Benralizumab does not elicit therapeutic effect in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: results from the phase IIb multinational randomized double-blind placebo-controlled ARROYO trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a relatively common skin disease associated with hives and angio-oedema. Eosinophils play a role in CSU pathogenesis. Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 receptor-α monoclonal antibody, has been shown to induce nearly complete depletion of eosinophils. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with CSU who were symptomatic despite H1 antihistamine treatment. METHODS: The 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb portion of the ARROYO trial enrolled adult patients with CSU who were currently on H1 antihistamine treatment. Patients were randomized to one of five treatment groups according to benralizumab dose and regimen for a 24-week treatment period. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in Itch Severity Score (ISS)7 at week 12. The key secondary endpoint was change from baseline in Urticaria Activity Score (UAS)7 at week 12. Additional secondary endpoints included other metrics to assess CSU at week 24, blood eosinophil levels, and pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity assessments. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to explore responses according to demographics, clinical features and biomarkers. Safety was assessed in all treatment groups. RESULTS: Of 155 patients, 59 were randomized to benralizumab 30 mg, 56 to benralizumab 60 mg and 40 to placebo. Baseline and disease characteristics were consistent with what was expected for patients with CSU. There were no significant differences in change from baseline in ISS7 score at week 12 between benralizumab and placebo [benralizumab 30 mg vs. placebo, least-squares mean difference -1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.28 to 1.26; benralizumab 60 mg vs. placebo, least-squares mean difference -1.79, 95% CI -4.09 to 0.50] nor in change from baseline in UAS7 score at week 12 between benralizumab and placebo (benralizumab 30 mg vs. placebo, P = 0.407; benralizumab 60 mg vs. placebo, P = 0.082). Depletion of blood eosinophil levels was observed at week 24 in patients treated with benralizumab. All other secondary endpoints and exploratory/subgroup analyses indicated no significant differences between benralizumab and placebo. Safety results were consistent with the known profile of benralizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Although benralizumab resulted in near-complete depletion of blood eosinophils, there was no clinical benefit over placebo.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common disease characterized by hives, itching and inflammation (swelling) of the skin. CSU is mainly driven by what we call 'mast cells'. 'Eosinophils' are a type of white blood cell that protect the body from infections and allergens. These cells are abundant in skin biopsy samples of people with CSU, especially in the hives that contribute to swelling. Therefore, we thought that reducing eosinophils would be beneficial for treating CSU. Benralizumab is a drug that has been shown to reduce eosinophils in other diseases. This study, called 'ARROYO', was a 24-week clinical trial that compared benralizumab treatment with a placebo (inactive medicine) in adults with CSU who were taking antihistamines. We aimed to determine whether benralizumab would improve symptoms of CSU over time. Several assessments were used to measure changes in CSU symptoms, including hives, severity of itchiness, swelling of the skin, and other aspects related to overall psychological and physical wellbeing. The characteristics of the 155 people who took part in this study were consistent with what was expected for patients with CSU. We found that while benralizumab reduced eosinophil levels in people with CSU, there were no differences in symptoms in people receiving benralizumab compared with those receiving placebo. There were no new safety concerns related to benralizumab and no deaths. Overall, although benralizumab is effective at reducing the number of eosinophils, it is not effective at treating the symptoms of CSU. More studies are needed to uncover potential treatment targets in CSU.

Impact of institutional interventions on the rate of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel is associated with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Intravenous premedication regimens have been devised to decrease the incidence and severity of HSRs. At our institution oral histamine 1 receptor antagonists (H1RA) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) were adopted as standard. Standardizations were implemented for consistent premedication use in all disease states. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the incidence and severity of HSRs before and after standardization. METHODS: Patients who received paclitaxel from 20 April 2018 to 8 December 2020 having an HSR were included in analysis. An infusion was flagged for review if a rescue medication was administered after the start of the paclitaxel infusion. The incidences of all HSR prior to and post-standardization were compared. A subgroup analysis of patients receiving paclitaxel for the first and second time was performed. RESULTS: There were 3499infusions in the pre-standardization group and 1159infusions in the post-standardization group. After review, 100 HSRs pre-standardization and 38 HSRs post-standardization were confirmed reactions. The rate of overall HSRs was 2.9% in the pre-standardization group and 3.3% in the post-standardization group (p = 0.48). HSRs, during the first and second doses of paclitaxel, occurred in 10.2% of the pre-standardization and 8.5% of the post-standardization group (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective interventional study demonstrated that same-day intravenous dexamethasone, oral H1RA, and oral H2RA are safe premedication regimens for paclitaxel. No change in the severity of reactions was seen. Overall, better adherence to premedication administration was seen post-standardization.

