Antihistamines in Dermatology

Treatment Options for Troublesome Itch

Itch (or pruritus) is an unpleasant sensation, inducing the desire to scratch. It is also a major and distressing symptom of many skin and systemic diseases. The involvement of histamine, which is a major itch mediator, has been extensively examined. Recent studies suggest that histamine-independent pathways may play roles in chronic itch. Therefore, antihistamines are not always effective in the treatment of patients with chronic itch. The development of biologics and κ-opioid receptor (KOR) agonists has contributed to advances in the treatment of itch; however, since biologics are expensive for patients to purchase, some patients may limit or discontinue their use of these agents. Furthermore, KOR agonists need to be prescribed with caution due to risks of side effects in the central nervous system. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are sometimes associated with side effects, such as infection. In this review, we summarize antidepressants, antineuralgics, cyclosporine A, antibiotics, crotamiton, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, botulinum toxin type A, herbal medicines, phototherapy, and acupuncture therapy as itch treatment options other than antihistamines, biologics, opioids, and JAK inhibitors; we also explain their underlying mechanisms of action.

A machine learning and network framework to discover new indications for small molecules

Drug repurposing, identifying novel indications for drugs, bypasses common drug development pitfalls to ultimately deliver therapies to patients faster. However, most repurposing discoveries have been led by anecdotal observations (e.g. Viagra) or experimental-based repurposing screens, which are costly, time-consuming, and imprecise. Recently, more systematic computational approaches have been proposed, however these rely on utilizing the information from the diseases a drug is already approved to treat. This inherently limits the algorithms, making them unusable for investigational molecules. Here, we present a computational approach to drug repurposing, CATNIP, that requires only biological and chemical information of a molecule. CATNIP is trained with 2,576 diverse small molecules and uses 16 different drug similarity features, such as structural, target, or pathway based similarity. This model obtains significant predictive power (AUC = 0.841). Using our model, we created a repurposing network to identify broad scale repurposing opportunities between drug types. By exploiting this network, we identified literature-supported repurposing candidates, such as the use of systemic hormonal preparations for the treatment of respiratory illnesses. Furthermore, we demonstrated that we can use our approach to identify novel uses for defined drug classes. We found that adrenergic uptake inhibitors, specifically amitriptyline and trimipramine, could be potential therapies for Parkinson's disease. Additionally, using CATNIP, we predicted the kinase inhibitor, vandetanib, as a possible treatment for Type 2 Diabetes. Overall, this systematic approach to drug repurposing lays the groundwork to streamline future drug development efforts.

Development of nanoemulsion gel drug delivery systems of cetirizine; factorial optimisation of composition, in vitro evaluation and clinical study

Aim: This work aimed to develop topical nanoemulsion gels of cetirizine, a second-generation antihistamine, to avoid its oral intake drawbacks and enhance skin permeation.Methods: Cetirizine nanoemulsions were formulated and characterised for their particle size, polydispersity index, zeta potential, drug release and drug permeation through rat skin. The optimised formulation, obtained using 2³ full factorial design, was incorporated in carbopol and chitosan gels and evaluated clinically for urticaria treatment.Results: The optimised formulation had particle size of 32.015 ± 1.87 nm, polydispersity index of 0.29 ± 0.04, zeta potential of -19.31 ± 0.43 mV, cetirizine percent released of 98.50 ± 1.23% and permeability coefficient of 7.65 cm.h^-1. Cetirizine nanoemulsion gels were more effective than their control gels in urticaria treatment with significant decrease in the degree of wheals and itching and higher recovery percent.Conclusion: Cetirizine nanoemulsion topical gels are expected to be a rational and effective tool for avoiding cetirizine oral side effects and targeting the affected skin.

