Comparison of aprepitant versus desloratadine for EGFR-TKI-induced pruritus: A randomized phase 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pruritus is one of the most common and challenging side effects of epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) and has impaired patients' quality of life and treatment compliance. Our study evaluated the efficacy and safety of aprepitant in managing EGFR-TKIs-related pruritus. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted between December 2016 and August 2020 in China. Patients were eligible if they were 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with first onset of moderate to severe pruritus during EGFR-TKI treatment. RESULTS: A total of 130 eligible patients were randomly assigned to aprepitant (n = 65) or desloratadine (n = 65) groups. The median (interquartile range [Q1, Q3]) age was 63 (54, 70) years, and 79 (60.8%) were women. Mean visual analog scale scores at baseline were 6.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.89-6.82) in the aprepitant group and 5.94 (95% CI, 5.56-6.32) in the desloratadine group. After 1 week of treatment, 33 (53.2%) patients responded to aprepitant, which was significantly higher than that of 14 (23.7%) patients responded to desloratadine (p = .001). Moreover, patients in the aprepitant group had a significantly shorter response time than patients in the desloratadine group (mean [days], 13.39 [95% CI, 11.08-15.70] vs. 16.67 [95% CI, 14.19-19.13], p = .04). The most frequent drug-related adverse events in aprepitant group and desloratadine were constipation and dry mouth, and all adverse events were grade 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively present that aprepitant elicited a better and faster response and mild toxicity for managing EGFR-TKI induced pruritus than desloratadine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02646020.

Pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs for postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have many negative perioperative effects. It has been suggested that the administration of analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. We defined pre-emptive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive NSAIDs for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL (up to June 2020). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included adult participants undergoing any type of surgery. We defined pre-emptive NSAIDs as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. We included studies that gave the medication by any route but not given on the skin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods expected by Cochrane, as well as a novel publication bias test developed by our research group. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Outcomes included acute postoperative pain (minimal clinically important difference (MCID): 1.5 on a 0-10 scale), adverse events of NSAIDs, nausea and vomiting, 24-hour morphine consumption (MCID: 10 mg reduction), time to analgesic request (MCID: one hour), pruritus, sedation, patient satisfaction, chronic pain and time to first bowel movement (MCID: 12 hours). MAIN RESULTS: We included 71 RCTs. Seven studies are awaiting classification. We included 45 studies that evaluated pre-emptive NSAIDs and 26 studies that evaluated preventive NSAIDs. We considered only four studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The operations and NSAIDs used varied, although most studies were conducted in abdominal, orthopaedic and dental surgery. Most studies were conducted in secondary care and in low-risk participants. Common exclusions were participants on analgesic medications prior to surgery and those with chronic pain. Pre-emptive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For pre-emptive NSAIDs, there is probably a decrease in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41; studies = 36; participants = 2032; I2 = 96%; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies that reported on acute postoperative pain reported adverse events as an outcome. There may be little or no difference between the groups in short-term (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; studies = 2; participants = 100; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or long-term nausea and vomiting (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 228; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00; studies = 28; participants = 1645; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption with pre-emptive NSAIDs (MD -5.62 mg, 95% CI -9.00 mg to -2.24 mg; studies = 16; participants = 854; I2 = 99%; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the time to analgesic request (MD 17.04 minutes, 95% CI 3.77 minutes to 30.31 minutes; studies = 18; participants = 975; I2 = 95%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.76; studies = 4; participants = 254; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or sedation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.68; studies = 4; participants = 281; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), although the number of included studies for these outcomes was small. No study reported patient satisfaction, chronic pain or time to first bowel movement for pre-emptive NSAIDs. Preventive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For preventive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.12; studies = 18; participants = 1140; I2 = 75%; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adverse events from NSAIDs (reoperation for bleeding) although the events were low which did not allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 20.68). There may be little or no difference in rates of short-term (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30; studies = 1; participants = 76; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 456; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence) nausea and vomiting. There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.07; studies = 21; participants = 1441; I2 = 81%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -1.93 mg, 95% CI -3.55 mg to -0.32 mg; studies = 16; participants = 1323; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in time to analgesic request (MD 8.51 minutes, 95% CI -31.24 minutes to 48.27 minutes; studies = 8; participants = 410; I2 = 98%; very low-certainty evidence). As with pre-emptive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in other opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.35; studies = 3; participants = 211; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and sedation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.63; studies = 5; participants = 497; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in patient satisfaction (MD -0.42; 95% CI -1.09 to 0.25; studies = 1; participants = 72; moderate-certainty evidence). No study reported on chronic pain. There is probably little or no difference in time to first bowel movement (MD 0.00; 95% CI -15.99 to 15.99; studies = 1; participants = 76; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was some evidence that pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs reduce both pain and morphine consumption, although this was not universal for all pain and morphine consumption outcomes. Any differences found were not clinically significant, although we cannot exclude this in more painful operations. Moreover, without any evidence of reductions in opioid adverse effects, the clinical significance of these results is questionable although few studies reported these outcomes. Only one study reported clinically significant adverse events from NSAIDs administered before surgery and, therefore, we have very few data to assess the safety of either pre-emptive or preventive NSAIDs. Therefore, future research should aim to adhere to the highest methodology and be adequately powered to assess serious adverse events of NSAIDs and reductions in opioid adverse events.