Diphenhydramine and Migraine Treatment Failure in Pediatric Patients Receiving Prochlorperazine.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives are to determine whether diphenhydramine coadministered with prochlorperazine versus prochlorperazine only is associated with a difference in the risk of migraine treatment failure, as measured by the need for additional therapy, hospitalization rates, and 72-hour return rates, and to compare extrapyramidal adverse effects between groups. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients aged 7 to 18 years treated in the emergency department for migraines using prochlorperazine with or without diphenhydramine between 2013 and 2019. Patients were included if they had International Classification of Diseases, Ninth or Tenth Revision, codes for migraine or unspecified headache and were treated with prochlorperazine as part of their initial migraine therapy. Data collected included demographics, medications administered, pain scores, neuroimaging, disposition, return visits, and documentation of extrapyramidal adverse effects. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between diphenhydramine coadministration and each of the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1683 patients were included. Overall, 13% required additional therapy with a 16.7% admission rate and a 72-hour return rate of 5.3%. There was no association between initial treatment with diphenhydramine and the odds of additional therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.74 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.53-1.03]), admission rates (aOR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.89-1.67]), or return visit rates (aOR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.55-1.51]). Extrapyramidal adverse effects occurred in 2.4% of patients in the prochlorperazine group and 0% in the prochlorperazine with diphenhydramine group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no association between diphenhydramine coadministration and the need for additional therapy, 72-hour return visit rates or admission rates. Extrapyramidal effects did not occur in patients treated with diphenhydramine.

Allergic Rhinitis: A Review.

Importance: Allergic rhinitis affects an estimated 15% of the US population (approximately 50 million individuals) and is associated with the presence of asthma, eczema, chronic or recurrent sinusitis, cough, and both tension and migraine headaches. Observations: Allergic rhinitis occurs when disruption of the epithelial barrier allows allergens to penetrate the mucosal epithelium of nasal passages, inducing a T-helper type 2 inflammatory response and production of allergen-specific IgE. Allergic rhinitis typically presents with symptoms of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drainage, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. In an international study, the most common symptoms of allergic rhinitis were rhinorrhea (90.38%) and nasal congestion (94.23%). Patients with nonallergic rhinitis present primarily with nasal congestion and postnasal drainage frequently associated with sinus pressure, ear plugging, muffled sounds and pain, and eustachian tube dysfunction that is less responsive to nasal corticosteroids. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis typically have physical examination findings of edematous and pale turbinates. Patients with perennial allergic rhinitis typically have erythematous and inflamed turbinates with serous secretions that appear similar to other forms of chronic rhinitis at physical examination. Patients with nonallergic rhinitis have negative test results for specific IgE aeroallergens. Intermittent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring less than 4 consecutive days/week or less than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Persistent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring more often than 4 consecutive days/week and for more than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Patients with allergic rhinitis should avoid inciting allergens. In addition, first-line treatment for mild intermittent or mild persistent allergic rhinitis may include a second-generation H1 antihistamine (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine) or an intranasal antihistamine (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), whereas patients with persistent moderate to severe allergic rhinitis should be treated initially with an intranasal corticosteroid (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) either alone or in combination with an intranasal antihistamine. In contrast, first-line therapy for patients with nonallergic rhinitis consists of an intranasal antihistamine as monotherapy or in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid. Conclusions and Relevance: Allergic rhinitis is associated with symptoms of nasal congestion, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. Patients with allergic rhinitis should be instructed to avoid inciting allergens. Therapies include second-generation H1 antihistamines (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine), intranasal antihistamines (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), and intranasal corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) and should be selected based on the severity and frequency of symptoms and patient preference.

