Oral Prescription Management.

The treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) with oral treatments has been limited in the past due to the increased risk of adverse effects associated with oral agents. However, in recent years, a shift toward the minimization of adverse effects has been explored. Although existing treatment options like oral corticosteroids and Immunosuppressive therapies have been utilized for acute flare-ups of AD, their long-term use is limited by adverse effects and the need for lab monitoring. New systemic treatment options such as Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are emerging as a promising therapy, due to their quick onset and antipruritic features. However, the black box warning associated with this medication class requires careful selection of appropriate candidates and patient education despite early favorable safety profiles seen in AD trials. Discussion of other oral agents, like antibiotics and antihistamines, and their role in AD management are also clarified.

[Antihistamines : An ongoing narrative]. / Antihistaminiques : une histoire sans fin.

Histamine is responsible for many processes mediated by different receptors expressed on a variety of cells. The discovery of the first H1 antihistamines in the 1940s led to the development of numerous H1 and H2 antagonists with a broad application in many indications. The recent identification of two new histamine receptors (H3, H4) in the 1980s and 2000s led to the market authorization in Switzerland of new drugs since 2018. The purpose of this review is to provide a brief overview of the physiology of histamine, the recent development of new compounds in this field, antihistamine drug indications and relevant side effects.

L'histamine possède de nombreuses propriétés physiologiques, tant centrales que périphériques, via son action sur différents récepteurs. La découverte des premiers antihistaminiques H1 dans les années 1940 stimula le développement de nombreux autres antagonistes H1, puis H2, utilisés dans diverses spécialités médicales. L'identification plus récente de deux récepteurs à l'histamine (H3, H4) dans les années 1980 et 2000 relança le développement de nouveaux composés avec, en Suisse, une première autorisation de mise sur le marché en 2018. L'objectif de cet article de revue est de présenter brièvement la physiologie de l'histamine, l'histoire du développement des antihistaminiques, leurs utilisations actuelles, ainsi que leurs effets indésirables notables.

Targeting histamine receptor 4 in cholinergic urticaria with izuforant (LEO 152020): results from a phase IIa randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Cholinergic urticaria (CholU) is a common subtype of chronic inducible urticaria, where signs and symptoms (e.g. pruritic wheals and angioedema) are triggered by sweating due to physical exercise, passive warming and by other sweat-inducing situations. While guidelines recommend treatment with second-generation H1 antihistamines, approximately 90% of patients report uncontrolled disease. Targeting the histamine 4 receptor (H4R) has shown promise in preclinical/clinical studies of allergic/inflammatory diseases. Izuforant (LEO 152020) is a selective oral H4R antagonist with expected dual antipruritic and anti-inflammatory effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of izuforant in adults with CholU, a common type of chronic urticaria driven by histamine and characterized by high skin levels of H4R expression. METHODS: This was a phase IIa randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre crossover trial where patients with CholU with an inadequate response to ≥ 1 standard dose of H1 antihistamine received izuforant 100 mg twice daily or placebo (EUCTR2020-004961-38-DE; NCT04853992). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in Urticaria Activity Score. Exploratory endpoints included CholU activity score over 7 days, urticaria control test, Physician Global Assessment, patient global assessment of severity (PGA-S), provocation tests, Dermatology Life Quality Index and CholU quality of life (CholU-QoL). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters, and serum biomarkers were assessed, as well as safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were randomized and included in the full analysis set; 18 completed treatment [mean (SD) age 29.5 (9.8) years; mean (SD) CholU duration 8.0 (6.3) years]. The primary and most of prespecified exploratory endpoints were not met; there were significant improvements in PGA-S for izuforant vs. placebo (P = 0.02), and nonsignificant improvements for other endpoints in quality of life and histamine skin prick test. All adverse events (AEs) experienced with izuforant were considered mild. The most frequently reported (> 1 patient) were nausea (three patients) and upper abdominal pain (two patients), occurring more frequently with izuforant vs. placebo (one patient each). There were no treatment-related serious AEs and no patient receiving izuforant discontinued the study. Treatment with izuforant did not cause downregulation of H4R. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore the role of H4R as a therapeutic target in urticaria. Targeting H4R with izuforant was well tolerated but did not demonstrate significant improvements vs. placebo in the primary endpoint and all but one prespecified exploratory endpoint in CholU.