Albumin dialysis with MARS for the treatment of anabolic steroid-induced cholestasis.

 Background and aims. Steroid-related hepatotoxicity has become one of the most relevant causes of drug induced liver cholestasis. Some patients do not improve after standard medical treatment (SMT) and may therefore require other approaches, like extracorporeal liver support. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We report four cases of patients with pruritus, abnormal liver function tests and biopsy-proven anabolic steroid-induced cholestasis who were unresponsive to SMT. They underwent treatment with albumin dialysis (Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System -MARS®-). A minimum of two MARS sessions were performed. RESULTS: After MARS® procedure, patients' symptoms improved, as well as liver function tests, thus avoiding liver transplantation. CONCLUSION: Albumin dialysis appears as a valuable therapeutic option for the management of anabolic steroid-induced cholestasis in patients that are unresponsive to SMT.

Allergic Reaction following Implantation of a Nitinol Alloy Inferior Vena Cava Filter.

A 67-year-old woman developed severe pruritus after implantation of a retrievable nitinol inferior vena cava (IVC) filter (55.4% nickel and 44.6% titanium). The pruritus resolved only after filter retrieval. The patient's hypersensitivity to nickel was confirmed by a positive skin patch test substantiating a systemic allergic reaction to the implanted nitinol IVC filter.

Cutaneous reactions in patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with peginterferon and ribavirin.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Peginterferon alfa and ribavirin could cause various cutaneous reactions. Treatment-related cutaneous reactions are common, and treatable complications can contribute to the treatment discontinuation. METHODS: We performed a 6-year prospective study of cutaneous reactions in 271 patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with peginterferon and ribavirin. RESULTS: Cutaneous reactions of mild to moderate degree were seen in 36 (13.3%) patients: localized cutaneous reactions in 7 (2.6%) patients, generalized reactions - pruritus, skin xerosis and eczematous changes - in 28 (10.3%) patients, alopecia in 11 (4.1%) patients; exacerbation of lichen planus was seen in 1 patient. CONCLUSION: The study showed a relatively low prevalence of cutaneous reactions without the need for discontinuation of any of the drugs used. These reactions correlated only with the age of the patients and treatment duration. This finding is of particular importance with regard to the recently introduced direct-acting antivirals in the treatment of hepatitis C virus infection, which can cause a very severe form of cutaneous reactions.

