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.

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.

Outcome of childhood epistaxis with treatment of allergic rhinitis: a randomized controlled study.

The purpose of this study is to (1) to determine if treatment of underlying allergic rhinitis (AR) in children will affect epistaxis outcome, (2) to compare efficacy of three outpatient AR treatment regimens in epistaxis outcomes, and (3) to investigate potential factors in the pathogenesis of epistaxis with underlying AR. A single-blind randomized-controlled study was conducted in the Otolaryngology clinic in KK Women's and Children's Hospital. Sixty children aged below 18 years with underlying untreated AR, with first presentation of epistaxis, were randomized to three different AR treatments: treatment 1, antihistamine (20 patients); treatment 2, nasal steroid spray (20 patients); and treatment 3, both antihistamine and nasal steroid spray (20 patients). Epistaxis severity and frequency were assessed. Pre-treatment, 95% of patients within each of the three treatment groups described epistaxis symptoms. Post-treatment, there was improvement in epistaxis outcome (resolution of epistaxis) with 20% (4/20), 40% (8/20), and 60% (12/20) of patients in treatment groups 1 (antihistamine), 2 (nasal steroid spray), and 3 (combined therapy) respectively, who reported resolution of epistaxis. Treatment regimens containing nasal steroid spray resulted in greater improvement of epistaxis severity and frequency. Combined therapy (treatment 3) resulted in the best epistaxis outcome at 1-month follow-up. Majority (90%) reported nose-picking/rubbing behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal corticosteroids are superior to oral antihistamines in relieving itch or rhinorrhea in AR. Intranasal corticosteroids may be important in treating epistaxis with underlying AR, because digital trauma from itch/rhinorrhea-related nose-picking/rubbing frequently leads to epistaxis. Results from this study will be important to primary and emergency physicians, community pediatricians, and pediatric allergists and otolaryngologists. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Childhood epistaxis commonly co-exists with allergic rhinitis (AR), causing significant symptoms and distress to patients. • There are currently no studies reporti ng on epistaxis outcome aft er treatment of underlying AR. WHAT IS NEW: • This is a single-blind randomized-controlled study of 60 children aged below 18 years with underlying untreated AR, with first presentation of epistaxis to a children's hospital in Singapore Patients were randomized to three different regimens to treat AR: treatment 1, antihistamine; treatment 2, nasal steroid spray; and treatment 3, both antihistamine and nasal steroid spray. • Treatment regimens containing nasal steroid spray improved epistaxis outcomes, with combined therapy of antihistamine and nasal steroid spray resulting in the best outcome for resolution of epistaxis among the three treatment regimens.

In Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria, Complete Response to Antihistamine Treatment Is Linked to Low Disease Activity.

INTRODUCTION: The use of predictors of response to a specific treatment in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) can improve disease management, help prevent unnecessary healthcare costs, and save time. In this study, we aimed to identify predictors of complete response to standard-dosed and higher than standard-dosed antihistamine treatments in patients with CSU. METHODS: Medical records of 475 CSU patients, 120 of them <18 years old, from 3 different centers were analyzed. We used 15 machine learning (ML) models as well as traditional statistical methods to predict complete response to standard-dosed and higher than standard-dosed antihistamine treatment based on 17 clinical parameters. RESULTS: CSU disease activity, which was assessed by urticaria activity score (UAS), was the only clinical parameter that predicted complete response to standard-dosed and higher than standard-dosed antihistamine treatment, with ML models and traditional statistics, for all age groups. Based on ROC analyses, optimal cut-off values of disease activity to predict complete response were UAS <3 and UAS <4 for standard-dosed (area under the ROC curve [AUC] = 0.69; p = 0.001) and higher than standard-dosed (AUC = 0.79; p = 0.001) antihistamine treatments, respectively. Also, ML models identified lower total IgE (<150 IU/mL) as a predictor of complete response to a standard-dosed antihistamine and lower CRP (<3.4 mg/mL) as a predictor of complete response to higher than standard-dose antihistamine treatment. DISCUSSION: In this study, we showed that patients with UAS <3 are highly likely to have complete response to standard-dosed AH and those with a UAS <4 are highly likely to have complete response to higher than standard-dosed AH treatment. Low CSU disease activity is the only universal predictor of complete response to AH treatment with both ML models and traditional statistics for all age groups.