Clinical Characteristics, Investigations and Treatment in Children with Chronic Urticaria: An Observational Study.

Background and Objectives: The guidelines for chronic urticaria in children contain recommendations that are often based on adult studies. The diagnostic pathway has not been standardized and the effectiveness of anti-H1, omalizumab, montelukast, and systemic glucocorticoids is rarely reported in the pediatric population. There is a wide variation in the rate of remission of chronic urticaria between studies. The aim of this study is to enhance our understanding of pediatric chronic urticaria. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 37 children with chronic urticaria aged from 0 to 18 years. Demographic parameters, medical history, clinical features, laboratory data and treatment information were collected. Children were treated with the recommended dosage of second-generation H1-antihistamines, which was increased by up to twofold. Omalizumab was added for refractory anti-H1 patients. A three-day course with systemic glucocorticoids was administered for severe exacerbations. Montelukast was administered to some children. Results: Wheals without angioedema were common. Chronic urticaria was spontaneous in 32 children (86.48%), inducible in 2 (5.41%), induced by a parasite in 1 and vasculitic in 2. Treatment of the potential causes of chronic urticaria was of no benefit, except for eradication of Dientamoeba fragilis. Chronic urticaria was resolved within three years in 45.9% of cases. Allergic diseases were present in nine children (24.32%) and autoimmune diseases were present in three (8.11%). All children were treated with anti-H1 at the licensed dose or at a higher dose. A partial or complete response to anti-H1 was observed in 29 (78.38%) patients. Montelukast showed no benefit. All children treated with omalizumab responded. Systemic glucocorticoids were successfully used to treat exacerbations. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that laboratory tests should not be routinely performed in children with chronic urticaria without clinical suspicion. However, comorbidities such as thyroid autoimmune disease and coeliac disease are suggested to be monitored over the chronic urticaria course. These clinical conditions could be diagnosed from the diagnostic framework of chronic urticaria. Increasing the dosage of anti-H1 and omalizumab was effective in children resistant to standard treatment but we still need further studies to generate a standard patient-centered treatment.

Role of Bilastine in Allergic Rhinitis: A Narrative Review.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is considered a trivial disease and is often self-treated with over-the-counter drugs and home remedies. However, AR is a contributing risk factor for asthma associated with complications, including chronic cough, eosinophilic esophagitis, and otitis media with effusion. In AR, inflammation is primarily mediated by histamines. Guidelines advise using second-generation oral H1 antihistamines as the primary treatment for AR. Second-generation H1 antihistamines strongly prefer the H1 receptor, limiting their ability to enter the central nervous system. Thus, they have minimal adverse effects. Among these H1 antihistamines, bilastine is highly specific for H1 receptors with a slight affinity for other receptors. It has a rapid and prolonged action, which reduces the need for frequent dosing and has better compliance. In the long term, bilastine is well-tolerated with minimal adverse effects. It is not associated with drug interactions, so dosage adjustment is unnecessary. Bilastine does not penetrate the brain and is nonsedating at 80 mg once daily. The low possibility of drug-drug interactions and pharmacokinetics of bilastine makes it suitable for elderly patients, even with compromised hepatic and renal function, without dose adjustment. This review comprehensively discusses the guidelines and the role of bilastine in treating AR. How to cite this article: Tiwaskar M, Vora A, Tewary K, et al. Role of Bilastine in Allergic Rhinitis: A Narrative Review. J Assoc Physicians India 2023;71(11):58-61.

