Effect of Switching the Histamine-1 Receptor Antagonist Clemastine to Cetirizine in Paclitaxel Premedication Regimens: The H1-Switch Study.

PURPOSE: Premedication, including a histamine-1 receptor (H1) antagonist, is recommended to all patients treated with paclitaxel chemotherapy to reduce the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). However, the scientific basis for this premedication is not robust, which provides opportunities for optimization. Substitution of intravenously administered first-generation H1 antagonist for orally administered second-generation H1 antagonist could reduce side effects, and improve efficiency and sustainability. This study investigates the efficacy and safety of substituting intravenous clemastine for oral cetirizine as prophylaxis for paclitaxel-induced HSRs. METHODS: This single-center, prospective, noninferiority study compares a historic cohort receiving a premedication regimen with intravenous clemastine to a prospective cohort receiving oral cetirizine. Primary end point of the study is HSR grade ≥3. The difference in incidence was calculated together with the 90% CI. We determined that the two-sided 90% CI of HSR grade ≥3 incidence in the oral cetirizine cohort should not be more than 4% higher (ie, the noninferiority margin) compared with the intravenous clemastine cohort. RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve patients were included in the oral cetirizine cohort (June 2022 and May 2023) and 183 in the intravenous clemastine cohort. HSR grade ≥3 incidence was 1.6% (n = 3) in the intravenous clemastine cohort and 0.5% (n = 1) in the oral cetirizine cohort, resulting in a difference of -1.2% (90% CI, -3.4 to 1.1). CONCLUSION: Premedication containing oral cetirizine is as safe as premedication containing intravenous clemastine in preventing paclitaxel-induced HSR grade ≥3. These findings could contribute to optimization of care for patients and improve efficiency and sustainability.

Blockade of histamine receptor H1 augments immune checkpoint therapy by enhancing MHC-I expression in pancreatic cancer cells.

BACKGROUND: Although immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy has proven to be extremely effective at managing certain cancers, its efficacy in treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been limited. Therefore, enhancing the effect of ICB could improve the prognosis of PDAC. In this study, we focused on the histamine receptor H1 (HRH1) and investigated its impact on ICB therapy for PDAC. METHODS: We assessed HRH1 expression in pancreatic cancer cell (PCC) specimens from PDAC patients through public data analysis and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. The impact of HRH1 in PCCs was evaluated using HRH1 antagonists and small hairpin RNA (shRNA). Techniques including Western blot, flow cytometry, quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and microarray analyses were performed to identify the relationships between HRH1 and major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC-I) expression in cancer cells. We combined HRH1 antagonism or knockdown with anti-programmed death receptor 1 (αPD-1) therapy in orthotopic models, employing IHC, immunofluorescence, and hematoxylin and eosin staining for assessment. RESULTS: HRH1 expression in cancer cells was negatively correlated with HLA-ABC expression, CD8+ T cells, and cytotoxic CD8+ T cells. Our findings indicate that HRH1 blockade upregulates MHC-I expression in PCCs via cholesterol biosynthesis signaling. In the orthotopic model, the combined inhibition of HRH1 and αPD-1 blockade enhanced cytotoxic CD8+ T cell penetration and efficacy, overcoming resistance to ICB therapy. CONCLUSIONS: HRH1 plays an immunosuppressive role in cancer cells. Consequently, HRH1 intervention may be a promising method to amplify the responsiveness of PDAC to immunotherapy.

UCOMB-real life data: treatment strategies for chronic urticaria patients with comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of real-life safety data on treatment options for chronic urticaria in the presence of comedication and comorbidities. METHODS: We present a single-center UCARE pilot study of 212 outpatients with chronic urticaria. Patients were divided into three groups according to different CU therapies according to international guidelines. RESULTS: Of 212 patients, 108 (mean age 48.9 years, 71.3% female) had 59 comorbidities, including cardiovascular, autoimmune and malignant diseases. Patients were followed for a mean of 24.6 months (SD ± 21.3). Urticaria therapies were divided into three groups: A: 105 (97.2%) with omalizumab and 2nd generation antihistamines), B: 16 patients (14.8%): dual therapy with antihistamines and cyclosporine in 10 (9.3%), montelukast in five (4. 6%), dapsone in four (3.7%), hydroxychloroquine in one patient (0.9%), C: 12 (11.1%) patients received a third drug for 4.9 months (SD ± 3.2) and one quadruple therapy (2.1 months). 10 out of 12 (83.3%) patients received montelukast, two (16.7%) cyclosporine, two (16.7%) dapsone and one (8.3%) hydroxychloroquine as a third drug for chronic urticaria. CONCLUSIONS: Combining treatment modalities for chronic urticaria and comorbidities are available and feasible with a good safety profile.

