Dimetindene-Is the minimum toxic dose for children too strict?

Dimetindene is a sedating antihistamine indicated for the symptomatic treatment of allergic conditions. Dimetindene is marketed among others under the trade name Fenistil (oral solution). Toxicity data are limited, and there is no consensus on the dose at which children require hospitalization. Objective is to determine the potentially toxic dose in children. Data in children with age up to 15 years were obtained from hospital discharge reports. Of 139 paediatric hospital discharge reports, 23 cases (16.5%) were excluded because of uncertain ingestion. In 116 children (46 boys and 70 girls, mean age 2 years and 9 months ± 1 year and 1 month), the majority of children developed no symptoms (87 children, 75%, mean age 3 years±1 year) and the remaining 29 children (25%, mean age 2 years and 11 months ± 1 year and 3 months) developed only mild and spontaneously resolving symptoms of poisoning after a dose of 0.82 ± 0.32 mg/kg b.w. (range 0.26-1.82 mg/kg). In 98% of all cases, hospitalized children were observed for a maximum 24 h, and their condition did not require specific treatment. In conclusion, the prognosis for accidental dimetindene poisoning in children appears to be good and the minimum toxic dose has been determined to be 0.5 mg/kg b.w.

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.

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.

[Approved therapies and their effects on the main symptoms of urticaria : When symptom control of itchy wheals is not adequate-does updosing help?] / Zugelassene Therapien und ihre Wirkung auf die Leitsymptome der Urtikaria : Hilfreiche Therapieoptionen, wenn juckende Quaddeln nicht weichen ­ Viel hilft viel?

International guidelines for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria support the updosing of second-generation antihistamines to four times of the approved dose when adequate symptom control cannot be achieved with the standard dosage. However, this recommendation is primarily based on expert opinions, and there is a lack of large, well-designed, double-blind clinical trials. Most the existing trials provide insufficient data, and due to the heterogeneity of the conducted trials on antihistamine effects (definition of control, design, quality, lack of an active comparator, no placebo arm, small sample size, outcomes) and their short duration, comparative analysis is challenging. However, it can be concluded that the use of modern second-generation antihistamines is both effective and safe based on the available data and our own long-term experiences in the specialized outpatient clinic of a university dermatology department, even though increased dosages (up to fourfold as per the current international guidelines) may be necessary for symptom control. Another therapeutic option for refractory symptoms in chronic spontaneous urticaria is subcutaneous administration of omalizumab at a dosage of 300 mg at 4­week intervals as a very safe and effective treatment.

Discovery of the novel and potent histamine H1 receptor antagonists for treatment of allergic diseases.

Desloratadine, a second-generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist, has established itself as a first-line drug for the treatment of allergic diseases. Despite its effectiveness, desloratadine exhibits an antagonistic effect on muscarinic M3 receptor, which can cause side effects such as dry mouth and urinary retention, ultimately limiting its clinical application. Herein, we describe the discovery of compound Ⅲ-4, a novel H1 receptor antagonist with significant H1 receptor antagonistic activity (IC50 = 24.12 nM) and enhanced selectivity towards peripheral H1 receptor. In particular, Ⅲ-4 exhibits reduced M3 receptor inhibitory potency (IC50 > 10,000 nM) and acceptable hERG inhibitory activity (17.6 ± 2.1 µM) compare with desloratadine. Additionally, Ⅲ-4 exhibits favorable pharmacokinetic properties, as well as in vivo efficacy and safety profiles. All of these reveal that Ⅲ-4 has potential to emerge as a novel H1 receptor antagonist for the treatment of allergic diseases. More importantly, the compound Ⅲ-4 (HY-078020) has recently been granted clinical approval.

Risk calculator of the clinical response to antihistamines in chronic urticaria: Development and internal validation.