MP-AzeFlu in Moderate-to-Severe Allergic Rhinitis: A Literature Review.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is prevalent, and many patients present with moderate-to-severe symptomatic disease. The majority of patients are not satisfied with their AR treatment, despite the use of concurrent medications. These gaps underscore the need for treatment with more effective options for moderate-to-severe AR. The authors' objective was to review systematically the efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of AR. The primary outcomes studied were nasal, ocular, and total symptoms. Other outcomes included time to onset and of AR control, quality of life, and safety. Searches of PubMed and Cochrane databases were conducted on May 14, 2020, with no date restrictions, to identify publications reporting data on MP-AzeFlu. Clinical studies of any phase were included. Studies were excluded if they were not in English, were review articles, did not discuss the safety and efficacy of MP-AzeFlu for AR symptoms. Treatment of AR with MP-AzeFlu results in effective, sustained relief of nasal and ocular symptoms, and faster onset and time to control compared with intranasal azelastine or fluticasone propionate. Long-term use of MP-AzeFlu was safe, with benefits in children, adults, and adults aged ≥65 years. Other treatment options, including fluticasone propionate and azelastine alone or the combination of intranasal corticosteroids and oral antihistamine, do not provide the same level of efficacy as MP-AzeFlu in terms of rapid and sustained relief of the entire AR symptom complex. Furthermore, MP-AzeFlu significantly improves patient quality of life. MP-AzeFlu is a currently available combination that may satisfy all these patient needs and expectations.

A randomized controlled trial of adding intravenous corticosteroids to H1 antihistamines in patients with acute urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Acute urticaria is a common dermatological condition in emergency departments (EDs). The main therapy involves controlling pruritus with antihistamines. Although guidelines have promoted the use of corticosteroids in addition to H1 antihistamines, well-designed clinical trials evaluating this approach are scarce. METHODS: Adult ED patients with acute urticaria and a pruritus score > 5 on a visual analog scale (VAS) were randomized into three groups: (i) IV chlorpheniramine (CPM) treatment, (ii) IV CPM and IV dexamethasone (CPM/Dex) and (iii) IV CPM and IV dexamethasone with oral prednisolone as discharge medication for 5 days (CPM/Dex/Pred). The primary outcomes were self-reported pruritus VAS scores at 60 min after treatment. We also evaluated 1-week and 1-month urticaria activity scores for 7 days and adverse events. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients (25 per group) were enrolled. The VAS scores of all groups decreased, but no significant difference was found in the VAS scores at 60 min after treatment between patients in the CPM group (n = 25) and those who received both CPM and dexamethasone (n = 50). At the 1-week and 1-month follow-ups, active urticaria (indicated by the urticaria activity score at 7 days) was more prevalent in the CPM/Dex/Pred group (n = 25) than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study did not find evidence that adding IV dexamethasone improves the treatment of severe pruritus from uncomplicated acute urticaria. Oral corticosteroid therapy may be associated with persistent urticaria activity. Due to the lack of clinical benefits and the potential for side effects, using corticosteroids as an adjunctive treatment is discouraged.

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.

Interleukin-17 is a potential player and treatment target in severe chronic spontaneous urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is considered an autoimmune disorder in 50% of cases at least, in which T- and mast cell mediators are considered to be the primary cause of symptoms. However, H1 -antihistamines, cyclosporine A, and omalizumab fail to achieve complete symptom amelioration in up to 70% of patients. This suggests that other inflammatory pathways are involved and that additional and more effective treatments need to be developed. OBJECTIVE: This preliminary report examines the possibility that interleukin-17 (IL-17), a cytokine involved in the pathogenesis of many autoimmune diseases, may contribute to CSU and its inhibition may offer a relevant therapeutic target. METHODS: The expression of IL-17A in skin biopsies of 20 CSU patients and 10 healthy controls was determined by quantitative histomorphometry. We also assessed the response to secukinumab (anti-IL-17A) treatment patients of eight severe CSU (7-day urticaria activity score UAS7 32-40) who were H1 -antihistamine and omalizumab-resistant. RESULTS: Increased numbers of CD4+ T cells and mast cells were present in both lesional and non-lesional skin of CSU patients compared with healthy controls. Both types of cells were strongly positive for IL-17A and found to be in close proximity to each other. All eight patients treated with the anti-IL-17A antibody, secukinumab, showed significant improvement in CSU disease activity. The action of secukinumab was shown to be relatively slow in onset. The significant reduction in disease activity from baseline UAS7 was demonstrated to be 55% and 82% at 30 and 90 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that IL-17 is involved in the pathogenesis of CSU and that IL-17 should be investigated as a therapeutic target in future studies with larger numbers of patients.