Effectiveness of promethazine on preoperative and intraoperative sequelae in cleft palate surgeries.

INTRODUCTION: Anxiety and nosocomial infection are the most common reported problems in children undergoing cleft surgeries. Research shows that there is an enigma in the use of antihistamine therapy in children for the management of upper respiratory tract infection. 'Promethazine' is a first-generation H1 receptor antagonist, and antihistamine also has strong sedative effects. Our study aims at evaluating the Effectiveness of Promethazine (Phenergan) in preoperative and intra operative sequelae in cleft surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-centre, parallel, randomized, double-blinded randomized control clinical trial, which was conducted among 128 children between 2 and 4 years of age undergoing cleft palate surgery under general anaesthesia. After randomization, the case group was subjected to promethazine syrup 1 mg/kg body weight twice a day, orally for 3 days. The primary outcomes were preoperative anxiety levels which were recorded by children fear scale. The secondary outcomes include preoperative sleep quality and cough rate of children which are recorded by using sleep and cough objective scale respectively. The intraoperative heart rate is monitored with an ECG connected to a monitor. RESULTS: Promethazine causes a reduction in the anxiety level by 70%, 64% reduction in cold and cough, improvement in sleep score by 70% and the heart rate was found to be stable throughout the surgery when compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: As the benefits of promethazine in cleft palate surgery rule over its adverse effects, promethazine is considered safe to be used as premedication for children undergoing cleft palate surgeries.

Effects of the immunoglobulin/histamine complex on panic disorder concurrent with chronic spontaneous urticaria: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Panic disorder and panic attacks are two of the most common problems in psychiatry. A psychoimmunological correlation between allergic diseases and panic disorder has been strongly suggested. Histamine H1 receptor antagonists have been suggested as alternative drugs for the treatment of panic disorder. Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and panic disorder improved simultaneously with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants. Panic disorder has also been treated with the antihistamine chlorpheniramine. The immunoglobulin/histamine complex is a histamine-fixed immunoglobulin preparation that was reported to be effective in treating CSU. This case report describes the successful treatment of a patient with concomitant panic disorder and CSU for 23 years using immunoglobulin/histamine complex therapy. CASE PRESENTATION: This report describes a 52-year-old female Korean patient who suffered from CSU with panic disorder for 23 years. Basic allergy tests (blood tests and skin prick tests) were conducted before and after treatment for the evaluation of allergic conditions. A multiple allergosorbent test (MAST) for the detection of allergen-specific IgE levels was also performed. The clinical severity of CSU was evaluated using the urticaria severity score system. Diagnostic interviews systematically assessed the diagnostic criteria outlined by the DSM-V, and the patient was evaluated before, during and after treatment using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-2) for depression, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) for anxiety and the Beck Hopelessness Score (BHS) for hopelessness. The patient received 2 ml of Histobulin™ (12 mg human immunoglobulin/0.15 µg histamine complex) once a week by subcutaneous injection for the treatment of CSU. Initial improvement of CSU was achieved after the third injection. After the twenty-seventh injection of Histobulin™, she showed no symptoms or signs and ceased allergic medication use. With the remission of CSU, allergic rhinitis was also completely resolved. The frequency of the common cold was significantly decreased during and after treatment. The medication frequency and development of clinical manifestations of panic disorder changed in parallel with the clinical severity of CSU. Moreover, the patient exhibited no clinical manifestations and ceased medication for panic disorder and sleeping pills for insomnia simultaneously with the remission of CSU. In the psychological evaluation, the BDI, STAI and BHS scores improved accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: The immunoglobulin/histamine complex was effective in treating CSU and concomitant panic disorder in this patient and could be effective in treating some types of panic disorder. Considering the mechanisms of action of histamine and the immunoglobulin/histamine complex together with the patient's clinical progress, histamine seemed to be related to panic disorder in this case. The concept of histamine-mediated syndromes, including allergies and psychiatric disorders, shows that a wider disease identity may be needed. Further studies on the immunopathogenesis of panic disorder and the mechanisms of action of the immunoglobulin/histamine complex are necessary.

