The role of histamine and its receptors in breast cancer: from pathology to therapeutic targets.

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women, and despite the development of new treatment methods and the decreasing mortality rate in recent years, one of the clinical problems in breast cancer treatment is chronic inflammation in the tumor microenvironment. Histamine, an inflammatory mediator, is produced by tumor cells and can induce chronic inflammation and the growth of some tumors by recruiting inflammatory cells. It can also affect tumor physiopathology, antitumor treatment efficiency, and patient survival. Antihistamines, as histamine receptor antagonists, play a role in modulating the effects of these receptors in tumor cells and can affect some treatment methods for breast cancer therapy; in this review, we investigate the role of histamine, its receptors, and antihistamines in breast cancer pathology and treatment methods.

Urticarial Vasculitis.

Urticarial vasculitis is a rare autoimmune disorder characterized by persistent edematous papules and plaques on the skin that last longer than 24 hours, often accompanied by systemic symptoms such as joint pain and fever. Unlike common urticaria, this condition involves inflammation of small blood vessels, leading to more severe and long-lasting skin lesions with a tendency to leave a bruiselike appearance. Diagnosis is challenging and may require a skin biopsy. Associated with underlying autoimmune diseases, treatment involves managing symptoms with medications such as antihistamines and corticosteroids, addressing the immune system's dysfunction, and treating any concurrent autoimmune conditions.

Treatment with Antihistamines and the Risk of Liver Cancer in Patients with Viral Hepatitis: A Multi-Center Cohort Study.

Background: The effects of antihistamines on cancer risk and prognosis have been inconsistent across cancers. The aim of this multi-center cohort study was to investigate the association between antihistamine use and the risk of liver cancer in individuals with viral hepatitis. Methods: This multi-center cohort study included individuals diagnosed with hepatitis B or hepatitis C between January 2008 and March 2022. For antihistamine-treated patients, the index date was the date of antihistamine prescription, and for non-users, it was the date of hepatitis diagnosis. Participants were followed for five years, with the primary outcome of interest being new-onset liver cancer. The incidence rate and the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) of the outcome were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted, stratified by types of viral hepatitis including hepatitis C and hepatitis B. An additional validation study was performed. Results: The study included a total of 7748 patients with viral hepatitis. The incidence rate was 12.58 per 1000 person-years in patients with viral hepatitis on antihistamines, compared to 3.88 per 1000 person-years in those without antihistamine use. After adjusting for factors including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, laboratory data of liver function tests, comedications, and the use of antiviral therapies, the risk of new-onset liver cancer was significantly higher in patients on antihistamines (aHR = 1.83, 95% CI, 1.28-2.60). In patients with hepatitis C, the incidence rate in the antihistamine group was 15.73 per 1000 person-years, while non-users had a rate of 4.79 per 1000 person-years. Patients with hepatitis C on antihistamines had a significantly higher risk of developing liver cancer (aHR = 3.24, 95% CI, 2.16-4.86). Conclusions: This multi-center cohort study reported an increased risk of liver cancer in patients with hepatitis B or hepatitis C treated with antihistamines. Long-term follow-up studies are warranted to validate the findings.

Repurposing the antihistamine drug bilastine as an anti-cancer metallic drug entity: synthesis and single-crystal X-ray structure analysis of metal-based bilastine and phen [Co(II), Cu(II) and Zn(II)] tailored anticancer chemotherapeutic agents against resistant cancer cells.

Bilastine (BLA), 2-(4-(2-(4-(1-(2-ethoxyethyl)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole-2-yl)-piperidin-1-yl)-ethyl)-phenyl)-2-methylpropanoic acid, is an active antihistamine drug. With the idea of repurposing drugs from the existing pool of 'active' pharmaceutical ingredients, the therapeutic potency of bilastine as an anticancer agent was investigated via the tailored synthesis of a metal-based anticancer drug formulation of the type [BLA(phen)2M(II)]+·X-, where M = Co, Cu, and Zn and X- = NO3 and ClO4. The synthesized metal-based chemotherapeutics derived from the bilastine drug that acts as a ligand were thoroughly characterized using spectroscopic techniques, namely, UV-vis, FT-IR, and EPR (in the case of 1 and 2); 1H-NMR and 13C-NMR (in the case of 3); ESI-MS and single-crystal X-ray diffraction studies. Comprehensive biological studies (DNA binding, cleavage, and cytotoxic activity) using various biophysical and gel electrophoretic methods were carried out to validate their potential as anticancer agents. The cytotoxic activity of 'therapeutically promising' copper(II)-based drug candidate 2 was evaluated against MCF-7, MBA-MD-231, HeLa, HepG2, and Mia-PaCa-2 cancer cells via an SRB assay, and the results demonstrated 2 as a potent anticancer agent at low nanomolar concentrations against all tested cancer cells, preferably with a much superior anticancer efficacy against human pancreatic cancer cells.

Omalizumab in the treatment of Morbihan syndrome in an adolescent girl - case report and literature review.