Dual-histamine receptor blockade with cetirizine - famotidine reduces pulmonary symptoms in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2 infection can produce Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome as a result of a pulmonary cytokine storm. Antihistamines are safe and effective treatments for reducing inflammation and cytokine release. Combinations of Histamine-1 and Histamine-2 receptor antagonists have been effective in urticaria, and might reduce the histamine-mediated pulmonary cytokine storm in COVID-19. Can a combination of Histamine-1 and Histamine-2 receptor blockers improve COVID-19 inpatient outcomes? METHODS: A physician-sponsored cohort study of cetirizine and famotidine was performed in hospitalized patients with severe to critical pulmonary symptoms. Pulmonologists led the inpatient care in a single medical center of 110 high-acuity patients that were treated with cetirizine 10 mg b.i.d. and famotidine 20 mg b.i.d. plus standard-of-care. RESULTS: Of all patients, including those with Do Not Resuscitate directives, receiving the dual-histamine receptor blockade for at least 48 h, the combination drug treatment resulted in a 16.4% rate of intubation, a 7.3% rate of intubation after a minimum of 48 h of treatment, a 15.5% rate of inpatient mortality, and 11.0 days duration of hospitalization. The drug combination exhibited beneficial reductions in inpatient mortality and symptom progression when compared to published reports of COVID-19 inpatients. Concomitant medications were assessed and hydroxychloroquine was correlated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This physician-sponsored cohort study of cetirizine and famotidine provides proof-of-concept of a safe and effective method to reduce the progression in symptom severity, presumably by minimizing the histamine-mediated cytokine storm. Further clinical studies in COVID-19 are warranted of the repurposed off-label combination of two historically-safe histamine receptor blockers.

Intranasal antihistamine is superior to oral H1 antihistamine as an add-on therapy to intranasal corticosteroid for treating allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, a combination of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) plus oral H1 antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal H1 antihistamine (INAH) therapy is frequently used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). The superiority of the 2 combined treatments needs to be further examined. OBJECTIVE: To identify the better of the 2 therapeutic strategies for treating AR. METHODS: A literature review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases. Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, meta-analyses of the total nasal symptom scores and individual nasal symptom scores were pooled based on studies that compared concomitant H1 antihistamines plus INCS with INCS alone in the treatment of AR. The pooled results were expressed as weighted mean differences between the treatments. For each selected study, we calculated the relative clinical impact based on the total nasal symptom scores as follows: 100 × (ScoreMonotherapy - ScoreCombined therapy) / ScoreMonotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 13 publications met our selection criteria, with 5066 patients. The pooled results revealed no significant weighted mean difference on the total nasal symptom scores between concomitant OAH plus INCS and INCS alone. As for the individual symptoms, the most common symptom that revealed remission was rhinorrhea, which was after OAH in combination with INCS. The combination therapy of INAH and INCS was superior to INCS alone. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean relative clinical impact of INAH plus INCS was significantly higher than that of OAH plus INCS. CONCLUSION: Intranasal H1 antihistamines have an add-on effect on intranasal corticosteroids, and the combination of intranasal H1 antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid is superior to that of oral H1 antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid in improving nasal symptoms for patients with AR.

Relationship between Sedative Antihistamines and the Duration of Febrile Seizures.