Effectiveness of a mouthrinse containing active ingredients in addition to chlorhexidine and triclosan compared with chlorhexidine and triclosan rinses on plaque, gingivitis, supragingival calculus and extrinsic staining.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of three different mouthrinses--chlorhexidine, triclosan + sodium fluoride and chlorhexidine + triclosan + sodium fluoride + zinc chloride--on plaque, calculus, gingivitis and stains and to evaluate the occurrence of adverse effects with these three treatments. METHODS: Forty-eight healthy subjects participated in a double-blind, randomized, parallel experiment and were randomly allocated to any one of the three experimental mouthrinses: group A (0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gluconate), group B (0.03% triclosan + 0.025% sodium fluoride (NaF) + 12% ethyl alcohol) or group C (0.2% CHX + 0.3% triclosan + 0.3% NaF + 0.09% Zn chloride (ZnCl(2)). All the subjects were assessed for gingivitis, plaque, supragingival calculus and extrinsic stains at baseline and at the end of the 21-day experimental period. RESULTS: There was a significant difference (P = 0.046) in the effectiveness for the prevention of gingivitis and plaque, with subjects of group A and group C presenting least and highest gingival and plaque scores, respectively. Significant differences (P = 0.03) were observed for the accumulation of supragingival calculus where the deposition of calculus in group A was nearly double that of the group B, and group B was most effective in the prevention of supragingival calculus. Highest deposition of extrinsic stains was in the group A followed by group C and group B. There was no significant difference between the three treatments for adverse events' occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: CHX mouthrinse was most effective in controlling plaque and gingivitis but caused greatest deposition of extrinsic stains. Supragingival calculus deposition was least in triclosan + NaF group followed by CHX + triclosan + NaF + ZnCl(2) and CHX. More than half of the subjects reported adverse events during the experimental phase.

Effects of oral morphine on experimentally evoked itch and pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Pain and itch share similar neuronal networks; hence, it is difficult to explain why opioids can relieve pain but provoke itching. The present human volunteer study aimed to investigate the similarities and differences in responses to experimentally provoked pain and itching to explore the underlying fundamental mechanisms. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy volunteers were enrolled in this single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Three volar forearms and two mandibular areas were marked, and participants randomly received morphine (20 mg) or identical placebo tablets. Heat, cold, and pressure pain thresholds, and vasomotor responses were assessed at baseline and after oral morphine administration. Itch provocations were induced by intradermal application of 1 % histamine or a topical cowhage (non-histaminergic itch) to a marked area of the skin. The participants were subsequently asked to rate their itching and pain intensities. The assessments were repeated for all marked areas. RESULTS: Morphine caused analgesia, as assessed by the significant modulation of cold and pressure pain thresholds (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in histaminergic or non-histaminergic itch or pain intensity between the morphine and placebo groups. Superficial blood perfusion (vasomotor response) following histamine provocation was significantly increased by morphine (p<0.05) in both areas. No correlation was found between the provoked itch intensity and analgesic efficacy in any area or group. CONCLUSIONS: Oral administration of morphine caused analgesia without modulating itch intensities but increased neurogenic inflammation in response to histamine, suggesting that different opioid mechanisms in histaminergic and non-histaminergic neurons evoke neurogenic inflammation.

Neurokinin-1 antagonist orvepitant for EGFRI-induced pruritus in patients with cancer: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of orvepitant (10 or 30 mg given once daily, orally for 4 weeks), a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, compared with placebo in reducing the intensity of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRI)-induced intense pruritus. DESIGN: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in Italy and five hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 44 patients aged ≥18 years receiving an EGFRI for a histologically confirmed malignant solid tumour and experiencing moderate or intense pruritus after EGFRI treatment. INTERVENTION: 30 or 10 mg orvepitant or placebo tablets once daily for 4 weeks (randomised 1:1:1). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean patient-recorded numerical rating scale (NRS) score (over the last three recordings) at week 4. Secondary outcome measures were NRS score, verbal rating scale score, Skindex-16 and Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire at each study visit (baseline, weeks 1, 4, 8); rescue medication use; EGFRI dose reduction; and study withdrawal because of intense uncontrolled pruritus. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early because of recruitment challenges; only 44 of the planned 90 patients were randomised. All patients were analysed for efficacy and safety. Mean NRS score change from baseline to week 4 was -2.78 (SD: 2.64) points in the 30 mg group, -3.04 (SD: 3.06) points in the 10 mg group and -3.21 (SD: 1.77) points in the placebo group; the difference between orvepitant and placebo was not statistically significant. No safety signal was detected. Adverse events related to orvepitant (asthenia, dizziness, dry mouth, hyperhidrosis) were all of mild or moderate severity. CONCLUSIONS: Orvepitant was safe and well tolerated. No difference in NRS score between the orvepitant and placebo groups was observed at the week 4 primary endpoint. A number of explanations for this outcome are possible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT2013-002763-25.

