Oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema

Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Atopic Dermatitis: A Review

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) are stromal-derived non-hematopoietic progenitor cells that reside in and can be expanded from various tissues sources of adult and neonatal origin, such as the bone marrow, umbilical cord, umbilical cord blood, adipose tissue, amniotic fluid, placenta, dental pulp and skin. The discovery of the immunosuppressing action of MSCs on T cells has opened new perspectives for their use as a therapeutic agent for immune-mediated disorders, including allergies. Atopic dermatitis (AD), a chronic and relapsing skin disorder that affects up to 20% of children and up to 3% of adults worldwide, is characterized by pruritic eczematous lesions, impaired cutaneous barrier function, Th2 type immune hyperactivation and, frequently, elevation of serum immunoglobulin E levels. Although, in the dermatology field, the application of MSCs as a therapeutic agent was initiated using the concept of cell replacement for skin defects and wound healing, accumulating evidence have shown that MSC-mediated immunomodulation can be applicable to the treatment of inflammatory/allergic skin disorders. Here we reviewed the pre-clinical and clinical studies and possible biological mechanisms of MSCs as a therapeutic tool for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

New and Emerging Therapies for Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease characterized by pruritus, inflammatory erythematous skin lesions, and skin-barrier defect. Current mainstay treatments of emollients, steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and immunosuppressants have limited efficacy and potentially serious side effects. Recent advances and understanding of the pathogenesis of AD have resulted in new therapies that target specific pathways with increased efficacy and the potential for less systemic side effects. New FDA-approved therapies for AD are crisaborole and dupilumab. The JAK-STAT inhibitors (baricitinib, upadacitinib, PF-04965842, ASN002, tofacitinib, ruxolitinib, and delgocitinib) have the most promising results of the emerging therapies. Other drugs with potential include the aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulating agent tapinarof, the IL-4/IL-13 antagonists lebrikizumab and tralokinumab, and the IL-31Rα antagonist nemolizumab. In this review, new and emerging AD therapies will be discussed along with their mechanisms of action and their potential based on clinical study data.

Synergistic Effect of H1-Antihistamines on Topical Corticosteroids for Pruritus in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Although oral antihistamines (H1-histamine receptor antagonists) are the main treatment option for pruritus in general skin dermatosis, their effect in treating pruritus of atopic dermatitis (AD) has not yet been established.

Objective

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of combined therapy of H1-antihistamines and topical steroids.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases for articles published from 1967 to 2015. We identified 1,206 studies and assessed their titles, abstract, and full-text. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Two studies satisfying the inclusion criteria of antihistamine therapy with mandatory topical steroid use were selected. Comparing antihistamine monotherapy with combination therapy, patients treated with the addition of antihistamine to topical corticosteroids showed a statistically significant clinical improvement (standard MD, −0.24; 95% CI, −0.42 to −0.05; p=0.01).

Conclusion

H1-antihistamines may have a synergistic effect when combined with topical steroids by influencing various associative factors of chronic pruritus in AD.

Oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for eczema

BACKGROUND

The symptoms of eczema can lead to sleeplessness and fatigue and may have a substantial impact on quality of life. Use of oral H1 antihistamines (H1 AH) as adjuvant therapy alongside topical agents is based on the idea that combining the anti-inflammatory effects of topical treatments with the blocking action of histamine on its receptors in the skin by H1 AH (to reduce the principal symptom of itch) might magnify or intensify the effect of treatment. Also, it would be unethical to compare oral H1 AH alone versus no treatment, as topical treatment is the standard management for this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment in adults and children with eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to May 2018: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the GREAT database (Global Resource of EczemA Trials; from inception). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the abstracts of four conference proceedings held between 2000 and 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought RCTs assessing oral H1 AH as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for people with eczema compared with topical treatment plus placebo or no additional treatment as add-on therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcome measures were 'Mean change in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema' and 'Proportion of participants reporting adverse effects and serious adverse events'. Secondary outcomes were 'Mean change in physician-assessed clinical signs', 'Mean change in quality of life', and 'Number of eczema flares'.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies (3285 randomised participants). Seventeen studies included 1344 adults, and eight studies included 1941 children. Most studies failed to report eczema severity at baseline, but they were conducted in secondary care settings, so it is likely that they recruited patients with more severe cases of eczema. Trial duration was between three days and 18 months. Researchers studied 13 different H1 AH treatments. We could not undertake pooling because of the high level of diversity across studies in terms of duration and dose of intervention, concomitant topical therapy, and outcome assessment. Risk of bias was generally unclear, but five studies had high risk of bias in one domain (attrition, selection, or reporting bias). Only one study measured quality of life, but these results were insufficient for statistical analysis.Although this review assessed 17 comparisons, we summarise here the results of three key comparisons in this review.Cetirizine versus placeboOne study compared cetirizine 0.5 mg/kg/d against placebo over 18 months in 795 children. Study authors did not report patient-assessed symptoms of eczema separately for pruritus. Cetirizine is probably associated with fewer adverse events (mainly mild) (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01) and the need for slightly less additional H1 AH use as an indication of eczema flare rate (P = 0.035; no further numerical data given). Physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index (SCORAD)) were reduced in both groups, but the difference between groups was reported as non-significant (no P value given). Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.One study assessed cetirizine 10 mg/d against placebo over four weeks in 84 adults. Results show no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema (pruritus measured as part of SCORAD; no numerical data given), numbers of adverse events (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45; mainly sedation, other skin-related problems, respiratory symptoms, or headache), or physician-assessed changes in clinical signs, amount of local rescue therapy required, or number of applications as an indicator of eczema flares (no numerical data reported). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality.Fexofenadine versus placeboCompared with placebo, fexofenadine 120 mg/d taken in adults over one week (one study) probably leads to a small reduction in patient-assessed symptoms of pruritus on a scale of 0 to 8 (mean difference (MD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.07; n = 400) and a greater reduction in the ratio of physician-assessed pruritus area to whole body surface area (P = 0.007; no further numerical data given); however, these reductions may not be clinically meaningful. Results suggest probably little or no difference in adverse events (mostly somnolence and headache) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.50; n = 411) nor in the amount of 0.1% hydrocortisone butyrate used (co-intervention in both groups) as an indicator of eczema flare, but no numerical data were given. Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.Loratadine versus placeboA study of 28 adults compared loratadine 10 mg/d taken over 4 weeks versus placebo. Researchers found no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed pruritus, measured by a 100-point visual analogue scale (MD -2.30, 95% CI -20.27 to 15.67); reduction in physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORAD) (MD -4.10, 95% CI -13.22 to 5.02); or adverse events. Study authors reported only one side effect (folliculitis with placebo) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.76). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality. Number of eczema flares was not measured for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the main comparisons, we did not find consistent evidence that H1 AH treatments are effective as 'add-on' therapy for eczema when compared to placebo; evidence for this comparison was of low and moderate quality. However, fexofenadine probably leads to a small improvement in patient-assessed pruritus, with probably no significant difference in the amount of treatment used to prevent eczema flares. Cetirizine was no better than placebo in terms of physician-assessed clinical signs nor patient-assessed symptoms, and we found no evidence that loratadine was more beneficial than placebo, although all interventions seem safe.The quality of evidence was limited because of poor study design and imprecise results. Future researchers should clearly define the condition (course and severity) and clearly report their methods, especially participant selection and randomisation; baseline characteristics; and outcomes (based on the Harmonising Outcome Measures in Eczema initiative).

Surveillance of First-Generation H1-Antihistamine Use for Older Patients with Dementia in Japan: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the rate of first-generation H1-antihistamines use for older adults with dementia in Japan.

METHODS

The study design was retrospective cohort using claims data between fiscal years 2010 and 2013. Subjects were 75 years or older, diagnosed with dementia, and given H1-antihistamines orally during the study period after being diagnosed with dementia. We investigated the cumulative number of oral H1-antihistamines administered and the relationship between first-generation H1-antihistamine use and each explanatory variable using crude and adjusted odds ratio.

RESULTS

The cumulative total for use of first-generation H1-antihistamine for older adults with dementia accounted for 32.1% of all antihistamine medication. The majority of first-generation H1-antihistamine prescriptions were indicated for cold treatment. Those with upper respiratory infection or asthma had a significantly positive relationship with first-generation H1-antihistamine use.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that first-generation H1-antihistamine drugs were highly prescribed in older adults with dementia in Japan.