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.

Ebastine exerts antitumor activity and induces autophagy by activating AMPK/ULK1 signaling in an IPMK-dependent manner in osteosarcoma.

Numerous studies have confirmed that in addition to interfering with the tumor inflammatory environment, anti-inflammatory agents can directly increase apoptosis and sensitivity to conventional therapies and decrease invasion and metastasis, making them useful candidates for cancer therapy. Here, we first used high-throughput screening and had screened one compound candidate, ebastine (a H1-histamine receptor antagonist), for osteosarcoma therapy. Cell viability assays, colony formation assays, wound healing assays, and Transwell assays demonstrated that ebastine elicited antitumor effects in osteosarcoma cells. In addition, ebastine treatment exerted obvious effects on cell cycle arrest, metastasis inhibition, apoptosis and autophagy induction both in vitro and in vivo. Mechanistically, we observed that ebastine treatment triggered proapoptotic autophagy by activating AMPK/ULK1 signaling in osteosarcoma cells. Treatment with the AMPK inhibitor dorsomorphin reversed ebastine-induced apoptosis and autophagy. More importantly, we found that IPMK interacted with AMPK and functioned as a positive regulator of AMPK protein in osteosarcoma cells. A rescue study showed that the induction of autophagy and activation of the AMPK/ULK1 signaling pathway by ebastine treatment were reversed by IPMK knockdown, indicating that the activity of ebastine was IPMK dependent. We provide experimental evidence demonstrating that ebastine has antitumor activity in osteosarcoma and promotes autophagy by activating the AMPK/ULK1 signaling pathway, which is IPMK dependent. Our results provide insight into the clinical application potential of ebastine, which may represent a new potential therapeutic candidate for the treatment of osteosarcoma.

Factors Associated With Refractoriness to an Up to Fourfold Dosage of Antihistamines in Isolated Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common skin disease and has a significant impact on patients' quality of life. The aim of treatment is complete symptom control. AIM: To identify potential factors associated with antihistamine-refractory isolated CSU and to determine the factors that predict response to second-generation H1 antihistamines at dosages from one- to fourfold. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, which included adult patients diagnosed with isolated CSU and had complete symptom control. Clinical and laboratory findings were compared between the patients who were responsive to second-generation H1 antihistamines (< fourfold) and those who were refractory to a fourfold dose. Clinical and laboratory data were compared by dosage in the antihistamine-responsive group. RESULTS: There were 182 isolated CSU patients who met the study criteria, of whom 150 (82.4%) were responsive to treatment with up to a fourfold dose of second-generation H1 antihistamines, while 32 (17.6%) were refractory. In univariate analysis, age at onset, body mass index, baseline Urticaria Activity Score-7 (UAS7), white blood cell count, total neutrophil count, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, platelet count, and new generation antihistamines were significantly higher in the antihistamine-refractory group. According to multivariate analysis, baseline UAS7 was the only independent factor associated with antihistamine-refractory isolated CSU (odds ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28, P = .03). In the antihistamine-responsive group, white blood cell count tended to predict response to antihistamine treatment (P < .001, 0.04, 0.34 between onefold and twofold, twofold and threefold, and threefold and fourfold, respectively). CONCLUSION: Baseline UAS7 was an independent factor associated with antihistamine-refractory isolated CSU.

Successful desensitization under antihistamine suppression in a case with urticaria due to osimertinib.

INTRODUCTION: Osimertinib is an approved therapy for patients with a Thr790met (T790M) mutation diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that progresses during epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy. However, in 7-13% of patients, drug-related side effects lead to discontinuation of osimertinib treatment. In such cases, osimertinib desensitization is a treatment option that can be considered. CASE REPORT: A 59-year-old female patient, who was followed up with the diagnosis of stage 4 NSCLC, was consulted to the allergy clinic because of urticaria. The patient developed urticaria plaques 20 h after the third dose of osimertinib tablet. MANAGEMENT & OUTCOME: With the diagnosis of osimertinib-induced urticaria, desensitization was planned for the patient. Treatment was started with a dose of 0.1 mg/day osimertinib. The procedure was completed in approximately 50 days, and a dose of 80 mg/day was reached with antihistamine suppression. DISCUSSION: Here, a successful osimertinib desensitization in a patient with a history of osimertinib-related type 1 allergic reaction is reported. Osimertinib desensitization is a treatment option that should be considered in cases where treatment has to be ceased due to drug-related side effects.