Interventions for chronic pruritus of unknown origin

BACKGROUND

Pruritus is a sensation that leads to the desire to scratch; its origin is unknown in 8% to 15% of affected patients. The prevalence of chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO) in individuals with generalised pruritus ranges from 3.6% to 44.5%, with highest prevalence among the elderly. When the origin of pruritus is known, its management may be straightforward if an effective treatment for the causal disease is available. Treatment of CPUO is particularly difficult due to its unknown pathophysiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for CPUO in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following up to July 2019: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries. We checked the reference lists of included studies for additional references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed interventions for CPUO, as defined in category VI ('Other pruritus of undetermined origin, or chronic pruritus of unknown origin') of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI) classification, in children and adults. Eligible interventions were non-pharmacological or topical or systemic pharmacological interventions, and eligible comparators were another active treatment, placebo, sham procedures, or no treatment or equivalent (e.g. waiting list).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 'Patient- or parent-reported pruritus intensity' and 'Adverse events'. Our secondary outcomes were 'Health-related quality of life', 'Sleep disturbances', 'Depression', and 'Patient satisfaction'. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We found there was an absence of evidence for the main interventions of interest: emollient creams, cooling lotions, topical corticosteroids, topical antidepressants, systemic antihistamines, systemic antidepressants, systemic anticonvulsants, and phototherapy. We included one study with 257 randomised (253 analysed) participants, aged 18 to 65 years; 60.6% were female. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of three different doses of oral serlopitant (5 mg, 1 mg, and 0.25 mg, once daily for six weeks) compared to placebo for severe chronic pruritus; 25 US centres participated (clinical research centres and universities). All outcomes were measured at the end of treatment (six weeks from baseline), except adverse events, which were monitored throughout. A pharmaceutical company funded this study. Fifty-five per cent of participants suffered from CPUO, and approximately 45% presented a dermatological diagnosis (atopic dermatitis/eczema 37.3%, psoriasis 6.7%, acne 3.6%, among other diagnoses). We unsuccessfully attempted to retrieve outcome data from study authors for the subgroup of participants with CPUO. Participants had pruritus for six weeks or longer. Total study duration was 10 weeks. Participants who received serlopitant 5 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS; a reduction in VAS score indicates improvement) compared to placebo (126 participants, risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 3.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 5 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.50); health-related quality of life (as measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); a higher score indicates greater impairment; 127 participants; mean difference (MD) -4.20, 95% CI -11.68 to 3.28); and sleep disturbances (people with insomnia measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Symptom Questionnaire-Insomnia (PSSQ-I), a dichotomous measure; 128 participants; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.01). Participants who received serlopitant 1 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (126 participants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.54; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 1 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (128 participants; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.47); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 128 participants; MD -6.90, 95% CI -14.38 to 0.58); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 128 participants; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.84). Participants who received serlopitant 0.25 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (127 participants; RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.77; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 0.25 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.24); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 127 participants; MD -5.70, 95% CI -13.18 to 1.78); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 127 participants; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.17). The most commonly reported adverse events were somnolence, diarrhoea, headache, and nasopharyngitis, among others. Our included study did not measure depression or patient satisfaction. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for all outcomes due to indirectness (only 55% of study participants had CPUO) and imprecision. We downgraded outcomes other than patient-reported pruritus intensity a further level due to concerns regarding risk of bias in selection of the reported result and some concerns with risk of bias due to missing outcome data (sleep disturbances only). We deemed risk of bias to be generally low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found lack of evidence to address our review question: for most of our interventions of interest, we found no eligible studies. The neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R) antagonist serlopitant was the only intervention that we could assess. One study provided low-certainty evidence suggesting that serlopitant may reduce pruritus intensity when compared with placebo. We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant on other outcomes, as certainty of the evidence is very low. More studies with larger sample sizes, focused on patients with CPUO, are needed. Healthcare professionals, patients, and other stakeholders may have to rely on indirect evidence related to other forms of chronic pruritus when deciding between the main interventions currently used for this condition.

[Histamine receptors in chronic inflammatory diseases of the nose and paranasal sinuses]

BACKGROUND

Release of histamine from mast cells and basophils in inflammatory diseases of the nose and paranasal sinuses has been demonstrated in allergic and non-allergic processes.

METHODS

A selective literature search was conducted in PubMed and Medline, and publications in German-language journals were additionally analyzed.

RESULTS

The histamine receptors H₁-H₄ play a role in otorhinolaryngologic inflammatory diseases. To date, the histamine receptor subtype 4 (H₄R), which is functionally expressed by immune cells in chronic inflammatory diseases, has received little attention. Stimulation of H₄R influences the release of cytokines and chemokines as well as the migration behavior of immune cells. In animal models blockade of H₄R reduced inflammation symptoms and pruritus.

