical analysis of the areas under the time-response curves was performed by a Friedman's ANOVA followed by a Wilcoxon test and Bonferroni's correction. RESULTS: The three active treatments clearly inhibited the wheal and flare areas throughout the 24-hour period compared with placebo. Maximal inhibition occurred at 4 hours postdose. Between 4 and 24 hours postdose, the time course of inhibition by cetirizine differed significantly (P < 0.001) from that by fexofenadine at either dose, which did not differ from each other. At 24 hours, fexofenadine inhibited <40% of the skin reaction, whereas cetirizine reduced 60% of the wheal. The duration of effect, considered as the time for wheal to be inhibited by at least 70%, also significantly favored cetirizine (19 hours) compared with fexofenadine (9.3 and 8.5 hours for 180 and 120 mg, respectively; P < 0.001). Consistency of activity was evaluated by the frequency of total inhibition of the wheal (> or =95%). Consistency was observed in 26 of 26 participants for cetirizine, 21 of 26 for fexofenadine, 180 mg, and 10 of 26 for fexofenadine, 120 mg (P < 0.001), suggesting better consistency for cetirizine. There was no serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Our study clearly shows better duration of action and consistency of the antihistaminic activity of cetirizine compared with fexofenadine (120 and 180 mg) in the histamine-induced skin reaction during a 24-hour period.     

Tissue Repair and Fibrosis

Background

Because antileukotrienes may inhibit inflammation, it is plausible that montelukast administered for a long time could suppress skin wheal and flare reaction, and thus, it should be discarded prior to the tests. This study assessed the effect of long-lasting treatment with montelukast alone or in combination with antihistamines on wheal and flare in skin pricks tests (SPT) in patients sensitized to perennial allergens.

Methods

We conducted a 32-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over and randomized trial that implicated two arms: arm A, 20 patients received levocetirizine, montelukast with or without levocetirizine or placebo; arm B, 20 patients received desloratadine, montelukast with or without desloratadine or placebo. All treatment periods lasted 6 weeks and were separated by 2-week washouts. At baseline and on the last day of each treatment period, SPT were performed in all participants.

Results

Both levocetirizine and desloratadine in monotherapy, or in combination with montelukast, were effective in reducing wheal and flare in SPT. Monotherapy with montelukast did not change the size of the wheal for either histamine or for house dust mites, in either arm of the study, but significantly reduced the size of flare for histamine in arm A. Addition of montelukast to antihistamine did not exceed efficacy of monotherapy with antihistamine in both arms of the study.

Conclusions

Since the size of wheal determines the results of SPT, montelukast, even taken for a long time, does not have to be discarded prior to the tests.     

Circadian variation of skin reactivity and allergy skin tests

Previous investigations of the circadian variation in skin reactivity suggested that results of skin tests obtained in the afternoon could vary from the results obtained in the early morning and therefore could result in a differing assessment of patient sensitivity. To determine whether this was a practical concern in the normal clinical setting, we studied 20 adults and 20 children who had skin prick tests positive (3+ or more) to short ragweed. These patients were skin tested in duplicate at 8 AM and at 4 PM with fivefold serial dilutions of short ragweed extracts (1:20 to 1:12,500, wt/vol) and of histamine hydrochloride (10 to 0.016 mg/ml). Areas of wheal and flare were recorded and measured by computed planimetry. In addition, results were also read according to a conventional scoring system. Mean wheal and erythema areas with ragweed and histamine at each dilution were compared between morning and their corresponding evening values. Although there was a trend for the morning means to be larger than evening means, no significant differences between the two sessions were observed at any dilution. Mean morning skin index scores, as calculated from the combined mean wheal and erythema areas, were larger than mean evening scores for ragweed and histamine, but the differences were not of a degree to be clinically important. This observation was also true for conventional scores. Comparing the results from the two groups of children who had their first set of skin tests performed either in the morning or afternoon session indicated that there was no evidence of a refractory state of the skin during the second test sessions.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Cetirizine inhibits bradykinin-induced cutaneous wheal and flare in atopic and healthy subjects

BACKGROUND: Kinins are vasoactive mediators involved in allergic reactions. When applied on the skin or in the nose, bradykinin (BK) elicits inflammation that is poorly affected by previous H1-blockade. The aim of this study was to compare the possible effect of cetirizine (an H1-antagonist) on wheal and flare responses to BK, histamine, and compound 48/80 in atopic and healthy subjects. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, crossover study, eight atopic and eight healthy subjects received cetirizine (10 mg/day) or placebo for 3 days before cutaneous tests. Intradermal tests (IDT) and prick tests (PT) were performed with BK (20 nmol/ml for IDT and 20 micromol/ml for PT), histamine (100 microg/ml IDT and 100 mg/ml PT), and compound 48/80 (100 microg/ml IDT and 100 mg/ml PT) as positive controls and saline as negative control. The skin responses were monitored by measurement of wheal and flare areas. RESULTS: BK, histamine, and 48/80 induced wheal and flare reactions in all placebo-treated subjects. Histamine elicited larger wheal and flare reactions than BK and 48/80. IDT with BK induced four- to six-fold larger wheal and flare reaction than PT. No differences in BK-induced wheal and flare were observed between atopic and healthy subjects. In atopic subjects, cetirizine induced a significant reduction of flare reactions after the BK test (80% for IDT, and 94% for PT [P<0.01]). Moreover, cetirizine reduced significantly BK-induced wheals by 70% for IDT (P<0.01) and 65% for PT (P<0.01). A similar inhibiting effect of cetirizine was also observed in healthy subjects. CONCLUSIONS: These findings showed that the wheal and flare reactions induced by BK challenge were markedly inhibited by previous intake of cetirizine. The mechanism by which this effect is mediated cannot be established at present.     

Efficacy of ebastine, cetirizine, and loratadine in histamine cutaneous challenges.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the antihistaminic effect of ebastine at 20 mg/day (maximal recommended daily dose) with the effect found for other antihistamines in human pharmacologic models. OBJECTIVE: To compare the inhibition of the histamine-induced skin reaction produced by ebastine (20 mg/day) with that produced by cetirizine (10 mg/day), loratadine (10 mg/day), or placebo in a double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled clinical trial. METHODS: Twenty volunteers (10 men and 10 women) received the four treatments once daily for 7 days, with a mean 7-day washout period between treatments. Three intradermal histamine challenges (0.05 mL of a 100 microg/mL histamine solution at 4, 8, and 24 hours after drug administration) were performed at baseline, day 1 (single dose), and day 7 (multiple doses). Wheal and flare areas were measured after 15 minutes. RESULTS: All treatments yielded significant reductions of histamine-induced wheal in comparison to placebo (P < 0.001). Analysis of covariance revealed significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05). Ebastine had a significantly greater antihistaminic effect than did cetirizine or loratadine, except at 4 hours after a single dose versus cetirizine. Further, the effect of cetirizine was similar with single or multiple doses after both 4 and 24 hours, whereas the effect of ebastine showed significant increases in wheal reduction with multiple doses (P < 0.05). No serious adverse events or withdrawals occurred during the study. CONCLUSION: This study shows that ebastine in a 20-mg dose is an effective once-daily antihistamine. Superior efficacy was found in comparison to cetirizine (10 mg) or loratadine (10 mg) on the overall skin wheal response after single and multiple doses.