Early detection of CSU patients with low probability of a clinical response with antihistamines could undergo prompt initiation of therapeutic alternatives. The aim of the study was to develop and internally validate a model for predicting the clinical response to antihistamines in adult patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), who consult allergology and dermatology care centers. A cohort of CSU patients, recruited from four participating centers, were followed up for 12 months. Fifteen candidate variables were selected to be included in the multivariate model and then internal validation was done with bootstrap analysis with 1000 simulations. The outcome variable, clinical response to antihistamines, was evaluated with the UAS (Urticaria Activity Score) scale for seven days: "No response to antihistamines" was defined as UAS7 ≥7 points after at least one month with a maximum dose of antihistamines, while "Response to antiH1" was defined as UAS7 ≤6 points for at least three months with the use of antiH1. A total of 790 patients were included. Among the different models analyzed, the model that included age, angioedema, anxiety/depression, time with the disease, NSAIDs (Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) intolerance, and UAS7 baseline was considered the one with the best performance (accuracy 0.675, HL 0.87, AUC 0.727). The internal validation analyses demonstrated good consistency of the model. In conclusion, this prediction model identifies the probability of response to antihistamines in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria. The model could be useful for a personalized therapeutic approach according to individual patient risk.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of compound glycyrrhizin combined with second-generation non-sedated antihistamine for the treatment of chronic urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Chronic urticaria (CU) is a prevalent dermatologic disease that negatively affects life, current therapies remain suboptimal. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify effective and safe treatment. OBJECTIVE: Assess the efficacy and safety of compound glycyrrhizin (CG) combined with second-generation nonsedated antihistamine for the treatment of CU. METHODS: Nine databases were queried to screen RCTs related. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane Collaboration. Primary objective was the total efficiency rate, while secondary was rate of recurrence, adverse events, and cure. Statistical analyses using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata17. RESULTS: Twenty-four RCTs were identified. Significant differences were noted in rate of total efficiency (n = 2649, RR = 1.36, 95%CI:1.30-1.43, p < 0.00001), cure (n = 2649, RR = 1.54, 95%CI:1.42-1.66, p < 0.00001) and recurrence (n = 446, RR = 0.34, 95%CI:0.20-0.58, p < 0.00001) between the combination of CG with second-generation non-sedated antihistamine and antihistamine monotherapy. Contrastingly, adverse events rate (n = 2317, RR = 0.76, 95% CI:0.59-0.97, p = 0.03) was comparable between the two groups. Our results indicated that CG combined with second-generation non-sedated antihistamine could significantly mitigate the symptoms in CU compared with antihistamine monotherapy. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: CG combined with second-generation nonsedated antihistamine is effective for CU. Nevertheless, higher-quality studies are warranted to validate our results.

Molecular mechanism of antihistamines recognition and regulation of the histamine H1 receptor.

Histamine receptors are a group of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) that play important roles in various physiological and pathophysiological conditions. Antihistamines that target the histamine H1 receptor (H1R) have been widely used to relieve the symptoms of allergy and inflammation. Here, to uncover the details of the regulation of H1R by the known second-generation antihistamines, thereby providing clues for the rational design of newer antihistamines, we determine the cryo-EM structure of H1R in the apo form and bound to different antihistamines. In addition to the deep hydrophobic cavity, we identify a secondary ligand-binding site in H1R, which potentially may support the introduction of new derivative groups to generate newer antihistamines. Furthermore, these structures show that antihistamines exert inverse regulation by utilizing a shared phenyl group that inserts into the deep cavity and block the movement of the toggle switch residue W4286.48. Together, these results enrich our understanding of GPCR modulation and facilitate the structure-based design of novel antihistamines.

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.

Remibrutinib demonstrates favorable safety profile and sustained efficacy in chronic spontaneous urticaria over 52 weeks.

