Cimetidine-induced augmentation of allergic contact hypersensitivity reactions in mice

Roles of Mast Cells in Cutaneous Diseases

Mast cells are present in all vascularized tissues of the body. They are especially abundant in tissues that are in frequent contact with the surrounding environment and act as potential sources of inflammatory and/or regulatory mediators during development of various infections and diseases. Mature mast cells’ cytoplasm contains numerous granules that store a variety of chemical mediators, cytokines, proteoglycans, and proteases. Mast cells are activated via various cell surface receptors, including FcϵRI, toll-like receptors (TLR), Mas-related G-protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2), and cytokine receptors. IgE-mediated mast cell activation results in release of histamine and other contents of their granules into the extracellular environment, contributing to host defense against pathogens. TLRs, play a crucial role in host defense against various types of pathogens by recognizing pathogen-associated molecular patterns. On the other hand, excessive/inappropriate mast cell activation can cause various disorders. Here, we review the published literature regarding the known and potential inflammatory and regulatory roles of mast cells in cutaneous inflammation, including atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and contact dermatitis GVHD, as well as in host defense against pathogens.

Histamine and Histamine Receptors in Allergic Dermatitis

In this chapter we will first introduce the pathophysiological process of several skin diseases including allergic dermatitis, a common skin disease, including chronic allergic contact dermatitis (CACD), and atopic dermatitis (AD). In CACD and AD patients, repeated skin exposure to antigens contributes to the development of chronic eczematous lesions. Repeated application of haptens on mice allows emulation of the development of CACD in humans. Further, we will focus on H1, H2, and H4 histamine receptors and their effects on CACD and AD. Histamine-deficient mice, with a knockout histidine decarboxylase (HDC) gene, were used to investigate the role of histamine in CACD and AD. Histamine induces infiltration of inflammatory cells, including mast cells and eosinophils, and elevates Th2 cytokine levels in CACD. Histamine promotes the development of eczematous lesions, elevates IgE serum levels, and induces scratching behavior in CACD. The administration of H1 or H4 receptor antagonists was effective to ameliorate these symptoms in murine CACD models. The combination of H1 and H4 receptor antagonists is a potential therapeutic target for chronic inflammatory skin diseases such as CACD and AD, since combined therapy proved to be more effective than monotherapy.

Topical antihistamines display potent anti-inflammatory activity linked in part to enhanced permeability barrier function

Systemic antagonists of the histamine type 1 and 2 receptors (H1/2r) are widely used as anti-pruritics and central sedatives, but demonstrate only modest anti-inflammatory activity. Because many inflammatory dermatoses result from defects in cutaneous barrier function, and because keratinocytes express both Hr1 and Hr2, we hypothesized that H1/2r antagonists might be more effective, if they were used topically to treat inflammatory dermatoses. Topical H1/2r antagonists additively enhanced permeability barrier homeostasis in normal mouse skin by: i) stimulation of epidermal differentiation, leading to thickened cornified envelopes; and ii) enhanced epidermal lipid synthesis and secretion. Since barrier homeostasis was enhanced to a comparable extent in mast cell-deficient mice, with no further improvement following application of topical H1/2r antagonists, H1/2r antagonists likely oppose mast cell-derived histamine. In four immunologically-diverse, murine disease models, characterized by either inflammation alone (acute irritant contact dermatitis, acute allergic contact dermatitis), or by prominent barrier abnormalities (subacute allergic contact dermatitis, atopic dermatitis), topical H1/2r agonists aggravated, while H1/2r antagonists improved inflammation and/or barrier function. The apparent ability of topical H1r/2r antagonists to target epidermal H1/2r could translate into increased efficacy in the treatment of inflammatory dermatoses, likely due to decreased inflammation and enhanced barrier function. These results could shift current paradigms of antihistamine utilization from a predominantly-systemic to a topical approach.

Histamine H(4) receptor antagonist ameliorates chronic allergic contact dermatitis induced by repeated challenge

BACKGROUND

The present study observed effects of the histamine H(4) receptor on chronic allergic contact dermatitis induced by repeated challenge in mice.

METHODS

Acute contact dermatitis was induced by single epicutaneous challenge of 2,4,6-trinitro-1-chlorobenzene (TNCB) to the ear. Chronic allergic contact dermatitis was developed by repeated epicutaneous challenge using TNCB on the dorsal back skin. H(4) receptor antagonist JNJ7777120 was administered to wild-type mice, while H(4) receptor agonist 4-methylhistamine was administered to histidine decarboxylase (HDC) (-/-) mice that synthesized no histamine.