Case series of chronic spontaneous urticaria following COVID-19 vaccines: an unusual skin manifestation.

BACKGROUND: Urticaria following the COVID-19 vaccine was rarely reported and had a short self-limited resolution. However, there has been relatively little literature published on CSU induced by COVID-19 vaccines. PURPOSE: We describe a case series of patients who experienced CSU after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: A retrospective case series of 10 patients referred to the Department of Clinical Pharmacology of the University of Monastir (January 2021-January 2022) and included for evaluation of urticaria after COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: The median age was 31 years and patients were mostly female. Atopy was presented in 3 patients and urticaria was accompanied by angioedema in 6 patients. The median time interval between vaccination and the onset of urticaria was 28.5 h. The offended dose was the first one in 8 patients. The resolution of the eruption was observed at least 2 months later, despite the regular use of a full dose of antihistamine in nine patients. Polynuclear leucocytosis was identified in 5 patients. Anti-TPOAb was positive in one patient after receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine. Total serum IgE was elevated in 4 patients. Skin tests for the suspected vaccine as well as the vaccine excipient were negative. CONCLUSION: We add to the medical literature ten new cases of chronic spontaneous urticarial reactions following COVID-19 vaccines uncontrolled with high-dose first-generation H1 antihistamines.

Cetirizine more potently exerts mast cell-stabilizing property than diphenhydramine.

Cetirizine, a second-generation antihistamine, and diphenhydramine, a first-generation antihistamine, are among the most widely used anti-allergic drugs. In addition to longer duration of action and less incidence of sedative side effects, recent clinical studies also indicate a higher potency of cetirizine than diphenhydramine in the treatment or prevention of allergic disorders. In the present study, using the differential-interference contrast (DIC) microscopy, we examined the effects of cetirizine and diphenhydramine (1 µM to 1 mM) on the degranulation from rat peritoneal mast cells. Using fluorescence imaging of a water-soluble dye, lucifer yellow, we also examined their effects on the deformation of the plasma membrane. At relatively higher concentrations (100 µM, 1 mM), both cetirizine and diphenhydramine significantly reduced the numbers of degranulating mast cells. Of note, at 1 mM, cetirizine more markedly reduced the number than diphenhydramine, almost entirely suppressing the degranulation of mast cells. Additionally, 1 mM cetirizine and levocetirizine, another second-generation antihistamine, almost totally inhibited the process of exocytosis in mast cells and washed out the trapping of the lucifer yellow on the cell surface, while diphenhydramine and chlorpheniramine, another first-generation antihistamine, did not. This study provided in vitro evidence for the first time that cetirizine more potently inhibited the process of exocytosis in mast cells than diphenhydramine, indicating its higher potency as a mast cell-stabilizer. Such mast cell-stabilizing property of cetirizine could be ascribed to its counteracting effect on the plasma membrane deformation in degranulating mast cells.

Histamine-2 (H2 ) antagonists can be safely removed from standard paclitaxel premedication regimens.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to investigate the rates of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in patients receiving paclitaxel chemotherapy, with and without a histamine-2 (H2 ) antagonists. METHOD: This prospective, multi-centre, cohort study compared patients receiving paclitaxel treated with premedication regimens containing chlorphenamine, dexamethasone and an H2 antagonist vs patients treated without an H2 antagonist. Rates of HSRs were described and logistic multivariable regression was used to investigate any associations with H2 antagonist treatment, adjusting for confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 1043 individuals were included in the study; of these, 638 (61%) patients received an H2 antagonist and 405 (49%) were not given an H2 antagonist. Incidence of HSR in the cohort treated with H2 antagonists was 11.31% (n = 70) vs 9.86% (n = 41) in the cohort without. There was no statistically significant difference between the rates of HSR observed in those receiving and not receiving an H2 antagonist (odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.65, 1.66, P = .9). CONCLUSIONS: Results presented within the study are consistent with other recently published evidence to suggest that H2 antagonists do not confer any advantage as part of premedication regimens in reducing the incidence of HSR in patients treated with paclitaxel.

Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes of Chronic Urticaria: Two-year Follow-up Results from the Scandinavian AWARE Study.