BACKGROUND: Remibrutinib (LOU064), an oral, highly selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, offers fast disease control in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who remain symptomatic despite treatment with second-generation H1 antihistamines. It is currently in phase 3 development for CSU. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of remibrutinib in patients with CSU inadequately controlled with H1 antihistamines. METHODS: In this phase 2b extension study, patients who completed the core study and had a weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) ≥16 at the beginning of the extension study received remibrutinib 100 mg twice daily for 52 weeks. The primary objective was to assess long-term safety and tolerability. Key efficacy end points included change from baseline in UAS7 and proportion of patients with complete response to treatment (UAS7 = 0) and well-controlled disease (UAS7 ≤6) at week 4 and over 52 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 84.3% (194/230) of patients entered the treatment period and received ≥1 doses of remibrutinib. The overall safety profile of remibrutinib was comparable between the extension and core studies. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate and considered unrelated to remibrutinib by investigators. The 3 most common treatment-emergent adverse events by system organ class were infections (30.9%), skin and subcutaneous tissue (26.8%), and gastrointestinal disorders (16.5%). At week 4 and 52, mean ± SD change from baseline in UAS7 was -17.6 ± 13.40 and -21.8 ± 10.70; UAS7 = 0 (as observed) was achieved in 28.2% and 55.8% and UAS7 ≤6 (as observed) was achieved in 52.7% and 68.0% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Remibrutinib demonstrated a consistent favorable safety profile with fast and sustained efficacy for up to 52 weeks in patients with CSU.

Efficacy and safety of ligelizumab in adults and adolescents with chronic spontaneous urticaria: results of two phase 3 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) do not achieve complete control of their symptoms with current available treatments. In a dose-finding phase 2b study, ligelizumab improved urticaria symptoms in patients with H1-antihistamine (H1-AH) refractory CSU. Here, we report the efficacy and safety outcomes from two ligelizumab phase 3 studies. METHODS: PEARL-1 and PEARL-2 were identically designed randomised, double-blind, active-controlled and placebo-controlled parallel-group studies. Patients aged 12 years or older with moderate-to-severe H1-AH refractory CSU were recruited from 347 sites in 46 countries and randomly allocated in a 3:3:3:1 ratio via Interactive Response Technology to 72 mg ligelizumab, 120 mg ligelizumab, 300 mg omalizumab, or placebo, dosed every 4 weeks, for 52 weeks. Patients allocated to placebo received 120 mg ligelizumab from week 24. The primary endpoint was change-from-baseline (CFB) in weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) at week 12, and was analysed in all eligible adult patients according to the treatment assigned at random allocation. Safety was assessed throughout the study in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03580369 (PEARL-1) and NCT03580356 (PEARL-2). Both trials are now complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 17, 2018, and Oct 26, 2021, 2057 adult patients were randomly allocated across both studies (72 mg ligelizumab n=614; 120 mg ligelizumab n=616; 300 mg omalizumab n=618, and placebo n=209). A total of 1480 (72%) of 2057 were female, and 577 (28%) of 2057 were male. Mean UAS7 at baseline across study groups ranged from 29·37 to 31·10. At week 12, estimated treatment differences in mean CFB-UAS7 were as follows: for 72 mg ligelizumab versus placebo, -8·0 (95% CI -10·6 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -10·0 (-12·6 to -7·4; PEARL-2); 72 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·2 to 2·5; PEARL-1), 0·4 (-1·4 to 2·2; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus placebo -8·0 (-10·5 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -11·1 (-13·7 to -8·5; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·1 to 2·5; PEARL-1), -0·7 (-2·5 to 1·1; PEARL-2). Both doses of ligelizumab were superior to placebo (p<0·0001), but not to omalizumab, in both studies. No new safety signals were identified for ligelizumab or omalizumab. INTERPRETATION: In the phase 3 PEARL studies, ligelizumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo but not versus omalizumab. The safety profile of ligelizumab was consistent with previous studies. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma.

Epinastine Cream: A Novel Once-Daily Therapeutic Agent for Allergic Conjunctivitis.