CONCLUSIONS

H₄R plays a key role in the pathogenesis of chronic inflammatory diseases and may represent an interesting future therapeutic target.

Cholestatic pruritus: Emerging mechanisms and therapeutics

Patients suffering from cholestasis often report experiencing a debilitating, unrelenting itch. In contrast to conditions, such as urticaria, in which histamine primarily drives itch (pruritus), cholestatic pruritus is multifactorial and more difficult to treat. Existing therapies are not always effective and have undesirable adverse effect profiles. Here, we conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate conventional treatment strategy, current pathophysiologic understanding, and the role of new therapies in the context of cholestatic pruritus. We discuss novel findings implicating bile acids, lysophosphatidic acid, and bilirubin as potential important mediators of cholestatic itch. New therapies that aim to remove or modulate pruritogens have been supported in observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. Although these new therapies show promise, further research is needed to confirm the pathophysiology of cholestatic pruritus so that targeted therapy can be developed.

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).

Regulatory effects of chrysophanol, a bioactive compound of AST2017-01 in a mouse model of 2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene-induced atopic dermatitis

The aim of this study is to determine whether AST2017-01 which consists of Rumex crispus and Cordyceps militaris would improve atopic dermatitis (AD). We analyzed anti-AD effects of AST2017-01 and chrysophanol, a bioactive compound of AST2017-01, using a 2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene-induced AD murine model. AST2017-01 and chrysophanol relieved clinical severity in AD-like skin lesions and significantly decreased scratching behavior. The thickness of epidermis and infiltration of inflammatory cells in AD-like skin lesions were reduced by AST2017-01 or chrysophanol. AST2017-01 and chrysophanol significantly suppressed the levels of histamine, immunoglobulin E, thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), interleukin (IL)-4, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α in serum of AD mice. The protein levels of TSLP, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and macrophage inflammatory protein 2 were significantly inhibited in the skin lesions. The mRNA expressions of TSLP, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine/CCL17, and C-C chemokine receptor 3 were inhibited in the skin lesions by AST2017-01 or chrysophanol. In addition, AST2017-01 and chrysophanol significantly suppressed the expressions and activities of caspase-1 in the skin lesions. Taken together, these results suggest that AST2017-01 has beneficial effects on AD and may be used as a health functional food in AD.

Adjunctive Management of Itch in Atopic Dermatitis

Itch, or pruritus, is a hallmark feature of atopic dermatitis (AD). The impact of AD-related pruritus can range from mildly distressing or distracting to completely disabling. Traditionally, management of itch in AD patients has focused on restoring the altered skin barrier with topical emollients and/or reducing inflammation. A growing emphasis has been placed on directly targeting the neural transmission pathways that mediate itch signaling. Off-label use of neuromodulatory agents has helped reduce this aggravating symptom in atopic patients. This article reviews the current literature on the use of neuromodulatory agents and nonpharmacologic alternative therapies used to treat AD-related pruritus.

Expression and function of histamine and its receptors in atopic dermatitis

Background

Atopic dermatitis constitutes a most burdensome chronic inflammatory skin disease. Standard treatment is cumbersome and often targets its main symptom, pruritus, only insufficiently.

Findings

Recent advances in our understanding of the role of histamine and its four receptors suggest new approaches which target the histamine receptors alone or as combination therapies to more efficiently combat pruritus and inflammation in atopic dermatitis.

Conclusions

With this review, we provide an overview on histamine and the expression of its four receptors on skin resident and nonresident cells. Furthermore, we summarize recent studies which suggest anti-histamine therapy to efficiently combat pruritus and inflammation in atopic dermatitis and discuss possible approaches to incorporate these findings into more effective treatment strategies for atopic dermatitis in childhood.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide: key regulator of cutaneous immunity