Severe allergic reaction to Dermabond.

The use of 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (Dermabond; Ethicon, Somerville, NJ) for wound closure is increasingly popular. Problems with Dermabond are generally related to application techniques and rarely relate to the chemical nature of the adhesive. This article describes a severe allergic reaction to Dermabond following breast augmentation/mastopexy.

Development of Hydrogels for Microneedle-Assisted Transdermal Delivery of Naloxone for Opioid-Induced Pruritus.

Transdermal naloxone delivery could be a potential option for treating opioid-induced pruritus, but naloxone does not permeate skin well because of its hydrophilic nature. Microneedles (MNs) could overcome the skin barrier by painlessly creating microchannels in the skin to permit naloxone absorption to therapeutic levels. This study investigated how ionization correlates with naloxone permeation across MN-treated skin. Hydrogels containing 0.2, 0.5, or 1% naloxone were formulated with 1% cross-linked polyacrylic acid (polymer) and adjusted to pH 5, 6.5, or 7.4. Porcine skin was treated with MNs and naloxone gel, and in vitro permeation studies were performed using an in-line diffusion setup. Gel structural properties were evaluated using rheology. All gels had viscoelastic properties and good spreadability. Naloxone permeation through intact skin was highest from pH 7.4 gels when naloxone is unionized, in contrast with undetectable concentrations permeated from pH 5 gels with 100% ionization. Combining MN treatment with pH 5 gels significantly enhanced permeation and resulted in steady-state flux that would achieve therapeutic delivery. Absorption lag time was affected by MN length and naloxone gel concentration. Polymer concentration did not influence drug permeability. This study demonstrates that transdermal naloxone delivery with MNs is a viable treatment option for opioid-induced pruritus.

[Analysis of adverse reaction induced by articaine hydrochloride and epinephrine tartrate injection in 75 cases].

Objective: To investigate the causes and clinical manifestation of adverse reaction of articaine hydrochloride and epinephrine tartrate injection. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the adverse drug reactions (ADR) of local anesthetic articaine hydrochloride and epinephrine tartrate injection. Results: In 75 cases of adverse reactions, there were 40 cases of female and 35 cases of male. Adverse reactions occured more frequently at the age of 3-10 [33% (25/75)] and 1-10 min and one day after injection, respectively accounting for 20% (15/75), and two days, accounting for 15% (15/75), 10-21 days accounting for 8% (6/75). The main manifestations were injection site ulcers, followed by skin reactions such as pain, swelling, necrosis and pruritus at the injection site. Conclusions: The main adverse reactions of articaine hydrochloride and epinephrine tartrate injection are the injection site ulceration, followed by injection site pain, rash, pruritus and drowsiness, nausea and dizziness, palpitations, sweat and hypotension. Doctors should ask the medical history in detail and pay close attention to the patient's medication safety.

Comparison of inhibition of cutaneous histamine reaction of ebastine fast-dissolving tablet (20 mg) versus desloratadine capsule (5 mg): a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, three-period crossover study in healthy, nonatopic adults.