Emollients and moisturisers for eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a chronic skin disease characterised by dry skin, intense itching, inflammatory skin lesions, and a considerable impact on quality of life. Moisturisation is an integral part of treatment, but it is unclear if moisturisers are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of moisturisers for eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to December 2015: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the GREAT database. We searched five trials registers and checked references of included and excluded studies for further relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in people with eczema.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 77 studies (6603 participants, mean age: 18.6 years, mean duration: 6.7 weeks). We assessed 36 studies as at a high risk of bias, 34 at unclear risk, and seven at low risk. Twenty-four studies assessed our primary outcome 'participant-assessed disease severity', 13 assessed 'satisfaction', and 41 assessed 'adverse events'. Secondary outcomes included investigator-assessed disease severity (addressed in 65 studies), skin barrier function (29), flare prevention (16), quality of life (10), and corticosteroid use (eight). Adverse events reporting was limited (smarting, stinging, pruritus, erythema, folliculitis).Six studies evaluated moisturiser versus no moisturiser. 'Participant-assessed disease severity' and 'satisfaction' were not assessed. Moisturiser use yielded lower SCORAD than no moisturiser (three studies, 276 participants, mean difference (MD) -2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -0.28), but the minimal important difference (MID) (8.7) was unmet. There were fewer flares with moisturisers (two studies, 87 participants, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70), time to flare was prolonged (median: 180 versus 30 days), and less topical corticosteroids were needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30 g, 95% CI -15.3 to -3.27). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (one study, 173 participants, risk ratio (RR) 15.34, 95% CI 0.90 to 261.64). Evidence for these outcomes was low quality.With Atopiclair (three studies), 174/232 participants experienced improvement in participant-assessed disease severity versus 27/158 allocated to vehicle (RR 4.51, 95% CI 2.19 to 9.29). Atopiclair decreased itching (four studies, 396 participants, MD -2.65, 95% CI -4.21 to -1.09) and achieved more frequent satisfaction (two studies, 248 participants, RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.89), fewer flares (three studies, 397 participants, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31), and lower EASI (four studies, 426 participants, MD -4.0, 95% CI -5.42 to -2.57), but MID (6.6) was unmet. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically different (four studies, 430 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.33). Evidence for these outcomes was moderate quality.Participants reported skin improvement more frequently with urea-containing cream than placebo (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.53; low-quality evidence), with equal satisfaction between the two groups (one study, 38 participants, low-quality evidence). Urea-containing cream improved dryness (investigator-assessed) more frequently (one study, 128 participants, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.71; moderate-quality evidence) with fewer flares (one study, 44 participants, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92; low-quality evidence), but more participants in this group reported adverse events (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.34; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies assessed glycerol-containing moisturiser versus vehicle or placebo. More participants in the glycerol group noticed skin improvement (one study, 134 participants, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; moderate-quality evidence), and this group saw improved investigator-assessed SCORAD (one study, 249 participants, MD -2.20, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.96; high-quality evidence), but MID was unmet. Participant satisfaction was not addressed. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically significant (two studies, 385 participants, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence).Four studies investigated oat-containing moisturisers versus no treatment or vehicle. No significant differences between groups were reported for participant-assessed disease severity (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), satisfaction (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.52; very low-quality evidence), and investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 272 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.21; low-quality evidence). In the oat group, there were fewer flares (one study, 43 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; low-quality evidence) and less topical corticosteroids needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30g, 95% CI 15.3 to -3.27; low-quality evidence), but more adverse events were reported (one study, 173 participants; Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.26, 95% CI 1.76 to 29.92; low-quality evidence).All moisturisers above were compared to placebo, vehicle, or no moisturiser. Participants considered moisturisers more effective in reducing eczema (five studies, 572 participants, RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; low-quality evidence) and itch (seven studies, 749 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.38) than control. Participants in both treatment arms reported comparable satisfaction (three studies, 296 participants, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.26; low-quality evidence). Moisturisers led to lower investigator-assessed disease severity (12 studies, 1281 participants, SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.51; high-quality evidence) and fewer flares (six studies, 607 participants, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference in adverse events (10 studies, 1275 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; moderate-quality evidence).Topical active treatment combined with moisturiser was more effective than active treatment alone in reducing investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 192 participants, SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.57; moderate-quality evidence) and flares (one study, 105 participants, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.93), and was preferred by participants (both low-quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in number of adverse events (one study, 125 participants, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.19; very low-quality evidence). Participant-assessed disease severity was not addressed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most moisturisers showed some beneficial effects, producing better results when used with active treatment, prolonging time to flare, and reducing the number of flares and amount of topical corticosteroids needed to achieve similar reductions in eczema severity. We did not find reliable evidence that one moisturiser is better than another.

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Background

Eczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.

Objectives

To update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Review methods

Studies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English-language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.

Results

Of 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; andMycobacterium vaccaevaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing.

Limitations

The large scope of the review coupled with the heterogeneity of outcomes precluded formal meta-analyses. Our conclusions are still limited by a profusion of small, poorly reported studies.