The AWARE (A World-wide Antihistamine-Refractory chronic urticaria patient Evaluation) study investigated outcomes in patients with chronic urticaria refractory to H1-antihistamine. The objective of the current study was to analyse the effects of treatment on patients' symptoms and quality of life for a period of up to 2 years. Over the 2 years, there was clear improvement in the high rates of disease burden from baseline, as evidenced by lower scores for disease severity scales, better quality of life, and a decreasing rate of medical resource utilization. However, this is the result of treatment adherence to the guidelines in highly specialized Scandinavian urticaria centres, and has its basis in the relatively low treatment intensity and control at enrolment. There is a need for greater adherence to the treatment guidelines and better management of antihistamine-refractory chronic urticaria.

The Role of Cetirizine in the Changing Landscape of IV Antihistamines: A Narrative Review.

Since 1955, the only available H1 antihistamines for intravenous administration have been first-generation formulations and, of those, only intravenously administered (IV) diphenhydramine is still approved in the USA. Orally administered cetirizine hydrochloride, a second-generation H1 antihistamine, has been safely used over-the-counter for many years. In 2019, IV cetirizine was approved for the treatment of acute urticaria. In light of this approval, this narrative review discusses the changing landscape of IV antihistamines for the treatment of histamine-mediated conditions. Specifically, IV antihistamines will be discussed as a treatment option for acute urticaria and angioedema, as premedication to prevent infusion reactions related to anticancer agents and other biologics, and as an adjunct treatment for anaphylaxis and other allergic reactions. Before the development of IV cetirizine, randomized controlled trials of IV antihistamines for these indications were lacking. Three randomized controlled trials have been conducted with IV cetirizine versus IV diphenhydramine in the ambulatory care setting. A phase 3 trial of IV cetirizine 10 mg versus IV diphenhydramine 50 mg was conducted in 262 adults who presented to the urgent care/emergency department with acute urticaria requiring antihistamines. For the primary efficacy endpoint, defined as change from baseline in a 2-h patient-rated pruritus score, non-inferiority of IV cetirizine to IV diphenhydramine was demonstrated (score - 1.6 vs - 1.5, respectively; 95% CI - 0.1, 0.3). Compared with IV diphenhydramine, IV cetirizine demonstrated fewer adverse effects including less sedation, a significantly shorter length of stay in the treatment center, and fewer returns to the treatment center at 24 and 48 h. Similar findings were demonstrated in another phase 2 acute urticaria trial and in a phase 2 trial assessing IV cetirizine for pretreatment for infusion reactions in the oncology/immunology setting. IV cetirizine is associated with similar patient outcomes, fewer adverse effects, and increased treatment center efficiency than IV diphenhydramine.

Risk factors of uncontrolled symptoms using the standard dose of second-generation H1 -antihistamines in chronic spontaneous urticaria children.

BACKGROUND: A standard dose of second-generation H1 -antihistamines is recommended as the first-line treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), previous studies have found that approximately 20-50% of CSU children fail to control their symptoms and required step-up treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictors of uncontrolled symptoms with first-line medication and describe the treatment outcomes of CSU children in the southern region of Thailand. METHODS: This retrospective chart review of CSU patients, aged 2-18 years, who were initially treated with the standard dose of second-generation H1 -antihistamine at the Pediatric Allergy Clinic, Songkhlanagarind Hospital, from January 2008 to July 2018. The data were collected at the initial visit (demographic data, onset of rash, frequency of urticaria, presence of angioedema, previous resolved CU, laboratory investigation results) and follow-up visits (treatment outcome, time to controlled urticaria). RESULTS: The medical records of 192 CSU children were reviewed; their median age were 8.5 years and the mean frequency of rash was 4 days/week. Forty-seven children (24.4%) fail to controlled symptoms with a standard dose of second -generation H1 -antihistamines and a factor significantly associated was frequency of rash for more than 4 days per week (OR = 4.36, P < 0.001). The median time to controlled urticaria was 1.28 months. CONCLUSIONS: Most of CSU children in the southern region of Thailand experienced controlled symptoms with a standard dose of second-generation H1 -antihistamines, and the frequency of urticaria for more than 4 days per week was a factor associated with uncontrolled symptoms that regimen.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-brain Penetrating H1-Antihistamines for the Treatment of Allergic Diseases.