An open-label, proof-of-concept study of lirentelimab for antihistamine-resistant chronic spontaneous and inducible urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Chronic urticaria (CU) is a debilitating mast cell-driven disease, often refractory to standard therapy (ie, antihistamines). Lirentelimab, an anti-sialic acid-binding immunoglobulin-like lectin 8 mAb, selectively inhibits mast cells and depletes eosinophils. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine safety and efficacy of lirentelimab in patients with CU. METHODS: This phase 2a study enrolled patients with CU refractory to up to 4-fold H1-antihistamine doses. Patients received 6 monthly intravenous doses of lirentelimab (0.3, 1, and up to 3 mg/kg). Primary efficacy end point was change in Urticaria Control Test score at week 22. Urticaria Activity Score weekly average (UAS7) was assessed in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and Cholinergic UAS7 was used for patients with cholinergic urticaria (CholU). RESULTS: A total of 45 patients were enrolled in 4 cohorts (n = 13 omalizumab-naive CSU, n = 11 omalizumab-refractory CSU, n = 11 CholU, n = 10 symptomatic dermographism). Urticaria Control Test scores increased with lirentelimab across cohorts, with mean changes at week 22 of 11.1 ± 4.1, 4.8 ± 7.0, 6.5 ± 6.2, and 3.4 ± 4.1 and complete response rates (Urticaria Control Test score ≥ 12) of 92%, 36%, 82%, and 40%, respectively. In omalizumab-naive and omalizumab-refractory patients with CSU, disease activity decreased at week 22 (mean UAS7 change, -73% and -47%, respectively), with UAS7 response rates (≥50% reduction) of 77% and 45%, respectively. In patients with symptomatic dermographism, 50% (5 of 10) and 40% (4 of 10) had complete itch and hive resolution by FricTest, respectively, and 100% (7 of 7) evaluable patients with CholU had negative responses to Pulse-Controlled Ergometry exercise test. Most common adverse events included infusion-related reactions (43%; all mild/moderate and transient), nasopharyngitis (21%), and headache (19%). No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Lirentelimab demonstrated activity across 3 forms of antihistamine-refractory CU.

Antihistamines-refractory chronic pruritus in psoriatic patients undergoing biologics: aprepitant vs antihistamine double dosage, a real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis-related pruritus (PRP) in patients under systemic treatment is challenging. The risk to switch anti-psoriatic drugs and to lose response to previous therapy is high, thus dermatologists prefer to add an anti-pruritic agent. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of anti-histamines and aprepitant in treating PPR of psoriatic patients undergoing systemic anti-psoriatic therapies. METHODS: A pilot observational open-label study was performed on responsive psoriatic patients with PPR under treatment. Initial therapy included oral rupatadine (10 mg/day for 30 days). In case of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) was above 14, patients were switched to aprepitant (80 mg/day for 7 days), otherwise, rupatadine dosage was increased (20 mg/day for 7 days). Clinical evaluation was performed at the baseline (T0) and after 7 days (T7). RESULTS: We enrolled 40 patients with PPR, 20 in each group. Age, gender, Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and the itch - VAS, were matched. At T7, aprepitant displayed higher improvements than rupatadine (itch - VAS = 4 [3-5] vs 8.5 [8-9], p < .01, DLQI = 14 [13-16] vs. 18 [16-21], p < .01 and ESS = 5 [4-7] vs 15 [14-16], p < .01). Doubling the rupatadine dosage from 10 mg to 20 mg/day only slightly improve itch (itch - VAS = 9 [8-10] vs 9 [8-9], p = .03), conversely no modifications in the quality of life (DLQI = 18 [17-20] vs 18 [17-21], p = .73) and increased sleepiness (ESS = 10 [9-11] vs 15 [14-16], p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant may be a valid alternative in PPR patients with ESS >14 under antihistamines.