Conclusions

Although the evidence base of RCTs has increased considerably since the last NIHR HTA systematic review, the field is still severely hampered by poor design and reporting problems including failure to register trials and declare primary outcomes, small sample size, short follow-up duration and poor reporting of risk of bias. Key areas for further research identified by the review include the optimum use of emollients, bathing frequency, wash products, allergy testing and antiseptic treatments. Perhaps the greatest benefit identified is the use of twice weekly anti-inflammatory treatment to maintain disease remission. More studies need to be conducted in a primary care setting where most people with eczema are seen in the UK. Future studies need to use the same core set of outcomes that capture patient symptoms, clinical signs, quality of life and the chronic nature of the disease.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Abordagem da dermatite atópica na infância pelo Médico de Família e Comunidade

Dermatite atópica (DA) é uma inflamação crônica e pruriginosa da pele, que acomete crianças nos primeiros anos de vida. Sua etiologia permanece pouco elucidada, mas sabe-se que ocorre uma disfunção da barreira cutânea que facilita a penetração de alérgenos/irritantes na epiderme, provocando reação inflamatória com predomínio de resposta Th2 em relação a Th1. O diagnóstico é clínico, podendo associar-se com a presença de história familiar e pregressa de atopias, como rinite e asma. A DA manifesta-se por meio de lesões eczematosas, pruriginosas, com presença de eritema, pápulas, vesículas e escamas. Os principais diagnósticos diferenciais são dermatite seborreica, dermatite de contato, psoríase e escabiose. O tratamento baseia-se na educação do paciente e de seus familiares, somado ao controle do prurido com anti-histamínicos e da inflamação com corticoides e inibidores da calcineurina. Devido à alta prevalência e impacto da DA na qualidade de vida de crianças, corrobora-se a importância do diagnóstico precoce e de uma abordagem individualizada.

No high level evidence to support the use of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema: a summary of a Cochrane systematic review

BACKGROUND

The most important symptom as well as one of the major diagnostic criteria for eczema is itch. Although oral antihistamines continue to be prescribed for people with eczema, it is unclear if they are effective and safe in relieving itch and skin lesions. We sought to evaluate the available evidence on effectiveness of oral antihistamines (H1 antagonists) as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema.

METHODS

Searches included 10 databases and trial registers as well as conference proceedings (January 2014). Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema were included.

RESULTS

Our searches retrieved 757 references, but no randomised controlled trial met our inclusion criteria. Most studies allowed concomitant treatments, making the assessment of the individual effects of oral H1 antihistamines impossible.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no high-level evidence to support or refute the efficacy or safety of oral H1 antihistamines used as monotherapy for eczema. A further review of studies that assesses the effects of oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy together with concomitant treatments is warranted to determine the beneficial effects of this group of medications in the treatment of eczema.

Oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common skin disease in many countries, and although the majority of cases of eczema occur before the age of five years and often resolve during childhood or adolescence, it can also persist into adulthood. Itch is the most important aspect of eczema, often impacting significantly on the quality of life of an affected individual.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral antihistamines (H1 antagonists) as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to March 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We examined the reference lists of excluded studies in order to identify further references to relevant trials. We searched trials registers for ongoing and unpublished trials. We also handsearched the abstracts of the International Research Workshops on eczema, as well as the conference proceedings of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) and the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), from 2000 to 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects and safety of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema. We excluded studies that compared an antihistamine versus another antihistamine and had no placebo control arm. We also excluded topical antihistamines and oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy and studies using any concomitant therapy other than emollients or moisturisers, principally because some of these forms of concomitant therapy may be considered treatment modifiers in assessments of the effects of antihistamines on eczema.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our search retrieved 409 references to studies. Based on assessments of their titles, abstracts, or both, we excluded all except 36 of these studies. After evaluation of the full text of each report, we excluded a further 35 studies, and 1 study is awaiting classification pending a response from the trial investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no high-level evidence to support or refute the efficacy or safety of oral H1 antihistamines used as monotherapy for eczema. Because most of the studies allowed the use of concomitant medications and involved multi-therapeutic approaches, meaningful assessments of the individual effects of oral H1 antihistamines on eczema were not feasible. Although well-designed randomised controlled trials excluding concomitant medications appear to be needed, consideration should be given to the potential ethical issues raised with the use of antihistamines as monotherapy for the management of eczema by withholding the use of rescue or additional therapies. A further systematic review of studies in which concomitant therapies were permitted might be of value in determining the potential benefits of oral H1 antihistamines as add-on therapy.