Morbihan syndrome (MS) is characterized by solid facial edema, usually related to rosacea or acne vulgaris. The facial edema deforms the patient's features, can impair peripheral vision, and affects quality of life. Its pathophysiology remains unclear. The disease usually has a slow and chronic course. MS most commonly affects middle-aged Caucasian men with rosacea and is rare in people below 20 years of age. MS is a diagnosis of exclusion. There is no standard treatment for MS, though systemic isotretinoin and antihistamines are mainly used. We present the case of an adolescent girl with MS nonresponding to 19 months of isotretinoin treatment with add-on antihistamines. Therapy with monthly administration of omalizumab (anti-IgE) for 6 months was an effective therapeutic option, improving the quality of life. Our case is the second description of omalizumab use in Morbihan syndrome, the first in an adolescent.

H2 antihistamines: May be useful for combination therapies in cancer?

Cancer morbimortality is still a great concern despite advances in research and therapies. Histamine and its receptors' ligands can modulate different biological responses according to the cell type and the receptor subtype involved. Besides the wide variety of histamine functions in normal tissues, diverse roles in the acquisition of hallmarks of cancer such as sustained proliferative signaling, resistance to cell death, angiogenesis, metastasis, altered immunity and modified microenvironment have been described. This review summarizes the present knowledge of the various roles of histamine H2 receptor (H2R) ligands in neoplasias. A bioinformatic analysis of human tumors showed dissimilar results in the expression of the H2R gene according to tumor type when comparing malignant versus normal tissues. As well, the relationship between patients' survival parameters and H2R gene expression levels also varied, signaling important divergences in the role of H2R in neoplastic progression in different cancer types. Revised experimental evidence showed multiple effects of H2R antihistamines on several of the cited hallmarks of cancer. Interventional and retrospective clinical studies evaluated different H2R antihistamines in cancer patients with two main adjuvant uses: improving antitumor efficacy (which includes regulation of immune response) and preventing toxic adverse effects produced by chemo or radiotherapy. While there is a long path to go, research on H2R antihistamines may provide new opportunities for developing more refined combination therapeutic strategies for certain cancer types to improve patients' survival and health-related quality of life.

[Standard technical specifications for methacholine chloride (Methacholine) bronchial challenge test (2023)].

