Comparative biorelease study of fluticasone in combination with antibacterial (Neomycin) and or antifungal (coltrimazol, miconazole) agents by histamine percutaneous reaction method in healthy volunteers.

Fluticasone propionate is a novel, potent and topically active synthetic corticosteroid preparation with a much reduced potential, in relation to its anti-inflammatory potency, for unwanted systemic side effects. It is indicated for the treatment of eczema, dermatitis etc. The objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare the biorelease of fluticassone with placebo (base formulation); its combination with antifungal (miconazole, clotrimazole) and / or antibacterial agents based on the attenuation of histamine induced wheal and flare reaction and flare intensity (on visual analouge scale) by McNemar test. In the present study, fluticasone alone and in combination with clotrimazole, miconazole and neomycin significantly reduced the wheal and flare response of histamine prick test. The flare intensity response was also significantly inhibited by these treatments. Furthermore, there was no difference in the anti-inflammatory activity of various treatment groups. It may, therefore, be concluded that antibacterial (neomycin) and / or antifungal (miconazole, clotrimazole) agents in combination with steroid (fluticasone) do not alter the pharmacodynamic response of the latter.

Antihistaminic efficacy of Ranitidine with & without Dimethendine maleate on histamine-induced cutaneous reactions.

The effect of Ranitidine, the H2-receptor antagonist, was investigated on cutaneous response to intradermal injection of histamine in healthy volunteers in a controlled, randomized, cross over study. The response was compared with that of the H1-receptor blocker; Dimethendine maleate used alone and in combination with the two antagonists. Reduction in the wheal area was significant in subjects pretreated with Ranitidine alone (P less than 0.05), and Dimethendine maleate alone (P less than 0.05); the combination of the two antagonists, did not produce additional reduction. Reduction in erythema area was not significant with Dimethendine maleate alone, but significant with Ranitidine alone (P less than 0.01). With the combination of the two antagonists the reduction was not more significant than with Ranitidine alone. The flare response scoring on visual analogue scale was not reduced significantly by Dimethendine maleate alone but reduced significantly by Ranitidine alone (P less than 0.10), and by combination of Ranitidine and Dimethendine maleate (P less than 0.05). Thus, Ranitidine appears to be more effective than Dimethendine maleate in reducing the erythema area and intensity of flare response and equieffective in reducing wheal response to histamine injection.

Relative bioactivity of histamine and slow reacting substance of anaphylaxis released during anaphylactic reaction from different tissues of guinea pigs and rats.

Relative amount of histamine and SRS-A released during Schultz Dale reaction were indirectly estimated. Percent block produced by specific antagonists, mepyramine and FPL 55712, on antigen induced response in various tissues was compared with controls. The relative bioactivity of histamine and SRS-A released was 93% and 7%, respectively, in rat lungs: 37% and 63% in guinea pig lungs; 82% and 18% in guinea pig intestine, 59% and 41% in rat intestine and 100% and 0% in skin of guinea pig and rats. Expectedly, individual experiments showed gross variations because anaphylaxis is rarely dose related.