Purpose: To investigate the in vivo efficacy of epinastine cream in type I allergic models. Methods: The dose, timing, and antiallergic effect of epinastine cream on the conjunctiva were evaluated postapplication to the eyelid skin of guinea pigs with histamine- or ovalbumin-induced allergic conjunctivitis. Additionally, we assessed its antiallergic effects on the skin postapplication to the dorsal skin of guinea pigs with ovalbumin-induced passive cutaneous anaphylaxis. Efficacy was estimated by determining the amount of dye that leaked from conjunctival or dorsal skin tissue vessels as a measure of vascular permeability, scoring the severity of allergic symptoms, and observing the scratching behaviors using clinical parameters. Results: In the histamine-induced conjunctivitis model, epinastine cream strongly inhibited conjunctival vascular permeability in a dose-dependent manner. The inhibitory effect of 0.5% epinastine cream 24 h postapplication was significantly higher than that of 0.1% epinastine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 8 h postadministration. Additionally, the 0.5% epinastine cream inhibited conjunctival vascular permeability 15 min postapplication, and the effect was sustained over 24 h. Furthermore, the 0.5% epinastine cream effectively suppressed clinical symptom scores and exhibited ameliorated scratching bouts in conjunctival allergic reactions in the experimental allergic conjunctivitis model. Additionally, it significantly inhibited vascular permeability in skin allergic reactions in the passive cutaneous anaphylaxis model. Conclusions: The results suggest that epinastine cream is a strong, long-lasting, and skin-penetrating inhibitor of type I allergic reactions. The 0.5% epinastine cream applied once daily could be a promising, potent, and long-acting therapeutic agent for allergic conjunctivitis.

Urticaria.

Urticaria is a frequent skin condition presenting with wheals, angioedema or both due to the activation of mast cells. Acute urticaria (less-than 6 weeks duration) is associated with infections and allergies, whereas chronic urticaria (≥ 6 weeks) is either spontaneous (chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU)), inducible or both. Quality of life (QoL) is frequently impaired. The pathogenesis of CSU is often of an autoimmune nature. As argued in this review, the treatment aims to restore QoL with a stepwise approach, most often using second-generation H1-antihistamines, omalizumab and cyclosporine.

The Added-on of Ziziphus jujube Syrup in the Treatment of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria Resistant to Standard-Dose of Secondary-generation H1 Antihistamine: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Although antihistamines are the first-line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), 50% of patients don't respond to standard doses. In this study, the effectiveness of Ziziphus jujube fruit syrup in combination with antihistamines was assessed in patients with CSU. Methods: This double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in Shiraz between December 2019 and December 2020. 64 patients with CSU who had experienced hives for at least six weeks and did not respond to the usual treatments were enrolled in the study. They were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups using permuted block random allocation. For four weeks, the intervention group received 7.5 mL Ziziphus jujube syrup twice a day, while the control group received 7.5 mL simple jujube syrup twice a day. Both groups received cetirizine 10 mg every night. Urticaria activity score (UAS) and CU-Q2oL questionnaires were used to assess urticaria state and sleep quality before and after each week for four consecutive weeks. Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 18, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Before the intervention, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups' mean of UAS (P=0.490) and sleep quality (P=0.423). During the follow-up, UAS in the intervention group was significantly lower (P=0.001). Moreover, this difference was significant on the day 28 (P=0.046). During the follow-up, the quality of sleep in both groups improved significantly, and this improvement was more significant in the intervention group. Conclusion: Ziziphus jujube syrup could be an effective adjuvant treatment for CSU.Trial Registration Number: IRCT20190304042916N1.

Fundamental Aspects and Relevance of Components in Antihistamine Eye Drops.