The methacholine challenge test (MCT) is a standard evaluation method of assessing airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and its severity, and has significant clinical value in the diagnosis and treatment of bronchial asthma. A consensus working group consisting of experts from the Pulmonary Function and Clinical Respiratory Physiology Committee of the Chinese Association of Chest Physicians, the Task Force for Pulmonary Function of the Chinese Thoracic Society, and the Pulmonary Function Group of Respiratory Branch of the Chinese Geriatric Society jointly developed this consensus. Based on the "Guidelines for Pulmonary Function-Bronchial Provocation Test" published in 2014, the issues encountered in its use, and recent developments, the group has updated the Standard technical specifications of methacholine chloride (methacholine) bronchial challenge test (2023). Through an extensive collection of expert opinions, literature reviews, questionnaire surveys, and multiple rounds of online and offline discussions, the consensus addressed the eleven core issues in MCT's clinical practice, including indications, contraindications, preparation of provocative agents, test procedures and methods, quality control, safety management, interpretation of results, and reporting standards. The aim was to provide clinical pulmonary function practitioners in healthcare institutions with the tools to optimize the use of this technique to guide clinical diagnosis and treatment.Summary of recommendationsQuestion 1: Who is suitable for conducting MCT? What are contraindications for performing MCT?Patients with atypical symptoms and a clinical suspicion of asthma, patients diagnosed with asthma requiring assessment of the severity of airway hyperresponsiveness, individuals with allergic rhinitis who are at risk of developing asthma, patients in need of evaluating the effectiveness of asthma treatment, individuals in occupations with high safety risks due to airway hyperresponsiveness, patients with chronic diseases prone to airway hyperresponsiveness, others requiring assessment of airway reactivity.Absolute contraindications: (1) Patients who are allergic to methacholine (MCh) or other parasympathomimetic drugs, with allergic reactions including rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face, tongue, and throat), severe dizziness, and dyspnea; (2) Patients with a history of life-threatening asthma attacks or those who have required mechanical ventilation for asthma attacks in the past three months; (3) Patients with moderate to severe impairment of baseline pulmonary function [Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) less than 60% of the predicted value or FEV1<1.0 L]; (4) Severe urticaria; (5) Other situations inappropriate for forced vital capacity (FVC) measurement, such as myocardial infarction or stroke in the past three months, poorly controlled hypertension, aortic aneurysm, recent eye surgery, or increased intracranial pressure.Relative contraindications: (1) Moderate or more severe impairment of baseline lung function (FEV1%pred<70%), but individuals with FEV1%pred>60% may still be considered for MCT with strict observation and adequate preparation; (2) Experiencing asthma acute exacerbation; (3) Poor cooperation with baseline lung function tests that do not meet quality control requirements; (4) Recent respiratory tract infection (<4 weeks); (5) Pregnant or lactating women; (6) Patients currently using cholinesterase inhibitors (for the treatment of myasthenia gravis); (7) Patients who have previously experienced airway spasm during pulmonary function tests, with a significant decrease in FEV1 even without the inhalation of provocative.Question 2: How to prepare and store the challenge solution for MCT?Before use, the drug must be reconstituted and then diluted into various concentrations for provocation. The dilution concentration and steps for MCh vary depending on the inhalation method and provocation protocol used. It is important to follow specific steps. Typically, a specified amount of diluent is added to the methacholine reagent bottle for reconstitution, and the mixture is shaken until the solution becomes clear. The diluent is usually physiological saline, but saline with phenol (0.4%) can also be used. Phenol can reduce the possibility of bacterial contamination, and its presence does not interfere with the provocation test. After reconstitution, other concentrations of MCh solution are prepared using the same diluent, following the dilution steps, and then stored separately in sterile containers. Preparers should carefully verify and label the concentration and preparation time of the solution and complete a preparation record form. The reconstituted and diluted MCh solution is ready for immediate use without the need for freezing. It can be stored for two weeks if refrigerated (2-8 ℃). The reconstituted solution should not be stored directly in the nebulizer reservoir to prevent crystallization from blocking the capillary opening and affecting aerosol output. The temperature of the solution can affect the production of the nebulizer and cause airway spasms in the subject upon inhaling cold droplets. Thus, refrigerated solutions should be brought to room temperature before use.Question 3: What preparation is required for subjects prior to MCT?(1) Detailed medical history inquiry and exclusion of contraindications.(2) Inquiring about factors and medications that may affect airway reactivity and assessing compliance with medication washout requirements: When the goal is to evaluate the effectiveness of asthma treatment, bronchodilators other than those used for asthma treatment do not need to be discontinued. Antihistamines and cromolyn have no effect on MCT responses, and the effects of a single dose of inhaled corticosteroids and leukotriene modifiers are minimal, thus not requiring cessation before the test. For patients routinely using corticosteroids, whether to discontinue the medication depends on the objective of the test: if assisting in the diagnosis of asthma, differential diagnosis, aiding in step-down therapy for asthma, or exploring the effect of discontinuing anti-inflammatory treatment, corticosteroids should be stopped before the provocation test; if the patient is already diagnosed with asthma and the objective is to observe the level of airway reactivity under controlled medication conditions, then discontinuation is not necessary. Medications such as IgE monoclonal antibodies, IL-4Rα monoclonal antibodies, traditional Chinese medicine, and ethnic medicines may interfere with test results, and clinicians should decide whether to discontinue these based on the specific circumstances.(3) Explaining the test procedure and potential adverse reactions, and obtaining informed consent if necessary.Question 4: What are the methods of the MCT? And which ones are recommended in current clinical practice?Commonly used methods for MCT in clinical practice include the quantitative nebulization method (APS method), Forced Oscillalion method (Astograph method), 2-minute tidal breathing method (Cockcroft method), hand-held quantitative nebulization method (Yan method), and 5-breath method (Chai 5-breath method). The APS method allows for precise dosing of inhaled Methacholine, ensuring accurate and reliable results. The Astograph method, which uses respiratory resistance as an assessment indicator, is easy for subjects to perform and is the simplest operation. These two methods are currently the most commonly used clinical practice in China.Question 5: What are the steps involved in MCT?The MCT consists of the following four steps:(1) Baseline lung function test: After a 15-minute rest period, the subjects assumes a seated position and wear a nose clip for the measurement of pulmonary function indicators [such as FEV1 or respiratory resistance (Rrs)]. FEV1 should be measured at least three times according to spirometer quality control standards, ensuring that the best two measurements differ by less than 150 ml and recording the highest value as the baseline. Usually, if FEV1%pred is below 70%, proceeding with the challenge test is not suitable, and a bronchodilation test should be considered. However, if clinical assessment of airway reactivity is necessary and FEV1%pred is between 60% and 70%, the provocation test may still be conducted under close observation, ensuring the subject's safety. If FEV1%pred is below 60%, it is an absolute contraindication for MCT.(2) Inhalation of diluent and repeat lung function test for control values: the diluent, serving as a control for the inhaled MCh, usually does not significantly impact the subject's lung function. the higher one between baseline value and the post-dilution FEV1 is used as the reference for calculating the rate of FEV1 decline. If post-inhalation FEV1 decreases, there are usually three scenarios: ①If FEV1 decreases by less than 10% compared to the baseline, the test can proceed, continue the test and administer the first dose of MCh. ②If the FEV1 decreases by≥10% and<20%, indicating a heightened airway reactivity to the diluent, proceed with the lowest concentration (dose) of the provoking if FEV1%pred has not yet reached the contraindication criteria for the MCT. if FEV1%pred<60% and the risk of continuing the challenge test is considerable, it is advisable to switch to a bronchodilation test and indicate the change in the test results report. ③If FEV1 decreases by≥20%, it can be directly classified as a positive challenge test, and the test should be discontinued, with bronchodilators administered to alleviate airway obstruction.(3) Inhalation of MCh and repeat lung function test to assess decline: prepare a series of MCh concentrations, starting from the lowest and gradually increasing the inhaled concentration (dose) using different methods. Perform pulmonaryfunction tests at 30 seconds and 90 seconds after completing nebulization, with the number of measurements limited to 3-4 times. A complete Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) measurement is unnecessary during testing; only an acceptable FEV1 measurement is required. The interval between two consecutive concentrations (doses) generally should not exceed 3 minutes. If FEV1 declines by≥10% compared to the control value, reduce the increment of methacholine concentration (dose) and adjust the inhalation protocol accordingly. If FEV1 declines by≥20% or more compared to the control value or if the maximum concentration (amount) has been inhaled, the test should be stopped. After inhaling the MCh, close observation of the subject's response is necessary. If necessary, monitor blood oxygen saturation and auscultate lung breath sounds. The test should be promptly discontinued in case of noticeable clinical symptoms or signs.(4) Inhalation of bronchodilator and repeat lung function test to assess recovery: when the bronchial challenge test shows a positive response (FEV1 decline≥20%) or suspiciously positive, the subject should receive inhaled rapid-acting bronchodilators, such as short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) or short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMA). Suppose the subject exhibits obvious symptoms of breathlessness, wheezing, or typical asthma manifestations, and wheezing is audible in the lungs, even if the positive criteria are not met. In that case, the challenge test should be immediately stopped, and rapid-acting bronchodilators should be administered. Taking salbutamol as an example, inhale 200-400 µg (100 µg per puff, 2-4 puffs, as determined by the physician based on the subject's condition). Reassess pulmonary function after 5-10 minutes. If FEV1 recovers to within 10% of the baseline value, the test can be concluded. However, if there is no noticeable improvement (FEV1 decline still≥10%), record the symptoms and signs and repeat the bronchodilation procedure as mentioned earlier. Alternatively, add Ipratropium bromide (SAMA) or further administer nebulized bronchodilators and corticosteroids for intensified treatment while keeping the subject under observation until FEV1 recovers to within 90% of the baseline value before allowing the subject to leave.Question 6: What are the quality control requirements for the APS and Astograph MCT equipment?