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has been viewed as a neuropeptide and vasodilator. However, CGRP is more appropriately thought of as a pleiotropic signalling molecule. Indeed, CGRP has key regulatory functions on immune and inflammatory processes within the skin. CGRP-containing nerves are intimately associated with epidermal Langerhans cells (LCs), and CGRP has profound regulatory effects on Langerhans cell antigen-presenting capability. When LCs are exposed to CGRP in vitro, their ability to present antigen for in vivo priming of naïve mice or elicitation of delayed-type hypersensitivity is inhibited in at least some situations. Administration of CGRP intradermally inhibits acquisition of immunity to Th1-dominant haptens applied to the injected site while augmenting immunity to Th2-dominant haptens, although the cellular targets of activity in these experiments remain unclear. Although CGRP can be a pro-inflammatory agent, several studies have demonstrated that administration of CGRP can inhibit the elicitation of inflammation by inflammatory stimuli in vivo. In this regard, CGRP inhibits the release of certain chemokines by stimulated endothelial cells. This is likely to be physiologically relevant as cutaneous blood vessels are innervated by sensory nerves. Exciting new studies suggest a significant role for CGRP in the pathogenesis of psoriasis and, most strikingly, that CGRP inhibits the ability of LCs to transmit the human immunodeficiency virus 1 to T lymphocytes. A more complete understanding of the role of CGRP in the skin immune system may lead to new and novel approaches for the therapy of immune-mediated skin disorders.

Salvia plebeia suppresses atopic dermatitis-like skin lesions

Salvia plebeia R. Br. (Lamiaceae) has been used for folk medicines in Asian countries, including Korea and China, to treat skin inflammatory diseases and asthma. In this study, we investigated the effects of S. plebeia extract (SPE) on atopic dermatitis (AD)-like skin lesions and defined underlying mechanisms of action. We established an AD model in BALB/c mice by repeated local exposure of house dust mite extract (Dermatophagoides farinae extract, DFE) and 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) to the ears. Repeated alternative treatment of DFE/DNCB caused AD-like skin lesions. The oral administration of SPE decreased AD symptoms based on ear thickness and histopathological analysis, in addition to serum IgE and IgG2a levels. SPE suppressed mast cell infiltration into the ear and serum histamine level. SPE inhibited Th1/Th2/Th17 phenotype CD4(+) T lymphocytes expansion in the lymph node and the expression of Th1/Th2/Th17 cytokines in the ear tissue. To define the underlying mechanisms of action, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interferon (IFN)-γ activated human keratinocytes (HaCaT) model was used. SPE significantly suppressed the expression of cytokines and chemokines through the down-regulation of mitogen-activated protein kinases, nuclear factor-κB, and STAT1 in HaCaT cells. Taken together, our results suggest that SPE might be a candidate for the treatment of AD.

The role of histamine H1 and H4 receptors in atopic dermatitis: from basic research to clinical study

Histamine plays important roles in inflammation and nervous irritability in allergic disorders, including atopic dermatitis (AD). It has been shown to regulate the expression of pruritic factors, such as nerve growth factor and semaphorin 3A, in skin keratinocytes via histamine H1 receptor (H1R). Furthermore, H1R antagonist reduced the level of IL-31, a cytokine involving the skin barrier and pruritus, in chronic dermatitis lesions in NC/Nga mice and patients with AD. Histamine plays roles in the induction of allergic inflammation by activating eosinophils, mast cells, basophils, and Th2 cells via histamine H4 receptor (H4R). H4R, in addition to H1R, is expressed on sensory neurons, and a decrease in scratching behaviors was observed in H4R-deficient mice and mice treated with a H4R antagonist. We found that the combined administration of H1R and H4R antagonists inhibited the itch response and chronic allergic inflammation, and had a pharmacological effect similar to that of prednisolone. Although the oral administration of H1R antagonists is widely used to treat AD, it is not very effective. In contrast, JNJ39758979, a novel H4R antagonist, had marked effects against pruritus in Japanese patients with AD in a phase II clinical trial. Next generation antihistaminic agents possessing H1R and H4R antagonistic actions may be a potent therapeutic drug for AD.