Ocular allergy covers a series of immune-allergic inflammatory diseases of the ocular surface, with different degrees of involvement and severity. These pathologies are caused by a variety of IgE- and non-IgE-mediated immune mechanisms and may involve all parts of the external eye, including the conjunctiva, cornea, eyelids, tear film, and commensal flora. The most frequent is allergic conjunctivitis, a condition with different clinical forms that are classified according to the degree of involvement and the presence or absence of proliferative changes in the palpebral conjunctiva, associated atopic dermatitis, and mechanical stimuli by foreign bodies, including contact lenses. Treatment guidelines for allergic conjunctivitis propose a stepwise approach that includes medications for both ophthalmic and oral administration depending on symptom severity, allergic comorbidities, and degree of control. In the case of antihistamines, eye drops are the most prescribed ophthalmic formulations. To avoid disrupting the delicate balance of the ocular surface, topical ophthalmic medications must be well tolerated. The primary aim of this article is to review the physicochemical characteristics and other features of excipients (preservative agents, buffers, pH adjusters, viscosity enhancers, wetting agents or cosolvents, antioxidants, tonicity adjusters, and osmo-protectants) and active compounds (ocular antihistamines) that must be considered when developing formulations for ophthalmic administration of antihistamines. We also provide a brief overview of antihistamine eye drops that could be of interest to professionals treating ocular allergy and encourage the use of preservative-free formulations when possible.

An Overview of Antihistamines and their Properties used for Treatment of Different Diseases.

BACKGROUND: By comparing the histamine impact to the instant response to an injected foreign protein in previously sensitized animals, one might hypothesize that histamine may be involved in this reaction. Through all four of the recognized types of histamine receptors, histamine is also essential for the control of immunological function and acute and chronic allergic inflammation. METHODS: Recent evidence points to anti-IgE antibodies and specific antibodies to cytokines like IL-4 or IL-5 that are associated with allergic inflammation as probable causes of Allergic Rhinitis. The therapeutic advantage of antihistamines is a decrease in allergy symptoms and any other allergy-related symptoms. We research the many diseases and dose forms in which antihistamines are used. Pediatric age groups have never been thoroughly studied for firstgeneration antihistamines. Oral antihistamines are suggested as the first line of therapy for people with mild to severe intermittent Allergic Rhinitis symptoms. RESULTS: Currently, approximately 100 different antihistamine-containing medicines and around 20 different H1-receptor antagonists are available for therapeutic use. Antihistamines of the second generation are more efficient and secure than those of the first generation. We conducted a research on the sedative and non-sedative effects of antihistamines used to treat various diseases. CONCLUSION: The present investigation highlights the use of antihistamines in various diseases at different ages, their sedative and non-sedative effect, and their utility in treating insomnia based on their safety and current use among the patient population, as well as our observation.

Interleukin-33, endothelin-1, and inflammatory parameters in chronic spontaneous urticaria.

Background: Endothelin-1 (ET-1) and interleukin-33 (IL-33) can modulate the activation of mast cells and basophils in the pathophysiology of allergic diseases, interplaying with other mediators of "low-grade inflammation." Objective: To compare ET-1, IL-33, the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), eosinophil-lymphocyte ratio (ELR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), eosinophil-basophil ratio (EBR), systemic immune inflammation index (SII), and system inflammation response index (SIRI) in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and are antihistamine sensitive (AHS), antihistamine resistant (AHR), omalizumab sensitive (OmS), and omalizumab resistant (OmR). Methods: A prospective observational study enrolled 68 consecutive patients with CSU diagnosed and managed according to the dermatology section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the European Union funded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), and the World Allergy Organization guidelines. Patients with a urticaria control test score of >12 are considered treatment sensitive, and ≤ 12 are considered resistant. The control group consisted of 20 sex-matched subjects without urticarial diseases. Total immunoglobulin E (IgE), antinuclear antibodies (ANA), thyroid stimulating hormone, antithyroid peroxidase, mean platelet volume (MPV), NLR, ELR, PLR, EBR, SII, SIRI, ET-1, and IL-33 were measured at the study entry and compared between the study groups. Results: Thirty AHS group, 38 AHR group, and 20 control group patients were included. The AHS, AHR, and control groups did not differ in demographic parameters, but the CSU groups were characterized by higher indicators of inflammation. In comparison with the AHS group, the AHR group was characterized by higher levels of IL-33 (p = 0.007), ET-1 (p = 0.032), C-reactive protein (p = 0.016), MPV (p = 0.002), and higher rates of positive ANA (p = 0.019). Of the 38 patients from the AHR group, 30 (79%) were included in the OmS group and 8 (21%) were included in the OmR group. The OmR group was characterized by higher levels of C-reactive protein (p = 0.022), EBR (p < 0.001), higher rates of ANA (p = 0.004), and lower levels of ET-1 (p = 0.025) than the OmS group. Conclusion: Our study did not confirm NRL, PRL, SII, and SIRI, PLR as the biomarkers of treatment response to antihistamines and/or omalizumab in CSU. Higher blood levels of IL-33 and ET-1 characterize AHR CSU.