(1) APS Method Equipment Quality Control: The APS method for MCT uses a nebulizing inhalation device that requires standardized flowmeters, compressed air power source pressure and flow, and nebulizer aerosol output. Specific quality control methods are as follows:a. Flow and volume calibration of the quantitative nebulization device: Connect the flowmeter, an empty nebulization chamber, and a nebulization filter in sequence, attaching the compressed air source to the bottom of the chamber to ensure airtight connections. Then, attach a 3 L calibration syringe to the subject's breathing interface and simulate the flow during nebulization (typically low flow:<2 L/s) to calibrate the flow and volume. If calibration results exceed the acceptable range of the device's technical standards, investigate and address potential issues such as air leaks or increased resistance due to a damp filter, then recalibrate. Cleaning the flowmeter or replacing the filter can change the resistance in the breathing circuit, requiring re-calibration of the flow.b. Testing the compressed air power source: Regularly test the device, connecting the components as mentioned above. Then, block the opening of the nebulization device with a stopper or hand, start the compressed air power source, and test its pressure and flow. If the test results do not meet the technical standards, professional maintenance of the equipment may be required.c. Verification of aerosol output of the nebulization chamber: Regularly verify all nebulization chambers used in provocation tests. Steps include adding a certain amount of saline to the chamber, weighing and recording the chamber's weight (including saline), connecting the nebulizer to the quantitative nebulization device, setting the nebulization time, starting nebulization, then weighing and recording the post-nebulization weight. Calculate the unit time aerosol output using the formula [(weight before nebulization-weight after nebulization)/nebulization time]. Finally, set the nebulization plan for the provocation test based on the aerosol output, considering the MCh concentration, single inhalation nebulization duration, number of nebulization, and cumulative dose to ensure precise dosing of the inhaled MCh.(2) Astograph method equipment quality control: Astograph method equipment for MCT consists of a respiratory resistance monitoring device and a nebulization medication device. Perform zero-point calibration, volume calibration, impedance verification, and nebulization chamber checks daily before tests to ensure the resistance measurement system and nebulization system function properly. Calibration is needed every time the equipment is turned on, and more frequently if there are significant changes in environmental conditions.a. Zero-point calibration: Perform zero-point calibration before testing each subject. Ensure the nebulization chamber is properly installed and plugged with no air leaks.b. Volume calibration: Use a 3 L calibration syringe to calibrate the flow sensor at a low flow rate (approximately 1 L/s).c. Resistance verification: Connect low impedance tubes (1.9-2.2 cmH2O·L-1·s-1) and high impedance tubes (10.2-10.7 cmH2O·L-1·s-1) to the device interface for verification.d. Bypass check: Start the bypass check and record the bypass value; a value>150 ml/s is normal.e. Nebulization chamber check: Check each of the 12 nebulization chambers daily, especially those containing bronchodilators, to ensure normal spraying. The software can control each nebulization chamber to produce spray automatically for a preset duration (e.g., 2 seconds). Observe the formation of water droplets on the chamber walls, indicating normal spraying. If no nebulization occurs, check for incorrect connections or blockages.Question 7: How to set up and select the APS method in MCT?The software program of the aerosol provocation system in the quantitative nebulization method can independently set the nebulizer output, concentration of the methacholine agent, administration time, and number of administrations and combine these parameters to create the challenge test process. In principle, the concentration of the methacholine agent should increase from low to high, and the dose should increase from small to large. According to the standard, a 2-fold or 4-fold incremental challenge process is generally used. In clinical practice, the dose can be simplified for subjects with good baseline lung function and no history of wheezing, such as using a recommended 2-concentration, 5-step method (25 and 50 g/L) and (6.25 and 25 g/L). Suppose FEV1 decreases by more than 10% compared to the baseline during the test to ensure subject safety. In that case, the incremental dose of the methacholine agent can be reduced, and the inhalation program can be adjusted appropriately. If the subject's baseline lung function declines or has recent daytime or nighttime symptoms such as wheezing or chest tightness, a low concentration, low dose incremental process should be selected.Question 8: What are the precautions for the operation process of the Astograph method in MCT?(1) Test equipment: The Astograph method utilizes the forced oscillation technique, applying a sinusoidal oscillating pressure at the mouthpiece during calm breathing. Subjects inhale nebulized MCh of increasing concentrations while continuous monitoring of respiratory resistance (Rrs) plots the changes, assessing airway reactivity and sensitivity. The nebulization system employs jet nebulization technology, comprising a compressed air pump and 12 nebulization cups. The first cup contains saline, cups 2 to 11 contain increasing concentrations of MCh, and the 12th cup contains a bronchodilator solution.(2) Provocation process: Prepare 10 solutions of MCh provocant with gradually increasing concentrations.(3) Operational procedure: The oscillation frequency is usually set to 3 Hz (7 Hz for children) during the test. The subject breathes calmly, inhales saline solution nebulized first, and records the baseline resistance value (if the subject's baseline resistance value is higher than 10 cmH2O·L-1·s-1, the challenge test should not be performed). Then, the subject gradually inhales increasing concentrations of methacholine solution. Each concentration solution is inhaled for 1 minute, and the nebulization system automatically switches to the next concentration for inhalation according to the set time. Each nebulizer cup contains 2-3 ml of solution, the output is 0.15 ml/min, and each concentration is inhaled for 1 minute. The dose-response curve is recorded automatically. Subjects should breathe tidally during the test, avoiding deep breaths and swallowing. Continue until Rrs significantly rises to more than double the baseline value, or if the subject experiences notable respiratory symptoms or other discomfort, such as wheezing in both lungs upon auscultation. At this point, the inhalation of the provocant should be stopped and the subject switchs to inhaling a bronchodilator until Rrs returns to pre-provocation levels. If there is no significant increase in Rrs, stop the test after inhaling the highest concentration of MCh.Question 9: How to interpret the results of the MCT?The method chosen for the MCT determines the specific indicators used for interpretation. The most commonly used indicator is FEV1, although other parameters such as Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF) and Rrs can also be used to assess airway hyperresponsiveness.Qualitative judgment: The test results can be classified as positive, suspiciously positive, or negative, based on a combination of the judgment indicators and changes in the subject's symptoms. If FEV1 decreases by≥20% compared to the baseline value after not completely inhaling at the highest concentration, the result can be judged as positive for Methacholine bronchial challenge test. If the patient has obvious wheezing symptoms or wheezing is heard in both lungs, but the challenge test does not meet the positive criteria (the highest dose/concentration has been inhaled), and FEV1 decreases between 10% and 20% compared to the baseline level, the result can also be judged as positive. If FEV1 decreases between 15% and 20% compared to the baseline value without dyspnea or wheezing attacks, the result can be judged as suspiciously positive. Astograph method: If Rrs rises to 2 times or more of the baseline resistance before reaching the highest inhalation concentration, or if the subject's lungs have wheezing and severe coughing, the challenge test can be judged as positive. Regardless of the result of the Methacholine bronchial challenge test, factors that affect airway reactivity, such as drugs, seasons, climate, diurnal variations, and respiratory tract infections, should be excluded.Quantitative judgment: When using the APS method, the severity of airway hyperresponsiveness can be graded based on PD20-FEV1 or PC20-FEV1. Existing evidence suggests that PD20 shows good consistency when different nebulizers, inhalation times, and starting concentrations of MCh are used for bronchial provocation tests, whereas there is more variability with PC20. Therefore, PD20 is often recommended as the quantitative assessment indicator. The threshold value for PD20 with the APS method is 2.5 mg.The Astograph method often uses the minimum cumulative dose (Dmin value, in Units) to reflect airway sensitivity. Dmin is the minimum cumulative dose of MCh required to produce a linear increase in Rrs. A dose of 1 g/L of the drug concentration inhaled for 1-minute equals 1 unit. It's important to note that with the continuous increase in inhaled provocant concentration, the concept of cumulative dose in the Astograph method should not be directly compared to other methods. Most asthma patients have a Dmin<10 Units, according to Japanese guidelines. The Astograph method, having been used in China for over twenty years, suggests a high likelihood of asthma when Dmin≤6 Units, with a smaller Dmin value indicating a higher probability. When Dmin is between 6 and 10 Units, further differential diagnosis is advised to ascertain whether the condition is asthma.Precautions:A negative methacholine challenge test (MCT) does not entirely rule out asthma. The test may yield negative results due to the following reasons:(1) Prior use of medications that reduce airway responsiveness, such as ß2 agonists, anticholinergic drugs, antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, theophylline, corticosteroids, etc., and insufficient washout time.(2) Failure to meet quality control standards in terms of pressure, flow rate, particle size, and nebulization volume of the aerosol delivery device.(3) Poor subject cooperation leads to inadequate inhalation of the methacholine agent.(4) Some exercise-induced asthma patients may not be sensitive to direct bronchial challenge tests like the Methacholine challenge and require indirect bronchial challenge tests such as hyperventilation, cold air, or exercise challenge to induce a positive response.(5) A few cases of occupational asthma may only react to specific antigens or sensitizing agents, requiring specific allergen exposure to elicit a positive response.A positive MCT does not necessarily indicate asthma. Other conditions can also present with airway hyperresponsiveness and yield positive results in the challenge test, such as allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, viral upper respiratory infections, allergic alveolitis, tropical eosinophilia, cystic fibrosis, sarcoidosis, bronchiectasis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, post-cardiopulmonary transplant, congestive heart failure, and more. Furthermore, factors like smoking, air pollution, or exercise before the test may also result in a positive bronchial challenge test.Question 10: What are the standardized requirements for the MCT report?The report should include: (1) basic information about the subject; (2) examination data and graphics: present baseline data, measurement data after the last two challenge doses or concentrations in tabular form, and the percentage of actual measured values compared to the baseline; flow-volume curve and volume-time curve before and after challenge test; dose-response curve: showing the threshold for positive challenge; (3) opinions and conclusions of the report: including the operator's opinions, quality rating of the examination, and review opinions of the reviewing physician.Question 11: What are the adverse reactions and safety measures of MCT?During the MCT, the subject needs to repeatedly breathe forcefully and inhale bronchial challenge agents, which may induce or exacerbate bronchospasm and contraction and may even cause life-threatening situations. Medical staff should be fully aware of the indications, contraindications, medication use procedures, and emergency response plans for the MCT.