BACKGROUND: Ebastine is a long-acting, second-generation, selective histamine H1-receptor antagonist. A fast-dissolving tablet formulation of ebastine has been developed at 10- and 20-mg doses, with the intention of facilitating administration to patients experiencing problems with swallowing, including those confined to bed and elderly people, as well as those who may need to use ebastine when they do not have easy access to water to aid swallowing a tablet. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to assess the pharmacodynamic effects (ie, inhibition of wheal response to cutaneous histamine challenge, and subjective assessments of itching, flare, and pain) and tolerability of the fast-dissolving 20-mg ebastine tablet formulation compared with desloratadine 5-mg capsule and placebo. Acceptability and convenience of the fast-dissolving tablet were also evaluated. METHODS: This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-period crossover study was conducted at the Drug Research Centre, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. Healthy, nonatopic, white adults aged 18 to 40 years were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 study sequences: ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CBA, or CAB, where A was the ebastine fast-dissolving 20-mg tablet, B was the desloratadine 5-mg capsule, and C was placebo. All study drugs were given orally once daily (8-9 AM) on days 1 to 5 of each study period. Study periods were separated by a washout period of 7 to 10 days. Histamine skin-prick test (SPT) challenge was performed before study drug administration on day 1 of each period (baseline), and then every 20 minutes for 2 hours after administration and again after 24 hours. The final SPT was 24 hours after the day-5 dose was administered. The primary end point was inhibition o f the histamine response, defined as the percentage reduction from baseline wheal area 24 hours after 5 days of administration. Subjective symptoms (itching, flare, and pain) were assessed by subjects using visual analog scales every 20 minutes for 2 hours after administration on day 1. At study end, acceptability (taste, convenience, and overall preference) of the fast-dissolving tablet and capsule formulations were assessed using a questionnaire completed by subjects. Tolerability was assessed using physical examination, laboratory analysis, physician questioning, and spontaneous reporting. RESULTS: Thirty-six people were randomized (22 women, 14 men; mean [SD] age, 24.7 [4.1] years; mean [SD] weight, 63.2 [9.9] kg); 35 completed the study (1 subject was lost to follow-up after the second study period). Unadjusted mean (SD) wheal areas 24 hours after dose administration on day 5 were 72.9 (29.5), 115.0 (32.1), and 146.7 (32.2) mm(2), for ebastine, desloratadine, and placebo, respectively. Mean differences in reduction from baseline in wheal area were 29.0% for ebastine versus desloratadine and 43.7% for ebastine versus placebo (both, P < 0.001). Corresponding unadjusted mean (SD) wheal areas 24 hours after administration of the first dose on day 1 were 76.5 (22.5), 128.9 (24.0), and 140.5 (33.1) mm(2). Mean itching, flare, and pain ratings were not significantly different between study drugs. Results from the preference questionnaire indicated that the majority (80%) preferred the ebastine fast-dissolving tablet to the desloratadine capsule (and hypothetically also to tablets and oral solution, which were not tested in this study). Ninety-seven percent of subjects were of the opinion that compliance in the home setting would be facilitated by the fas-tdissolving tablet formulation. Fourteen adverse events (AEs) were reported in 9 (25%) volunteers; all AEs were of mild or moderate intensity. Five occurred with ebastine 20 mg (intermittent somnolence, back pain, pharyngolaryngeal pain, pyrexia, and oral pain [1 patient each]), 5 occurred with desloratadine 5 mg (asthenia [2 patients] and dry mouth, somnolence, and back pain [1 patient each]), and 4 occurred with placebo (diarrhea [2 patients] and somnolence and headache [1 patient each]). The relationship with the study drugs was considered unlikely in 6 cases and possible in the remaining 8 cases. An additional AE (back pain) occurred during a washout period. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study in healthy, nonatopic white subjects, inhibition of the response to histamine injection was significantly greater with the ebastine 20-mg fast-dissolving tablet compared with desloratadine 5-mg capsule and placebo after 1 and 5 days of administration. Most participants expressed an overall preference for the fast-dissolving tablet formulation over capsules. All study drugs were well tolerated.