RESULTS

HDC (-/-) mice did not differ phenotypically from HDC (+/+) mice, and H(4) receptor antagonist/agonist did not have clinical effects in terms of acute contact dermatitis reactions. H(4) receptor antagonist ameliorated skin eczematous lesions induced by repeated TNCB challenge in HDC (+/+) mice. On the contrary, H(4) receptor agonist exacerbated skin lesions exclusively in HDC (-/-) mice. Application of H(4) receptor agonist induced migration of mast cells and eosinophils in skin lesions, and H(4) receptor antagonist suppressed these changes. H(4) receptor was immunohistochemically detected on mast cells in eczematous lesions. Levels of interleukin (IL)-4, -5, and -6 in lesions were decreased, whereas levels of interferon-gamma and IL-12 were increased by H(4) receptor antagonistic activity. Serum Immunoglobulin E levels rapidly increased with repeated challenge, but decreased with H(4) receptor antagonist.

CONCLUSION

Because chronic allergic contact dermatitis is developed by H(4) receptor stimulation, H(4) receptor antagonists might represent new candidate drugs for treating chronic allergic contact dermatitis.

Use of contact hypersensitivity in immunotoxicity testing

The histopathological examination of lymphoid organs together with a T-dependent antibody (TDAR) assay are the primary components of preclinical immunotoxicity assessment. Additional testing including measurement of cellular immunity may be considered. Besides ex vivo lymphocyte proliferation assays, either delayed or contact hypersensitivity models can be used. Contact hypersensitivity testing is typically performed either in mice or in guinea pigs and is directly derived from classical models used for the detection of contact sensitizing chemicals. Whatever the selected model, it is comprised of a sensitizing phase where the animals are applied a strong contact sensitizer topically, then a rest phase, and finally an eliciting phase where sensitized animals are challenged topically with the same contact sensitizer.In mice, the ear-swelling test is the reference procedure in which mice are sensitized to the ear or shaved abdominal skin and then challenged on the ear. Ear swelling usually measured from ear thickness reflects a cell-mediated immune response. In guinea pigs, a strong sensitizer is applied on the shaved skin of the abdomen or the interscapular area. The sensitized animals are challenged on another area of the shaved abdomen, and the cell-mediated response is assessed semiquantitatively from the magnitude of induced erythema inconsistently associated with edema. Treatment or exposure with immunosuppressive chemicals can result in a significantly decreased ear swelling or skin reaction. Contact hypersensitivity models are seldom used nowadays in preclinical immunotoxicity testing, most likely because of the lack of standardization and extensive validation as well as their use being restricted to mice or guinea pigs.

Patch testing with a standard allergen ("screening") tray: rewards and risks

The TRUE Test panels, which are the only patch testing devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the US, consist of 24 patches, one of which is a negative control. The remaining 23 patches contain 42 unique allergens and four complex mixtures. Although these panels contain approximately 1.4% of the > 3700 known allergens, they perform robustly in detecting allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Twenty-eight percent of patients are fully evaluated by application of TRUE Test((R)). The present paper reviews the appropriate use of the TRUE Test panels. The need to determine relevance of any positive reaction is stressed. The common causes of false-positive and false-negative reactions are outlined. Those product types where the TRUE Test panels detect the majority of relevant allergic reactions are reviewed, as are the other sources of exposure to the allergens on these panels. The impact of ACD on quality of life is significant. Only by patch testing can the diagnosis be made.

The diagnostic evaluation, treatment, and prevention of allergic contact dermatitis in the new millennium

Identifying the etiology of allergic contact dermatitis is a rewarding yet challenging endeavor. Not all allergic contact reactions are eczematous in appearance. The most reliable clinical clue to the allergic nature of the dermatitis is its geographic distribution. Once a list of culprit allergens has been identified by patch testing, the practitioner must identify the relevant allergen(s) and counsel the patient in avoidance. For most individuals, allergen avoidance results in resolution of the dermatitis; however, some patients will require continuing symptomatic therapy despite avoidance. For those patients unable to avoid known allergens, immunosuppressant therapies (including phototherapy) or barriers can be beneficial. Currently, hyposensitization is not a viable alternative for the treatment of allergic contact dermatitis.