Premedication strategy in cetuximab rechallenge after Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions.

INTRODUCTION: Cetuximab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is utilized in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and squamous cell head and neck cancers. Due to the risk of hypersensitivity reactions, standard premedication with a histamine-1 (H-1) antagonist is recommended prior to administration, however, there is less guidance for premedication strategies to assist with rechallenge after infusion reactions. Here, we describe two cases of successful cetuximab treatment after Grade 2 reactions, in addition to risk factors and proposed premedication strategies for successful rechallenge. CASE REPORT: Two patients who experienced Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions were both successfully rechallenged with increased premedications 1-2 weeks after initial infusions. The first patient was a 56-year-old male diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab as part of a clinical trial. The second patient was a 73-year-old male diagnosed with head and neck cancer receiving cetuximab as part of standard of care concurrent with radiation. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Each patient was rechallenged with an increased premedication strategy including dexamethasone, famotidine, diphenhydramine, and acetaminophen in addition to reducing the infusion rate. Both patients either continued treatment or successfully completed therapy, without any additional infusion-related reactions. DISCUSSION: We aimed to review risk factors related to cetuximab infusion reactions and propose a premedication strategy for rechallenge postreaction. Known risk factors include male sex and the accumulation of cetuximab-specific IgE. These may be mitigated by the addition of increased premedication with dexamethasone and famotidine with concurrent reduced infusion rate.