Some studies have shown that sedative antihistamines prolong febrile seizure duration. Although the collective evidence is still mixed, the Japanese Society of Child Neurology released guidelines in 2015 that contraindicated the use of sedative antihistamines in patients with febrile seizure. Focused on addressing limitations of previous studies, we conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the relationship between febrile seizure duration and the use of sedative antihistamines. Data were collected from patients who visited St. Luke's International Hospital due to febrile seizure between August 2013 and February 2016. Patients were divided into groups based on their prescribed medications: sedative antihistamine, nonsedative antihistamine, and no antihistamine. Seizure duration was the primary outcome and was examined using multivariate analyses. Of the 426 patients included, sedative antihistamines were administered to 24 patients. The median seizure duration was approximately 3 minutes in all three groups. There was no statistical difference in the bivariate (p = 0.422) or multivariate analyses (p = 0.544). Our results do not support the relationship between sedative antihistamine use and prolonged duration of febrile seizure. These results suggest that the use of antihistamines may be considered for patients with past history of febrile seizure, when appropriate.

PrEvention of posttraumatic contractuRes with Ketotifen 2 (PERK 2) - protocol for a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Injuries and resulting stiffness around joints, especially the elbow, have huge psychological effects by reducing quality of life through interference with normal daily activities such as feeding, dressing, grooming, and reaching for objects. Over the last several years and through numerous research results, the myofibroblast-mast cell-neuropeptide axis of fibrosis had been implicated in post-traumatic joint contractures. Pre-clinical models and a pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) demonstrated the feasibility and safety of using Ketotifen Fumarate (KF), a mast cell stabilizer to prevent elbow joint contractures. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of KF in reducing joint contracture severity in adult participants with operately treated elbow fractures and/or dislocations. METHODS/DESIGN: A Phase III randomized, controlled, double-blinded multicentre trial with 3 parallel groups (KF 2 mg or 5 mg or lactose placebo twice daily orally for 6 weeks). The study population consist of adults who are at least 18 years old and within 7 days of injury. The types of injuries are distal humerus (AO/OTA type 13) and/or proximal ulna and/or proximal radius fractures (AO/OTA type 2 U1 and/or 2R1) and/or elbow dislocations (open fractures with or without nerve injury may be included). A stratified randomization scheme by hospital site will be used to assign eligible participants to the groups in a 1:1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is change in elbow flexion-extension range of motion (ROM) arc from baseline to 12 weeks post-randomization. The secondary outcomes are changes in ROM from baseline to 6, 24 & 52 weeks, PROMs at 2, 6, 12, 24 & 52 weeks and impact of KF on safety including serious adverse events and fracture healing. Descriptive analysis for all outcomes will be reported and ANCOVA be used to evaluate the efficacy KF over lactose placebo with respect to the improvement in ROM. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide evidence for the use of KF in reducing post-traumatic joint contractures and improving quality of life after joint injuries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered (July 10, 2018) with ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT03582176.

I-FiBH trial: intravenous fluids in benign headaches-a randomised, single-blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Many emergency physicians use an intravenous fluid bolus as part of a 'cocktail' of therapies for patients with headache, but it is unclear if this is beneficial. The objective of this study was to determine if an intravenous fluid bolus helps reduce pain or improve other outcomes in patients who present to the ED with a benign headache. METHODS: This was a randomised, single-blinded, clinical trial performed on patients aged 10-65 years old with benign headaches who presented to a single ED in Las Vegas, Nevada, from May 2017 to February 2019. All patients received prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine, and they were randomised to also receive either 20 mL/kg up to 1000 mL of normal saline (the fluid bolus group) or 5 mL of normal saline (the control group). The primary outcome was the difference between groups in mean pain reduction 60 min after the initiation of treatment. Secondarily, we compared groups with regards to pain reduction at 30 min, nausea scores, the use of rescue medications and disposition. RESULTS: We screened 67 patients for enrolment, and 58 consented. Of those, 35 were randomised to the fluid bolus group and 23 to the control group. The mean pain score dropped by 48.3 mm over 60 min in the fluid bolus group, compared with 48.7 mm in the control group. The between groups difference of 0.4 mm (95% CI -16.5 to 17.3) was not statistically significant (p=0.96). Additionally, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for any secondary outcome. CONCLUSION: Though our study lacked statistical power to detect small but clinically significant differences, ED patients who received an intravenous fluid bolus for their headache had similar improvements in pain and other outcomes compared with those who did not. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03185130.