[Primary biliary cirrhosis and pregnancy]

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease, asymptomatic during a protracted time, characterized by changes in the small-sized bile ducts near portal spaces. The etiology of PBC is undefined, but immunologic and environmental disturbances may contribute to the disease. Infertility is often associated with PBC and cirrhosis, but pregnancy may well occur in women with PBC and without cirrhosis or in some others with compensated cirrhosis. A pluridisciplinary approach including gastroenterologists and obstetricians is recommended. The patient must be closely monitored throughout her pregnancy with maternal and routine antenatal care. Medical treatment requires ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). In non-cirrhotic UDCA-treated women with PBC, pregnancy often follows a normal course with vaginal delivery. In cirrhotic patients, UDCA must be continued during pregnancy, esophageal and gastric varices must be evaluated before pregnancy, and endoscopic ligature is recommended for treating large varices. Additionally, beta-blocker therapy may be associated, especially when variceal rupture occurred previously. Elective cesarean section is recommended in patients with large esophageal or gastric varices because of the potentially increased risk of variceal bleeding during maternal expulsive efforts in case of vaginal delivery.

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.

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.

Molecular and cellular analysis of human histamine receptor subtypes

The human histamine receptors hH(1)R and hH(2)R constitute important drug targets, and hH(3)R and hH(4)R have substantial potential in this area. Considering the species-specificity of pharmacology of H(x)R orthologs, it is important to analyze hH(x)Rs. Here, we summarize current knowledge of hH(x)Rs endogenously expressed in human cells and hH(x)Rs recombinantly expressed in mammalian and insect cells. We present the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. We also discuss problems associated with the use of hH(x)R antibodies, an issue of general relevance for G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). There is much greater overlap in activity of 'selective' ligands for other hH(x)Rs than the cognate receptor subtype than generally appreciated. Studies with native and recombinant systems support the concept of ligand-specific receptor conformations, encompassing agonists and antagonists. It is emerging that for characterization of hH(x)R ligands, one cannot rely on a single test system and a single parameter. Rather, multiple systems and parameters have to be studied. Although such studies are time-consuming and expensive, ultimately, they will increase drug safety and efficacy.

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.

The antagonism of histamine H1 and H4 receptors ameliorates chronic allergic dermatitis via anti-pruritic and anti-inflammatory effects in NC/Nga mice

BACKGROUND

Although histamine H1 receptor (H1R) antagonists are commonly used to treat atopic dermatitis, the treatment is not always effective. The histamine H4 receptor (H4R) was recently described as important to the pruritus in dermatitis. Here, we investigated whether the combination of a H1R antagonist plus a H4R antagonist attenuates chronic dermatitis in NC/Nga mice.

METHODS

Chronic dermatitis was developed by repeated challenges with picryl chloride on the dorsal back and ear lobes. The therapeutic effects of the H1R antagonist olopatadine and H4R antagonist JNJ7777120 on scratching and the severity of dermatitis were evaluated. In addition, the mechanisms responsible for the anti-allergic effects of H1R and/or H4R antagonism were examined using bone marrow-derived mast cells (BMMC) and keratinocytes.

RESULTS

JNJ7777120 attenuated scratching behavior after a single administration and improved dermatitis, as assessed with clinical scores, pathology, and cytokine levels in skin lesions when administered repeatedly. These effects were augmented by combined treatment with olopatadine, having a similar therapeutic efficacy to prednisolone. JNJ7777120 inhibited dose-dependently the production of thymus and activation-regulated chemokine/CCL17 and macrophage-derived chemokine/CCL22 from antigen-stimulated BMMC. In addition, olopatadine reversed the histamine-induced reduction of semaphorin 3A mRNA in keratinocytes.

CONCLUSION

Combined treatment with H1R and H4R antagonists may have a significant therapeutic effect on chronic dermatitis through the synergistic inhibition of pruritus and skin inflammation.

Suppression of histamine- and allergen-induced skin reactions: comparison of first- and second-generation antihistamines

BACKGROUND

Nonsedating antihistamines (nsAHs) are recommended as first-line therapeutics for the treatment of mast cell-driven disorders, including allergic rhinitis and urticaria. However, their superiority over first-generation AHs (fgAHs) has recently been called into question, mainly because of the lack of supporting head-to-head therapeutic studies.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of 3 modem nsAHs with those of the fgAH hydroxyzine on histamine- and allergen-induced skin reactions in a controlled, double-blind, clinical trial.