Pruritus related to trastuzumab and pertuzumab in HER2 + breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP) as part of a taxane-based regimen has shown benefit in the adjuvant and metastatic HER2 + breast cancer setting. In the CLEOPATRA trial, pruritus was reported in 11-17.6% of patients. The clinical phenotype and potential treatment strategies for this event have not been reported. METHODS: A retrospective review of 2583 patients receiving trastuzumab and pertuzumab for the treatment of HER2 + breast cancer from 11/23/2011 to 6/21/2021 was performed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). Patient demographics, pruritus characteristics, and treatments as documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Of 2583 pts treated with HP, 122 (4.72%) with pruritus were identified. On average, patients experienced pruritus 319.0 days (8-3171) after initiation of HP. The upper extremities (67.4%), back (29.3%), lower extremities (17.4%), and shoulders (14.1%) were the most commonly affected regions. Grade 1/2 pruritus (97.6%) occurred in most cases. Patients responded primarily to treatment with topical steroids (52.2%), antihistamines (29.9%), emollients (20.9%), and gabapentinoids (16.4%). Of those with pruritus, 4 patients (3.3%) required treatment interruption or discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Pruritus is uncommon in patients on trastuzumab and pertuzumab, generally a chronic condition, with gabapentinoids or antihistamines representing effective therapies.

Impact of antihistamine use on the survival outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced cancer patients.

Histamine and H1 receptors play a crucial role in the tumor microenvironment. Preclinical data showed that concomitant use of antihistamines and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) might increase the effect of ICIs. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of antihistamines on the oncological outcomes of ICIs. This retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary cancer center. Advanced cancer patients treated with ICIs were included in this study. A total of 133 patients receiving ICIs in the metastatic setting were included. Melanoma (33.1%) was the most common tumor type. The most common ICI was nivolumab (63.2%). Fifty-five (38.4%) patients received antihistamines concomitantly with ICIs. The most common antihistamine was pheniramine (85.5%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) (8.2 vs. 5.1 months, P  = 0.016) and overall survival (OS) (16.2 vs. 7.7 months, P  = 0.002) were longer in patients receiving antihistamines concomitantly with ICIs. In multivariate analysis, PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.40-0.98, P  = 0.042] and OS (HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.29-0.81, P  = 0.006) were also better in those patients after adjusting for confounding factors, such as performance status, bone or liver metastasis, and concurrent chemotherapy. This study suggested that antihistamines may enhance the efficacy of ICIs in patients with advanced cancer. If validated in prospective trials, antihistamines and ICIs combinations might be new options to improve oncological outcomes.