Effect of diphenhydramine and cetirizine on immediate and late-phase cutaneous allergic reactions in healthy dogs: a randomized, double-blinded crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is insufficient evidence to confirm oral diphenhydramine (DPH) efficacy to prevent mast cell degranulation and histamine release in dogs. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects oral of DPH and cetirizine on the immediate- and late-phase cutaneous allergic reactions in healthy dogs. ANIMALS: Twelve healthy laboratory beagle dogs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study was designed as a randomized, double-blinded crossover study in which each dog served as its own control; twice-daily oral DPH (2.2 mg/kg) or cetirizine (2 mg/kg) were given for six days with a two week washout period. Intradermal injections of histamine, compound 48/80 (positive control) and saline (negative control) were performed on the right thorax 10 days before drug administration (baseline), during oral antihistamine administration on Day 6 and 10 days after last medication dosage. Global wheal scores (GWS) at 20 min and late-phase reactions (LPR) at 6 h post-injection were evaluated by an investigator blinded to the drug and the interventions. RESULTS: Treatment with cetirizine significantly reduced histamine and compound 48/80 GWS and LPR compared to baseline; there was no significant difference for DPH. In all dogs, oral DPH and cetirizine reached plasma concentrations considered therapeutic in people. No adverse effect or behavioural changes were observed during the study. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In conclusion, oral cetirizine was effective in preventing cutaneous allergic reactions without any obvious adverse effects in dogs. Oral DPH failed to show an inhibitory effect despite attaining plasma drug concentrations that are considered effective in people.

Quantification of Trigeminovascular Hypersensitivity Using Laser Speckle Contrast Analysis in a Patient With Chronic Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Activation of peripheral and/or central trigeminovascular pain pathways are implicated in the pathogenesis of migraine. Small fibers mediate pain, thermal sensation, and autonomic functions. Axon flare response is correlated with local C-fiber activation and calcitonin gene-related peptide release. Laser speckle contrast analysis (LASCA) detects very subtle microcirculatory changes that are not visible to the naked eye. CASE: Axon flare response was elicited by 0.01 mL intradermal (i.d.) histamine introduced to the left forehead, trigeminal nerve ophthalmic branch (V1) skin area. Skin microvascular blood flow data were recorded using a LASCA real-time microcirculation imaging system. In the healthy control, prick stimulus slightly elevated focal skin microcirculation only at the stimulated focal area. However, in our patient with chronic migraine, the unilateral prick stimulation transiently (over 10 to 12 seconds) increased ipsilateral skin microcirculation at all 3 branches of the trigeminal nerve, with a slight expansion across the midline. Left V1 stimulation by i.d. histamine induced not only prominent but also long-lasting (10 to 15 minutes of recording time) axon flare response at the ipsilateral V1, V2, and V3 areas, with an expansion to the contralateral V1 area and without any report of allodynia or hyperalgesia. The treatment decreased axon flare characteristics probably by inhibiting neurogenic inflammation. DISCUSSION: The clinical characteristics and individual response to treatment vary widely across patients with pain. Here, we demonstrated the presence of transient spread of increased microcirculation at the ipsilateral trigeminal nerve, and also across the midline after prick stimulus, whereas a more prominent, widespread, and long-lasting histamine-induced axon flare response occurred in a rare subclass of patient who had chronic migraine with autonomic symptoms. The modulatory effect of the pharmacological intervention has also been objectively quantified by LASCA.

Improvement of solubility and dissolution of ebastine by fabricating phosphatidylcholine/ bile salt bilosomes.