H1 receptor antagonists, known as H1-antihistamines (AHs), inactivate the histamine H1-receptor thereby preventing histamine causing the primary symptoms of allergic diseases, such as atopic dermatitis, pollinosis, food allergies, and urticaria. AHs, which are classified into first-generation (fgAHs) and second-generation (sgAHs) antihistamines, are the first line of treatment for allergic diseases. Although fgAHs are effective, they cause adverse reactions such as potent sedating effects, including drowsiness, lassitude, and cognitive impairment; anticholinergic effects, including thirst and tachycardia. Consequently, the use of fgAHs is not recommended for allergic diseases. Today, sgAHs, which are minimally sedating and, therefore, may be used at more effective doses, are the first-line treatment for alleviating the symptoms of allergic diseases. Pharmacologically, the use of sedating fgAHs is limited to antiemetics, anti-motion sickness drugs, and antivertigo drugs. The use of histamine H1-receptor occupancy (H1RO) based on positron emission tomography (PET) has been developed for the evaluation of brain penetrability. Based on the results of the H1RO-PET studies, non-brain-penetrating AHs (nbpAHs) have recently been reclassified among sgAHs. The nbpAHs are rapidly acting and exhibit minimal adverse reactions and, thus, are considered first-line drugs for allergic diseases. In this review, we will introduce recent topics on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of AHs and make recommendations for the use of nbpAHs as first-line treatment options for allergic diseases.

Antihistamine use during breastfeeding with focus on breast milk transfer and safety in humans: A systematic literature review.

Current data on use of antihistamines during breastfeeding and risks to the breastfed infant are insufficient. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of studies measuring the levels of antihistamines in human breast milk, estimating the exposure for breastfed infants and/or reporting possible adverse effects on the breastfed infant. An additional aim was to review the antihistamine product labels available in the European Union (EU) and the United States. We searched seven online databases and identified seven human lactation studies that included 25 mother-infant pairs covering cetirizine, clemastine, ebastine, epinastine, loratadine, terfenadine and triprolidine. In addition, one study investigated the impact of chlorpheniramine or promethazine on prolactin levels among 17 women, and one study investigated possible adverse drug reactions in 85 breastfed infants exposed to various antihistamines. The relative infant dose was below 5% for all antihistamines, ranging from 0.3% for terfenadine to 4.5% for clemastine. Most product labels of the 10 antihistamines with available information in both the EU and the United States reported lack of evidence and recommended to avoid use during breastfeeding. The knowledge gap on antihistamines and lactation is extensive, and further human studies are warranted to ensure optimal treatment of breastfeeding women with allergy.

Fenebrutinib in H1 antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria: a randomized phase 2 trial.

Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is crucial for FcεRI-mediated mast cell activation and essential for autoantibody production by B cells in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Fenebrutinib, an orally administered, potent, highly selective, reversible BTK inhibitor, may be effective in CSU. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial (EudraCT ID 2016-004624-35 ) randomized 93 adults with antihistamine-refractory CSU to 50 mg daily, 150 mg daily and 200 mg twice daily of fenebrutinib or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in urticaria activity score over 7 d (UAS7) at week 8. Secondary end points were the change from baseline in UAS7 at week 4 and the proportion of patients well-controlled (UAS7 ≤ 6) at week 8. Fenebrutinib efficacy in patients with type IIb autoimmunity and effects on IgG-anti-FcεRI were exploratory end points. Safety was also evaluated. The primary end point was met, with dose-dependent improvements in UAS7 at week 8 occurring at 200 mg twice daily and 150 mg daily, but not at 50 mg daily of fenebrutinib versus placebo. Asymptomatic, reversible grade 2 and 3 liver transaminase elevations occurred in the fenebrutinib 150 mg daily and 200 mg twice daily groups (2 patients each). Fenebrutinib diminished disease activity in patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU, including more patients with refractory type IIb autoimmunity. These results support the potential use of BTK inhibition in antihistamine-refractory CSU.

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.

Efficacy of Triprolidine in the Treatment of Temporary Sleep Disturbance.