Recomendaciones para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la urticaria en pediatría / Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of urticaria in children

La urticaria es una de las afecciones cutáneas más comunes en niños. Se define urticaria aguda cuando persiste hasta 6 semanas, y crónica, cuando la duración es mayor. Afecta al 25 % de la población. La forma aguda es la más frecuente. La crónica representa el 0,1 %, con mayor predominio en mujeres (el 60 %). Se subdivide en urticaria crónica inducible cuando hay un desencadenante externo específico y urticaria crónica espontánea si este no está presente.Aunque la fisiopatología es compleja, la degranulación del mastocito se considera un evento clave. Los antihistamínicos anti-H1 de segunda generación son la primera línea de tratamiento tanto en la urticaria aguda como en la crónica. En pacientes no respondedores, se considerarán otras terapias.Se hará énfasis en urticaria crónica dada la dificultad en su diagnóstico, el aumento de su prevalencia y la gran afectación que produce en la calidad de vida de los niños.

Urticaria is one of the most common skin disorders in children. We define acute urticaria when it persists for less than 6 weeks, and chronic urticaria (CU), when it persists longer. Urticaria affects 25 % of the population; in most cases, it is acute urticaria. CU represents 0.1 %, with higher prevalence in women (60 %). CU is subclassified in chronic inducible urticaria when there is a specific external trigger and chronic spontaneous urticaria if it is not present.Although the pathophysiology is complex, mast cell degranulation is recognized as a key event. Second-generation H1 antihistamines are the first line of treatment in both, acute urticaria and CU. In unresponsive patients, other therapies will be considered.We will emphasize in CU due to the difficulty in its diagnosis, the increase in its prevalence and the severe impairment it causes in children ́s quality of life.

A new treatment of alopecia induced by palbociclib: Topical cetirizine.

INTRODUCTION: Recently CDK4/6 inhibitors have been introduced for the treatment of hormone positive breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy. Among their side effects, alopecia is often reported being associated to patients' distress and depressive symptoms. CASE REPORT: We report the case of a 70-year-old woman affected by breast cancer in treatment with Palbociclib, who developed alopecia.Management and Outcome: We prescribed a topical solution with cetirizine. Global photography, trichoscopy and trichogram were assessed. All evaluations demonstrated alopecia improvement. DISCUSSION: Currently, no treatment options for CDK 4/6 inhibitors induced alopecia have been proposed. Herein, we report the use of topical cetirizine.

Successful oxaliplatin desensitization protocol in a patient with colorectal metastatic cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Platinum compounds are frequently used for the treatment of colorectal cancer as initial chemotherapy. Oxaliplatin is a third-generation platinum used for the treatment of stage III colorectal cancer and is associated with hypersensitivity reactions. The incidence of hypersensitivity reaction is approximately 12%, with 1-2% of patients developing moderate to severe reactions. CASE REPORT: A 54-year-old male patient with stage III B colon cancer was diagnosed and chemotherapy with oxaliplatin was indicated by the oncology service. Within 20 min of the first cycle of oxaliplatin, he developed dyspnea, laryngeal spam, foreign body sensation in the throat, nausea, and diarrhea; therefore, the infusion of oxaliplatin was suspended, and intramuscular epinephrine was administered and intravenous hydrocortisone along with chlorpheniramine with adequate resolution of symptoms.Management and outcome: Intradermal skin test performed at the concentration of 5 mg/ml (dilution 1:100) was positive. Due to the symptoms presented we decided to perform desensitization to oxaliplatin (total dose: 250 mg) with three bags-12 steps protocol with an initial concentration dose of 1/100 of the total dose in a course of 5.56 h with no hypersensitivity reactions. DISCUSSION: Approximately 50% of patients who are exposed to oxaliplatin may have hypersensitivity despite premedication. Desensitization protocol induces tolerance to a drug temporarily and is dependent on continuous exposure.

A case for palliative dermatology: COVID-19-related dermatoses.

The unprecedented coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health care systems in different ways. In the United Kingdom, various subspecialties are deployed to the wards to help medical workforce in the frontlines, with dermatologists helping with general medical wards and on-calls. We present a case of COVID-19-related urticaria manifesting in a palliative setting and responding well to systemic antihistamine. This pandemic has highlighted a new subspecialty that should be explored and researched-palliative dermatology-bridging elements of dermatology with the concepts of palliative medicine. As dermatologists, we should be in the position to help with the last stages of a patient's journey.

Antihistamine Drug Ebastine Inhibits Cancer Growth by Targeting Polycomb Group Protein EZH2.

