Experimental elicitation of itch: Evoking and evaluation techniques

How Does Botulinum Toxin Inhibit Itch?

Two decades after reports of the anti-pruritic effects of botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs), there is still no approved product for the anti-itch indication of BoNTs, and most clinical case reports still focus on the off-label use of BoNTs for various itchy conditions. Few randomized clinical trials have been conducted with controversial results, and the beneficial effects of BoNTs against itch are mainly based on case studies and case series. These studies are valuable in presenting the potential application of BoNTs in chronic pruritic conditions, but due to the nature of these studies, they are categorized as providing lower levels of evidence or lower grades of recommendation. To obtain approval for the anti-pruritic indication of BoNTs, higher levels of evidence are required, which can be achieved through conducting large-scale and well-designed studies with proper control groups and established careful and reliable primary and secondary outcomes. In addition to clinical evidence, presenting the mechanism-based antipruritic action of BoNTs can potentially strengthen, accelerate, and facilitate the current efforts towards further investments in accelerating the field towards the potential approval of BoNTs for itchy conditions. This review, therefore, aimed to provide the state-of-the-art mechanisms underlying the anti-itch effect of BoNTs from basic studies that resemble various clinical conditions with itch as a hallmark. Evidence of the neuronal, glial, and immune modulatory actions of BoNTs in reducing the transmission of itch are presented, and future potential directions are outlined.

Pruritus as a Distinctive Feature of Type 2 Inflammation

Pruritus is a common symptom of several skin diseases, both inflammatory and neoplastic. Pruritus might have a tremendous impact on patients’ quality of life and strongly interfere with sleep, social, and work activities. We review the role of type-2 inflammation and immunity in the pathogenesis of chronic pruritic conditions of the skin. Type 2 cytokines, including IL-4, IL-13, thymic stromal lymphopoietin, periostin, IL-31, IL-25, and IL-33 are released by mast cells, innate lymphoid cells 2, keratinocytes, and type 2 T lymphocytes, and are master regulators of chronic itch. These cytokines might act as direct pruritogen on primary sensory neurons (pruriceptors) or alter the sensitivity to other itch mediators Type 2 inflammation- and immunity-dominated skin diseases, including atopic dermatitis, prurigo nodularis, bullous pemphigoid, scabies, parasitic diseases, urticaria, and Sézary syndrome are indeed conditions associated with most severe pruritus. In contrast, in other skin diseases, such as scleroderma, lupus erythematosus, hidradenitis suppurativa, and acne, type 2 inflammation is less represented, and pruritus is milder or variable. Th2 inflammation and immunity evolved to protect against parasites, and thus, the scratching response evoked by pruritus might have developed to alert about the presence and to remove parasites from the skin surface.

Antipruritic Placebo Effects by Conditioning H1-antihistamine

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis symptoms can be reduced by behaviorally conditioning antihistamine. It is unclear whether these findings extend to histamine-induced itch or work when participants are informed about the conditioning procedure (open-label conditioning). The current study aims to investigate the efficacy of (open-label) antipruritic behavioral conditioning for histamine-induced itch.

METHODS

Healthy participants (n = 92; 84% female) were randomized to I) an open-label conditioned, II) closed-label conditioned, III) conditioned-not-evoked control, or IV) nonconditioned control group. A two-phase conditioning paradigm was used. During acquisition, a conditioned stimulus (CS; distinctively tasting beverage) was repeatedly paired with the H1-antihistamine levocetirizine (groups I-III). During evocation, the CS was paired with placebo (I, II), or instead of the CS, water was paired with placebo (III). The nonconditioned control group (IV) received CS with placebo in both phases. Itch after histamine iontophoresis and physiological data (i.e., spirometry, heart rate, skin conductance) were assessed. Combined conditioned and combined control groups were first compared, and analyses were repeated for separate groups.

RESULTS

Marginally lower itch was reported in the combined conditioned compared with the control groups (F(1,88) = 2.10, p = .076, ηpartial = 0.02); no differences between separate groups were found. No effects on physiological data were found, except for heart rate, which reduced significantly and consistently for control groups, and less consistently for conditioned groups (group by time interaction: F(7,80) = 2.35, p = .031, ηpartial = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Limited support was found for the efficacy of antipruritic behavioral conditioning, regardless of whether participants were informed about the conditioning procedure. The application of open-label conditioning in patient populations should be further researched.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.trialregister.nl; ID NTR5544.

Effects of Open- and Closed-Label Nocebo and Placebo Suggestions on Itch and Itch Expectations

Placebo and nocebo effects have been shown to influence subjective symptoms such as itch. These effects can be induced by influencing outcome expectations through, for example, combining the application of an inert substance (e.g., a cream) with verbal suggestions on the anticipated effects of this substance. Interestingly, placebo effects also occur when it is known that a treatment is inert (i.e., open-label placebo). However, no study to date has examined the efficacy of negative and positive verbal suggestions under similar open-label and closed-label (i.e., concealed placebo/nocebo) conditions in itch. A randomized controlled between-subjects study design was applied in which healthy volunteers (n = 92) were randomized to 1) an open-label positive verbal suggestion group, 2) a closed-label positive verbal suggestion group, 3) an open-label negative verbal suggestion group, or 4) a closed-label negative verbal suggestion group. Verbal suggestions were made regarding the topical application of an inert substance. Itch was evoked experimentally by histamine iontophoresis at baseline and again following suggestions. Itch expectations, self-reported itch during and following iontophoresis, and skin response parameters were measured. Positive suggestions were found to result in significantly lower expected itch than were negative suggestions in both open- and closed-label conditions. No effects of the suggestions on itch during iontophoresis were found, but significantly lower itch was reported in the 4 min following iontophoresis in the (combined open- and closed-label) positive compared with negative verbal suggestion groups. In addition, a smaller increase in skin temperature was found in the positive compared with negative suggestion groups. The findings illustrate a potential role of (open- and closed-label) placebo for optimizing expectations and treatment effects for itch in clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register, trial number: NTR6530.