Triprolidine, a first-generation antihistamine for allergic rhinitis, has a shorter half-life and fewer persistent effects relative to other antihistamines and may be useful in the treatment of temporary sleep disturbance. Patients aged ≥18 years old were randomized 1:1:1 to receive either triprolidine 2.5 mg (n = 65), triprolidine 5 mg (n = 66), or placebo (n = 67) on 3 consecutive nights. Sleep disturbance index was monitored via wrist actimeter. Subjective measures were assessed via diary card. Triprolidine 2.5 mg had a significantly lower sleep disturbance index versus placebo on night 1 (P = .02); however, when adjusted for outliers, sleep disturbance index did not significantly differ between either dose of triprolidine versus placebo on night 1. Adjusted sleep disturbance index was significantly lower with triprolidine 2.5 and 5 mg versus placebo on night 3 (P = .0017 and P = .011, respectively) and for the mean of all 3 nights (P = .01 and P = .015, respectively). Sleep latency was significantly improved for triprolidine 2.5 mg versus placebo on nights 2 and 3 and for the mean of all 3 nights and for triprolidine 5 mg versus placebo for the mean of all 3 nights. Subjective measures showed those on both doses of triprolidine felt more refreshed on awakening versus placebo for the mean of all 3 nights, with no increase in daytime sleepiness. The frequency of adverse events was similar across groups. The optimum dose of triprolidine for treatment of temporary sleep disturbance was 2.5 mg. There were improvements in both objective and subjective measures of sleep quality versus placebo, with no safety concerns raised.

Antihistamine-related deaths in England: Are the high safety profiles of antihistamines leading to their unsafe use?

AIMS: Antihistamines are routinely taken to control allergic reactions or sedation to induce sleep. There are, however, growing concerns regarding sedating antihistamine misuse. This research aims to evaluate deaths related to antihistamines in England occurring during 2000-2019. METHODS: Cases reported to the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths from England occurring in 2000-2019 with antihistamine detections at postmortem were extracted for analysis. RESULTS: In total, 1666 antihistamine postmortem detections were identified from 1537 cases. Sedating antihistamines available for purchase under pharmacist supervision but without need for a prescription (pharmacy-only medications) were present in a significant majority of cases (85.2%, P < .01). Despite an increasing trend for antihistamine-related deaths over time, the proportion of deaths where an antihistamine was implicated declined over the same period. Specific concerns with regards to the misuse of these pharmacy-only sedating antihistamines are raised with regards to the significant proportion of cases that were concluded as suicide (20.9%, P < .01), and the high prevalence of their use in combination with other central nervous system depressants (94.8% of cases). CONCLUSION: This is the first report in over 40 years regarding antihistamine-related mortality from England. The rising trend in sedating antihistamine-related deaths may be contributed to by their increasing availability and the perceived negligible dangers associated with antihistamines, both from the general public and learned professionals. Awareness of the dangerous sedative properties that some antihistamines possess is, however, heightened in individuals deliberately seeking these effects. Urgent review of sedating antihistamines currently assigned under the pharmacy-only classification is needed to achieve antihistamine harm reduction.

Beyond the 'purple drank': Study of promethazine abuse according to the European Medicines Agency adverse drug reaction reports.

BACKGROUND: Promethazine is a medicinal product, available on its own or in combination with other ingredients including dextromethorphan, paracetamol and/or expectorants. Anecdotal reports have however indicated that promethazine may have a misuse potential, especially in adolescents. OBJECTIVE: We here aimed at studying how this phenomenon has been reported to the European Monitoring Agency Adverse Drug Reactions database. METHODS: After a formal request to the European Monitoring Agency, the promethazine-specific dataset has been studied, performing a descriptive analysis of misuse/abuse/dependence-related adverse drug reaction reports. The study was approved by the University of Hertfordshire (LMS/PGR/UH/03234). RESULTS: The analysis of promethazine data showed increasing levels of misuse/abuse/ dependence issues over time (2003-2019). Out of a total number of 1543 cases of adverse drug reactions, the abuse/misuse/dependence-related cases reported were 557, with 'drug abuse' (300/557: 53.8%) and 'intentional product misuse' (117/557: 21.0%). being the most represented adverse drug reactions. A high number of fatalities were described (310/557: 55.6%), mostly recorded as 'drug toxicity/drug abuse' cases, with opiates/opioids having been the most commonly reported concomitant drugs used. CONCLUSION: Anecdotal promethazine misuse/abuse reports have been confirmed by European Monitoring Agency data. Promethazine misuse/abuse appears to be an alarming issue, being associated with drug-related fatalities. Thus, healthcare professionals should be warned about a possible misuse of promethazine and be vigilant, as in some countries medicinal products containing promethazine can be purchased over the counter. Since promethazine is often available in association with opioids, its abuse may be considered a public health issue, with huge implications for clinical practice.