Enhancer of zester homolog 2 (EZH2), a histone lysine methyltransferase and the catalytic component of polycomb repressive complex 2, has been extensively investigated as a chromatin regulator and a transcriptional suppressor by methylating H3 at lysine 27 (H3K27). EZH2 is upregulated or mutated in most cancers, and its expression levels are negatively associated with clinical outcomes. However, the current developed small-molecule inhibitors targeting EZH2 enzymatic activities could not inhibit the growth and progression of solid tumors. Here, we discovered an antihistamine drug, ebastine, as a novel EZH2 inhibitor by targeting EZH2 transcription and subsequently downregulating EZH2 protein level and H3K27 trimethylation in multiple cancer cell lines at concentrations below 10 µmol/L. The inhibition of EZH2 by ebastine further impaired the progression, migration, and invasiveness of these cancer cells. Overexpression of Ezh2 wild-type and its mutant, H689A (lacking methyltransferase activity), rescued the neoplastic properties of these cancer cells after ebastine treatment, suggesting that EZH2 targeted by ebastine is independent of its enzymatic function. Next-generation RNA-sequencing analysis also revealed that C4-2 cells treated with 8 µmol/L ebastine showed a gene profiling pattern similar to EZH2-knockdown C4-2 cells, which was distinctively different from cells treated with GSK126, an EZH2 enzyme inhibitor. In addition, ebastine treatment effectively reduced tumor growth and progression, and enhanced progression-free survival in triple-negative breast cancer and drug-resistant castration-resistant prostate cancer patient-derived xenograft mice. Our data demonstrated that ebastine is a novel, safe, and potent anticancer agent for patients with advanced cancer by targeting the oncoprotein EZH2.

The role of H1 antihistamines in contralateral breast cancer: a Danish nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies have shown both pro- and antineoplastic effects of antihistamines. Here, we evaluated the effect of H1 antihistamines on contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, and whether cationic amphiphilic (CAD) antihistamines could increase the sensitivity to chemotherapy. METHODS: From the Danish Breast Cancer Group clinical database, we identified all women aged ≥20 years with a first-time diagnosis of breast cancer during 1996-2012. Information on drug use, CBC and potential confounding factors was retrieved from nationwide registries. Using Cox proportional hazard regression models, we calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for CBC associated with H1-antihistamine use. RESULTS: We identified 52,723 patients with breast cancer with a total of 310,583 person-years of follow-up. Among them, 1444 patients developed a new primary tumour in the contralateral breast. Post-diagnosis use of H1 antihistamines (≥2 prescriptions) was not strongly associated with CBC risk (HR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.90-1.31) compared with non-use (<2 prescriptions). Use of CAD antihistamines among patients receiving chemotherapy was not associated with a decrease in CBC risk. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our findings do not suggest any association of H1-antihistamine use with CBC development.

Pre-operative anxiolysis in children through a combined pharmacological therapy with hydroxyzine and a non-pharmacological distraction technique with a clown (SONRISA): study protocol for randomised double-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery can generate significant stress and anxiety in up to 70% of the paediatric population. There are several pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies to reduce pre-operative anxiety in children, however, they have several side effects and the available information about them is contradictory. The role of clowns and hydroxyzine in the management of anxiety is controversial, with some studies supporting and others contraindicating both strategies. METHODS: We propose a randomised double-blind, controlled clinical trial that will evaluate the effectiveness of both interventions (hydroxyzine and clowns), alone or in combination, to reduce pre-operative anxiety (using the modified Yale scale of preoperative anxiety) in children aged 2-16 years undergoing outpatient surgery (n = 188). Subjects will be randomised into two groups - (1) standard procedure (parental accompaniment) combined with placebo or (2) standard procedure combined with preoperative hydroxyzine. After randomisation, they will be divided by chance into two further groups, depending on the presence of clowns on the patient's surgery day. Control of pre-operative anxiety will be determined in the four groups by a modified Yale scale of preoperative anxiety and cortisol levels. Compliance of children during induction of anaesthesia, time until anaesthesia recovery, presence of postoperative delirium and use of analgesia until discharge will be also assessed. For additional information, the children, parents and healthcare professionals involved in the study will complete a satisfaction survey. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to gather evidence on which of these four therapeutic options achieves the highest reduction of pre-operative anxiety with the best safety profile to allow paediatricians and anaesthesiologists to use the most effective and safe option for their patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03324828. Registered 21 September 2017.