Effects of Opioids, Steroids, Benzodiazepines, Anticholinergics, and Antihistamines on the Efficacy of Antipsychotics for Treating Delirium in End-of-Life Adult Patients Undergoing Palliative Care.

The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of combination therapy involving opioids, steroids, benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, and antihistamines on antipsychotics efficacy for delirium. The study included adult inpatients receiving end-of-life palliative care and diagnosed with hyperactive delirium. Changes in delirium symptoms were assessed using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). A retrospective analysis was conducted on 97 patients with ICDSC scores of ≥4, comparing the scores before and after antipsychotic administration. A mean score <4 sustained for 3 days after antipsychotics administration was considered effective. The mean days with ICDSC <4 within a 3-day period were evaluated as well. The efficacy of antipsychotics was compared between cases with and without the use of opioids, steroids, benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, and antihistamines. The results revealed no significant differences in the efficacy of antipsychotics for delirium when used in conjunction with opioids (odds ratio 0.614, 95% CI [0.179-2.105]), benzodiazepines (0.387, [0.108-1.390]), steroids (1.258, [0.276-5.746]), or anticholinergics (2.085, [0. 148-29.458]). Additionally, no significant differences were observed in the mean days with ICDSC <4 within 3-day period. Although opioids, benzodiazepines, steroids, anticholinergics, and antihistamines are recognized as delirium risk factors, their use for symptom relief in patients with delirium may not affect antipsychotic efficacy.

Biomarcadores na urticária crônica: qual o seu papel? / Biomarkers of chronic urticaria: what are their role?

A urticária é uma doença com comprometimento universal, e debilitante para a maioria dos pacientes. Caracteriza-se pela ocorrência de episódios de urticas, angioedema ou ambos, determinados pela ativação de mastócitos e outras células inflamatórias com a liberação de vários mediadores. Apresenta etiologia complexa com fenótipos e terapias bem específicas. A urticária crônica possui evolução recorrente e imprevisível, podendo estender-se por anos. Caracteristicamente possui maior prevalência no sexo feminino, com pico de ocorrência entre 20 e 40 anos. A doença pode ser diferenciada pela gravidade, impacto na qualidade de vida do paciente e resposta terapêutica. Biomarcador é uma característica clínica ou laboratorial mensurável de algum estado ou condição biológica, o qual pode influenciar ou prever a incidência de desfecho ou doença. O objetivo deste artigo é realizar uma revisão dos principais biomarcadores promissores e com melhor evidência relacionados à duração, atividade da doença e resposta terapêutica.

Urticaria is a disease of global importance that can be debilitating for most patients. It is characterized by episodes of wheals, angioedema, or both, determined by the activation of mast cells and other inflammatory cells with the release of several mediators. The etiology is complex, involving specific phenotypes and therapies. Chronic urticaria has a recurrent and unpredictable course that can last for years. The prevalence is typically higher in females, with a peak incidence between 20 and 40 years of age. The disease can be classified by severity, impact on quality of life, and therapeutic response. A biomarker is a measurable clinical or laboratory characteristic of a biological state or condition that can influence or predict the incidence of outcome or disease. This study provides a review of the main biomarkers considered promising and with the best evidence related to duration, disease activity, and therapeutic response.

Repositioning the antihistamine ebastine as an intracellular siRNA delivery enhancer.

Small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) are promising therapeutics for the treatment of human diseases via the induction of sequence-specific gene silencing. To be functional, siRNAs require cytosolic delivery into target cells. However, state-of-the-art delivery systems mediate cellular entry through endocytosis and suffer from ineffective endosomal escape, routing a substantial fraction of the siRNA towards the lysosomal compartment. Cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs) have been described to improve cytosolic siRNA delivery by the transient induction of lysosomal membrane permeabilization. In this work, we evaluated ebastine, an antihistamine CAD, for its ability to enhance cytosolic release of siRNA in a non-small cell lung cancer model. In particular, we demonstrated that ebastine can improve the siRNA-mediated gene silencing efficiency of a polymeric nanogel by 40-fold, outperforming other CAD compounds. Additionally, ebastine substantially enhanced gene knockdown of a cholesterol-conjugated siRNA, in two-dimensional (2D) cell culture as well as in three-dimensional (3D) tumor spheroids. Finally, ebastine could strongly promote siRNA delivery of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) composed of a pH-dependent switchable ionizable lipid and with stable PEGylation, in contrast to state-of-the-art LNP formulations. Altogether, we identified ebastine as a potent and versatile siRNA delivery enhancer in cancer cells, which offers opportunities for drug combination therapy in oncology.

Histamine antagonists promote cancer immunosurveillance.

Recently, a cellular mini-immune system comprising infinitely expandable dendritic cells and T cells led to the discovery that histamine receptor H1 antagonists act on T cells to stimulate their proliferation and polarization toward a Th1/Tc1 phenotype and to increase their anticancer activity in the context of immunochemotherapy.