Association of H1-antihistamines with torsade de pointes: a pharmacovigilance study of the food and drug administration adverse event reporting system.

Background: This study aimed to measure the association of various H1-antihistamines (H1A) with Torsade de Pointes (TdP), and present a comprehensive overview of H1A-induced TdP cases reported to the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods: All H1A-induced TdP cases (n = 406) were retrieved from the FAERS database using the preferred term 'Torsade de Pointes' of MedDRA version-22 from 1990 to 2019. Four data-mining algorithms were used for disproportionality analysis: Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR); Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean (EBGM), and Information Content (IC). H1A with >3 TdP cases were included. Results: A total of 12 signals (Astemizole, cetirizine, chlorpheniramine, clemastine, desloratadine, diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine, loratadine, meclizine, promethazine, terfenadine, and trimeprazine) were identified including six new signals (cetirizine, chlorpheniramine, clemastine, desloratadine, loratadine, and meclizine). The number of risk factors (p = 0.031) and concomitant QT-prolonging drugs (p = <0.001) were significantly lower among new signals vs old signals. Moreover, new signals were strongly associated with QT-prolongation, cardiac reactions, and electrolyte abnormalities as compared with old signals. Conclusions: Our study found the increased torsadogenic potential of new signals compared with previously known old signals, hence necessitating clinical studies to determine the actual torsadogenic potential of newly identified signals.

Antihistamine-resistant chronic spontaneous urticaria remains undertreated: 2-year data from the AWARE study.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence describing the benefits of recommended therapies and their impact on the quality of life (QoL) of chronic urticaria (CU) patients is limited. OBJECTIVE: To investigate disease burden, current treatment schedule, and the use of clinical resources by patients with H1 -antihistamine-refractory CU in Europe. METHODS: AWARE (A World-wide Antihistamine-Refractory chronic urticaria patient Evaluation) is a global, prospective, non-interventional study in the real-world setting, sponsored by the manufacturer of omalizumab. Disease characteristics, pharmacological treatments, and health-related QoL of patients (N = 2727) ≥18 years of age diagnosed with H1 -antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (without inducible urticaria) for >2 months are reported here. RESULTS: Of the 2727 patients included, 1232 (45.2%) and 1278 (46.9%) were successfully followed up for any assessment and for the key outcome, the urticaria control test (UCT) score, respectively, and patients with complete remission (14.1%) were excluded from analyses.The proportion of patients with uncontrolled CSU (UCT score <12) dropped from 78% (n/N = 1641/2104) at baseline to 28.7% (n/N = 269/936) after two years of participation in the AWARE study. In addition, the proportion of patients with no impact of CSU on their QoL (assessed by the Dermatological Life Quality Index) increased to 57% (n/N = 664/1164) from 18.7% (n/N = 491/2621) at baseline. Emergency room visits (2.4% [n/N = 7/296] vs 33.5% [n/N = 779/2322]) and hospital stays (1.7% [n/N = 5/296] vs 24.2% [n/N = 561/2322]) reduced at Month 24 vs baseline. Overall, 23.2% (n/N = 26/112) patients on non-sedating H1 -antihistamines (nsAH) and 41.9% (n/N = 44/105) patients on up-dosed nsAH had uncontrolled CSU (UCT <12) at Month 24. In omalizumab-treated patients, 27.1% (n/N = 78/288) had uncontrolled CSU at Month 24. CONCLUSION: These data confirm improvements for most patients with CSU over a 2-year follow-up period. Further studies are needed to understand the differences between guideline recommendations and reported management.

The CD45dim/CD123bright/HLADRneg BAT in the Anti-histamine Drug Allergy.

No Abstract.