Short-term side effects of 0.2% alcohol-free chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal treatment: a double-blind clinical study.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this clinical study were to evaluate the short-term subjective (by means of questionnaire) and objective (by means of clinical examination) side effects of 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse without alcohol used as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal treatment and to elucidate the relationship between the subjective and objective evaluations. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with two groups: 1) the test group, rinsing with the test product (0.2% CHX without alcohol) twice per day for 1 week, and 2) the control (placebo) group, rinsing with a placebo solution twice per day for 1 week. Following the start of rinsing, patients were subjectively and objectively evaluated for the presence and severity of side effects (pain, burning sensation, pruritus, dryness of mouth, taste disturbance, mucosal irritations, and discoloration of tooth and tongue surfaces) at days 1, 3, and 7 of the rinsing period. The presence of subjective and objective side effects of the groups was compared via use of chi2 and Fisher exact tests. Analysis of the subjective and objective side effects within the evaluation periods was done by McNemar test. Spearman correlation analysis was used to assess the relationships between the subjective and objective side effects. RESULTS: None of the patients in either group complained of dryness of the mouth. The most commonly reported side effect was the change in color of the labial and buccal mucosa, particularly of the gingiva, after day 3 of rinsing. There were significant (r=0.308 to 0.835; P<0.05) correlations between the discolorations of tongue and tooth surfaces reported by the patients and clinically detected at all evaluation periods. There was a significant and positive relationship between the subjective side effects and the soft tissue irritations when the duration of rinsing increased. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this clinical evaluation, rinsing with 0.2% alcohol-free CHX for 1 week caused more irritation to oral mucosa, greater burning sensation, and increased altered taste perception compared to the placebo rinse.

Rapid improvement of icterus and pruritus by the oral administration of colestimide in two cases of drug-induced hepatitis.

We report two cases of drug-induced hepatitis refractory to therapy of ursodeoxycholic acid and prednisolone, who were relieved of icterus and pruritus immediately by the oral administration of colestimide. Their liver dysfunction was not improved, by withdrawal of causative drugs or by treatment with prednisolone and ursodeoxycholic acid. Colestimide (3.0 g/day), a strong basic anion-exchange resin, was orally taken before breakfast and evening meal, leading to rapid and complete relief of icterus and pruritus. These cases suggested that colestimide would be useful for patients with cholestasis in drug-induced hepatitis, because this agent has few side effects and it is easy to take.

Delayed and immediate hypersensitivity reactions associated with the use of amalgam.

Hypersensitivity to the constituents of dental amalgam is uncommon. When it occurs it typically manifests itself as a lichenoid reaction involving a delayed, type IV, cell-mediated hypersensitivity response. Rarely, a more acute and generalised response can occur involving both the oral mucosa and skin. We describe two cases that illustrate the presentation and management of these two types of reaction.

Evaluating a dental patient for local anesthesia allergy.

The determination of particular allergens with respect to local anesthetics may present difficulty within the realm of clinical dentistry. A case is presented that dramatizes the difficulties in determining the specific allergen after a patient undergoing several episodes of restorative dentistry with several varying regimens of local anesthesia repeatedly reacted with skin rashes and pruritus approximately 36 hours after treatment. The patient was a 76-year-old man with a complex medical history. A challenge procedure performed with a commercial formulation of local anesthesia resulted in a positive delayed hypersensitivity reaction. An additional challenge procedure with cardiac lidocaine resulted in a negative challenge. A latex-induced delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction was suspected but unproven because the patient declined further allergy testing. Therefore, the conclusion was that the allergen was an unknown substance within the commercial local anesthetic formulation.

Risks of occupational exposure to latex gloves.

The extraordinary increase in latex glove use in dentistry within the past decade has created a potential occupational hazard in the form of adverse reactions to components found in these gloves. Reactions may range from dry, itchy skin to a life-threatening, anaphylactic response. Management of these conditions may be as simple as switching glove brands; but in the most severe cases, it may entail the need to create a latex-free environment for the safety of the affected health care worker. This article reviews the pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis and management of these conditions and provides references for more in-depth reading on the subject.

Red man syndrome during administration of prophylactic antibiotic against infective endocarditis.

Red man syndrome (RMS) is the occurrence flushing, pruritus, chest pain, muscle spasm or hypotension during vancomycin infusion. It usually happens as a result of rapid infusion of the drug but may also occur after slow administration. The frequency and severity of this phenomenon diminish with repeated administration of vancomycin. A case is presented whereby RMS occurred while prophylactic antibiotic against infective endocarditis was administered.