CdO Decorated with Polypyrrole Nanotube Heterostructure: Potent Electrocatalyst for the Detection of Antihistamine Drug Promethazine Hydrochloride in Environmental Samples.

In the realm of electrochemical sensor application, the development and fabrication of semiconducting metal oxides with the integration of conducting polymers for the trace-level detection of pharmaceutical medicines garnered considerable interest. Herein, we reported facile cadmium oxide decorated with polypyrrole nanotubes fabricated on a glassy carbon electrode (CdO@PPy/GCE) for efficient determination of antihistamine drug promethazine hydrochloride (PMH). The as-synthesized CdO@PPy composite was characterized by various analytical tools like X-ray powder diffraction, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Furthermore, the electrocatalytic activity of the modified electrode for PMH detection was examined by voltammetry and amperometric methods, and the modified electrode exhibited lower charge transfer resistance compared to the bare GCE. Under the optimized condition, the fabricated electrode shows a wide linear range (50-550 µM), better sensitivity (0.13 µAµM-1 cm-2), low detection limit (10.83 nM) (S/N = 3), and excellent selectivity and reproducibility toward PMH detection. Moreover, the modified GCE depicted eminent practical ability for PMH detection in lake water and pharmaceutical tablets.

Child with protein losing enteropathy as presentation of collagenous duodenitis and eosinophilic gastroenteritis.

Background: Collagenous duodenitis and gastritis are rare histopathological findings in children. Patients and methods: : We describe a four-year old girl, who presented with non-bloody diarrhea for two months and progressive edema with an albumin of 16g/dl. Results: The diagnosis of a protein losing enteropathy was made. Extensive investigations withheld only an infectious cause of the protein losing enteropathy (cytomegalovirus and adenovirus). However, the patients still required repetitive albumin infusions 3.5 months after onset of symptoms without spontaneous recovery. Therefore, a new endoscopic work-up was performed. Duodenal biopsies revealed collagen deposition, in association with a high number of eosinophils and mast cells throughout different parts of the gastrointestinal tract. Conclusions: The collagen deposition seems to be triggered by an eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder. Treatment was started with amino acid-based formula, oral iron therapy, an antihistamine, and a proton pomp inhibitor that resulted in persistent normalization of serum albumin already after 1.5 weeks.

Exploring the interactions of antihistamine with retinoic acid receptor beta (RARB) by molecular dynamics simulations and genome-wide meta-analysis.

Kaposi sarcoma (KS) is one of the most common AIDS-related malignant neoplasms, which can leave lesions on the skin among HIV patients. These lesions can be treated with 9-cis-retinoic acid (9-cis-RA), an endogenous ligand of retinoic acid receptors that has been FDA-approved for treatment of KS. However, topical application of 9-cis-RA can induce several unpleasant side effects, like headache, hyperlipidemia, and nausea. Hence, alternative therapeutics with less side effects are desirable. There are case reports associating over-the-counter antihistamine usage with regression of KS. Antihistamines competitively bind to H1 receptor and block the action of histamine, best known for being released in response to allergens. Furthermore, there are already dozens of antihistamines that are FDA-approved with less side effects than 9-cis-RA. This led our team to conduct a series of in-silico assays to determine whether antihistamines can activate retinoic acid receptors. First, we utilized high-throughput virtual screening and molecular dynamics simulations to model high-affinity interactions between antihistamines and retinoic acid receptor beta (RARß). We then performed systems genetics analysis to identify a genetic association between H1 receptor itself and molecular pathways involved in KS. Together, these findings advocate for exploration of antihistamines against KS, starting with our two promising hit compounds, bepotastine and hydroxyzine, for experimental validation study in the future.

H1-antihistamine use and head and neck cancer risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

This study aimed to examine the association between the use of H1-antihistamines (AHs) and head and neck cancer (HNC) risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan were analyzed for the period from 2008 to 2018. A propensity-score-matched cohort of 54,384 patients each in the AH user and nonuser groups was created and analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. The results showed that the risk of HNC was significantly lower in AH users (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.64) and the incidence rate was also lower (5.16 vs. 8.10 per 100,000 person-years). The lower HNC incidence rate in AH users (95% CI: 0.63; 0.55 to 0.73) suggests that AH use may reduce the risk of HNC in T2DM patients.

Updates in the diagnosis and practical management of allergic rhinitis.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a widespread disease that can be associated with other conditions, including conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, asthma, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis. Diagnosis is based on the history and documentation of sensitization, such as the production of allergen-specific IgE, preferably using molecular diagnostics. Treatments are based on patient education, non-pharmacological and pharmacological remedies, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT), and surgery. Symptomatic treatments mainly concern intranasal/oral antihistamines and/or nasal corticosteroids. AREAS COVERED: This review discusses current and emerging management strategies for AR, covering pharmacological and non-pharmacological remedies, AIT, and biologics in selected cases with associated severe asthma. However, AIT presently remains the unique causal treatment for AR. EXPERT OPINION: The management of allergic rhinitis could include new strategies. In this regard, particular interest should be considered in the fixed association between intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids, probiotics and other natural substances, and new formulations (tablets) of AIT.