Acute Inhibition of the Human Kv1.5 Channel by H1 Receptor Antagonist Dimenhydrinate: Mode of Action.

Dimenhydrinate, an H1 receptor antagonist, is generally used for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting. However, cardiac arrhythmias have been reported to be associated with the overdose of histamine H1 receptor antagonists, indicating the probable effect of antihistamines on ion channels. By using a two-microelectrode voltage clamp, we have herein studied the electrophysiological effects of dimenhydrinate on the human Kv1.5 channel in the Xenopus oocyte expression system. Dimenhydrinate acutely and reversibly suppressed the amplitudes of the peak and the steady-state current, within 6 min. The inhibitory effect of dimenhydrinate on the peak and the steady-state Kv1.5 currents increased progressively from -10 to +50 mV. At each test voltage, the drug suppressed both the peak and the steady-state currents to a similar extent. When the oocytes were stimulated at the rates of 5- and 30-s intervals, dimenhydrinate-induced a use-dependent blockade of the human Kv1.5 channel. Dimenhydrinate expedited the timecourse of the Kv1.5 channel activation more effectively than the timecourse of its inactivation. However, the activation and inactivation curves of the channel were not altered by the H1 receptor antagonist. In conclusion, we found that dimenhydrinate inhibits the human Kv1.5 channel by changing the channel's activation mode, thereby possibly increasing the possibility of triggering cardiac arrhythmias and affecting atrial fibrillation.

Bioequivalence of 2 Pediatric Formulations of Fexofenadine Hydrochloride Oral Suspension.

Fexofenadine hydrochloride (HCl) is a second-generation, nonsedating, histamine H1-receptor antagonist used to manage seasonal allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. A new oral pediatric suspension of fexofenadine HCl has been developed, with the preservative potassium sorbate replacing parabens. The objective of this phase 1 single-center, open-label, randomized, 2-treatment, full-replicated, 4-period, 2-sequence crossover study in healthy adult volunteers was to assess the bioequivalence of 30 mg of the new oral suspension of fexofenadine HCl (test) versus 30 mg of the marketed pediatric oral suspension of fexofenadine HCl (reference). The replicate design was based on the high intra-individual variability of fexofenadine (>30% on Cmax ). The study comprised 68 randomized and treated volunteers. Plasma concentrations of fexofenadine were similar following the administration of a single dose of each formulation. Cmax , AUClast , AUC, median tmax , and mean t1/2z were similar between administrations of the same fexofenadine formulation and between formulations. A high intra-individual variability was confirmed with both formulations. Bioequivalence of the test and reference fexofenadine HCl formulations was demonstrated as the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric least squares mean ratio for Cmax , AUClast , and AUC of fexofenadine were all within the bioequivalence range of 0.80-1.25. There were no serious adverse events (AEs) or study discontinuations due to treatment-emergent AEs with either fexofenadine HCl formulation. The new paraben-free fexofenadine HCl 30-mg oral suspension and marketed fexofenadine HCl 30-mg pediatric oral suspension are bioequivalent under fasting conditions, with no safety concerns and a safety profile consistent with the known profile of fexofenadine.