METHODS

Skin prick tests with histamine and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus extract were performed before and 4 hours after treatment with hydroxyzine, 25 mg; desloratadine, 5 mg; epinastine, 20 mg; fexofenadine, 120 mg; or placebo. Wheal and erythema development was evaluated by digital photography and planimetric analyses.

RESULTS

The nsAHs prevented the development of positive reactions to histamine in only 10% to 20% of all individuals tested (n = 75). In contrast, more than 50% of all hydroxyzine-treated individuals showed negative test reactions to histamine (ie, wheals <7 mm2 in area or <3 mm in diameter). Similar differences, although less pronounced, were detected when comparing the effects of nsAHs with hydroxyzine on D pteronyssinus prick testing in a limited number of D pteronyssinus-sensitized individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that hydroxyzine is more effective than nsAHs when given as recommended in suppressing histamine-induced or allergic skin reactions. Our results suggest that higher doses of nsAHs than those currently recommended are required for the treatment of skin responses to obtain antihistaminic and antiallergic effects that are equivalent to those of fgAHs.

Cetirizine, Doxepine, and Hydroxyzine in the Treatment of Pruritus due to Sulfur Mustard: A Randomized Clinical Trial

A 4-week randomized, double-blind safety and efficacy study was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of cetirizine, doxepine, and hydroxyzine 5 in the treatment of chronic pruritus due to sulfur mustard. Patients were treated in the Dermatology Clinic of Baqiyatallah Hospital. The study population consisted of 75 patients with chronic pruritus due to sulfur mustard exposure. Patients were given either cetirizine 10 mg, doxepine 10 mg, or hydroxyzine 25 mg/day, for 4 weeks. A calculated pruritic score for each patient was taken before and 1 month after treatment. Mean before-treatment pruritic scores were 38.2 +/- 4.8, 37.2 +/- 4.9, and 37.3 +/- 5.1 in the cetirizine, doxepine, and hydroxyzine groups, respectively. After treatment, the mean pruritic scores were 24.8 +/- 3.1, 17.8 +/- 2.5, and 16.7 +/- 2.3 in the cetirizine, doxepine, and hydroxyzine groups, respectively. In addition, 65%, 75%, and 80% of patients in the cetirizine, doxepine, and hydroxyzine groups were downgraded in the severity of pruritus (P 1/4 0.465). Sedation effects were reported in 6, 14, and 18 patients in the cetirizine, doxepine, and hydroxyzine groups, respectively. Hydroxyzine 25 mg/day has equal results compared to doxepine 10 mg once daily; but greater than cetirizine 10 mg once a day in controlling the symptoms of patients with chronic pruritus.

Chronic urticaria: recent advances

Chronic urticaria is an umbrella term, which encompasses physical urticarias, chronic "idiopathic" urticaria and urticarial vasculitis. It is important to recognize patients with physical urticarias as the investigation and treatment differs in important ways from patients with idiopathic chronic urticaria or urticarial vasculitis. Although relatively uncommon, urticarial vasculitis is an important diagnosis to make and requires histological confirmation by biopsy. Underlying systemic disease and systemic involvement, especially of the kidneys, should be sought. It is now recognized that chronic "idiopathic" urticaria includes a subset with an autoimmune basis caused by circulating autoantibodies against the high affinity IgE receptor (FceR1) and less commonly against IgE. Although the autologous serum skin test has been proven useful in prompting search for and characterization of circulating wheal-producing factors in chronic urticaria, its specificity as a screening test for presence of functional anti-FceR1 is low, and confirmation by demonstration of histamine-releasing activity in the patient's serum must be the benchmark test in establishing this diagnosis. Improved screening tests are being sought; for example, ability of the chronic urticaria patient's serum to evoke expression of CD 203c on donor human basophils is showing some promise. The strong association between autoimmune thyroid disease and autoimmune urticaria is also an area of ongoing research. Drug treatment continues to be centered on the H1 antihistamines, and the newer second-generation compounds appear to be safe and effective even in off-label dosage. Use of systemic steroids should be confined to special circumstances such as tapering regimens for acute flare-ups. Use of leukotriene antagonists is becoming popular, but the evidence for efficacy is conflicting. Cyclosporin is also effective and can be used in selected cases of autoimmune urticaria, and it is also effective in non-autoimmune cases, although less so.