Although ebastine (EBT) can impede histamine-induced skin allergic reaction and persuade long acting selective H1 receptor antagonistic effects but its poor water solubility circumscribed its clinical application. The main objective of this research work was to improve the aqueous solubility and oral bioavailability of EBT by preparing EBT-loaded bilosomes (EBT-PC-SDC-BS). A thin film hydration method was used to prepare ebastine loaded bilosomes. The prepared-formulations were optimized considering size, morphology and entrapment efficiency. The SEM images revealed regular and spherical shape of bilosomes. Average size of the prepared EBT-PC-SDC-BS was 665.8 nm and zeta potential was around-32.9 mV with 89.05 % average entrapment efficiency (EE).Importantly, the solubility of EBT in water was amplified up to 17.9 µg/ml compared to pure drug (2 µg/mL) reflecting a highest solubility increase of 751 %. In vitro drug release results of prepared EBT-PC-SDC-BS exhibited improved release behavior. Finally, it is established from the results that the EBT-PC-SDC-BS could function as a favorable nano-carrier system to improve the solubility as well as dissolution of EBT.

Histamine H1 receptor gene polymorphism acts as a biological indicator of the prediction of therapeutic efficacy in patients with allergic rhinitis in the Chinese Han population.

H1-antihistamine has been shown to be effective in treating patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), but its mechanism is still uncertain. We investigated effects of histamine H1 receptor (HRH1) gene polymorphisms on the efficacy of oral H1-antihistamine in perennial patients with AR caused by mites in the Chinese Han population for the first time. A total of 224 Han Chinese patients with AR and 165 Han Chinese healthy volunteers were selected. Genotype and allele frequency distribution of -17C/T in HRH1 gene in patients with AR, serum levels of eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), total immunoglobulin E (IgE), and specific IgE were detected. The clinical symptoms of patients with AR were evaluated with visual analogue scale (VAS). Direct counting method was applied to calculate genotype and allele frequencies. Higher levels of serum ECP and total IgE were shown in the AR group. Moreover, patients with CT, TT, or CT+TT genotype increased the risk of AR incidence in the in the -17C/T site of HRH1, and CC genotype and CT+TT genotype were associated with gender, asthma, VAS score, total IgE level, and specific IgE level in patients with AR. In addition, oral administration of H1-antihistamines improves clinical symptoms of patients with AR. At last, patients with the CC genotype showed the increased efficacy of H1-antihistamines in patients with AR. Our study provides evidence that HRH1 gene polymorphisms may correlate with oral H1-antihistamine efficacy for the treatment of patients with AR, which can be used as a biological indicator of the prediction of therapeutic efficacy of patients with AR.

Antihistamine-resistant chronic spontaneous urticaria: 1-year data from the AWARE study.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports indicate that patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) are undertreated and that physicians show poor adherence to guideline recommendations. Awareness of CSU has improved in recent years, but it remains unclear if this has improved the management of these patients in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe disease burden, quality of life (QoL), and treatment patterns of patients with H1 -antihistamine-refractory CSU in Germany. METHOD: A World-wide Antihistamine-Refractory chronic urticaria (CU) patient Evaluation (AWARE) is a global prospective, non-interventional study of CU in the real-world setting, supported by the manufacturer of omalizumab. Patients (18-75 years) were included who had H1 -antihistamine-refractory CSU for ≥2 months. Disease characteristics, pharmacological treatments, and QoL (dermatology life quality index [DLQI], CU-QoL questionnaire, and angioedema QoL questionnaire) are reported for patients enrolled in Germany. RESULTS: After 1 year in AWARE, CSU remained uncontrolled (urticaria control test [UCT] score <12) in 432 of 1032 (42.2%) patients. QoL impairment remained high after 1 year, with 28.2% of patients reporting that CSU had a moderate/very large/extremely large effect on the DLQI. Most patients did not receive guideline-recommended treatments at the end of the 1-year observation period. Changes in treatments were most evident at the first patient visit, with an increase in patients receiving omalizumab vs prior therapy from 8.5% to 21.4%, and a decrease in those receiving no treatment from 29.9% to 12.8%. These changes were associated with reduced hives, angioedema, UCT scores, and QoL scores at Month 3, but only modest improvements thereafter. Of 528 patients with uncontrolled CSU and who were eligible for treatment escalation, only 3% received up-dosing of H1 -antihistamines and only 5% were initiated on omalizumab during 1 year of treatment. CONCLUSIONS & CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study highlights a significant discrepancy between recommendations for managing CSU in international guidelines, and in real-world clinical practice in Germany.