Cholinergic urticaria (CholU) is a common subtype of an inflammatory skin condition called chronic inducible urticaria, where signs and symptoms (e.g. hives and swelling in the skin) are triggered by sweating caused by physical exercise, passive warming and other sweat-inducing situations. While guidelines recommend treatment with second-generation H1 antihistamines (a type of medication), approximately 90% of people with the condition report that these medications do not control the disease. Targeting the histamine 4 receptor (H4R) has shown promise in studies of allergic/inflammatory diseases. CholU is driven by histamine (a chemical released in the body) and characterized by high skin levels of H4R. Izuforant is a medication that may reduce itch and inflammation. In our study, which was carried out across multiple sites in Germany, we assessed the effects of izuforant 100 mg in 18 patients with CholU using a range of measures covering symptom control, disease severity, provocation response and quality of life. The primary endpoint (the main result measured at the end of the study to see if the treatment worked) was change from baseline in the post-provocation Urticaria Activity Score, where areas of skin were provoked and the time until common symptoms of CholU appeared (sweating and whealing (hives)) was measured. Overall, the primary endpoint and most of the exploratory endpoints were not met. There were significant improvements in patients' global assessment for izuforant versus placebo. This was the first study to explore the role of H4R as a therapeutic target in urticaria. Our findings suggest that targeting H4R with izuforant was well tolerated but did not demonstrate significant improvements versus placebo in the primary endpoint, and all but one prespecified exploratory endpoint in CholU.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of compound glycyrrhizin combined with second-generation non-sedated antihistamine for the treatment of chronic urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Chronic urticaria (CU) is a prevalent dermatologic disease that negatively affects life, current therapies remain suboptimal. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify effective and safe treatment. OBJECTIVE: Assess the efficacy and safety of compound glycyrrhizin (CG) combined with second-generation nonsedated antihistamine for the treatment of CU. METHODS: Nine databases were queried to screen RCTs related. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane Collaboration. Primary objective was the total efficiency rate, while secondary was rate of recurrence, adverse events, and cure. Statistical analyses using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata17. RESULTS: Twenty-four RCTs were identified. Significant differences were noted in rate of total efficiency (n = 2649, RR = 1.36, 95%CI:1.30-1.43, p < 0.00001), cure (n = 2649, RR = 1.54, 95%CI:1.42-1.66, p < 0.00001) and recurrence (n = 446, RR = 0.34, 95%CI:0.20-0.58, p < 0.00001) between the combination of CG with second-generation non-sedated antihistamine and antihistamine monotherapy. Contrastingly, adverse events rate (n = 2317, RR = 0.76, 95% CI:0.59-0.97, p = 0.03) was comparable between the two groups. Our results indicated that CG combined with second-generation non-sedated antihistamine could significantly mitigate the symptoms in CU compared with antihistamine monotherapy. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: CG combined with second-generation nonsedated antihistamine is effective for CU. Nevertheless, higher-quality studies are warranted to validate our results.

Potential risk of driving performance under combined conditions of taking second-generation antihistamines and attending calls using a hands-free function.

OBJECTIVE: Although second-generation antihistamines have reduced sedation-related side effects compared to first-generation antihistamines, sedation may still impair motor vehicle driving performance. Moreover, receiving/making phone calls using a hands-free function can negatively affect driving performance. Therefore, herein, driving performance was evaluated using a driving simulator to gain insights into the hazards of driving by combining second-generation antihistamines and a calling task, i.e., simulated calls using a hands-free function. METHODS: In this study, 20 subjects drove in a driving simulator in the absence or presence of a calling task while taking or not taking second-generation antihistamines. Driving performances for nonemergency and emergency events were determined, and a comparative analysis of intra-individual variability when taking and not taking second-generation antihistamines was conducted. RESULTS: First, when nonemergency and emergency were examined in the absence of a calling task, no significant difference in driving performance was observed between taking and not taking second-generation antihistamines. Next, when the nonemergency event was examined in the presence of a calling task, no significant difference in driving performance was observed between taking and not taking second-generation antihistamines. However, when the emergency event was examined in the presence of a calling task, a significant difference in driving performance was observed between taking and not taking second-generation antihistamines, thus resulting in reduced driving performance. CONCLUSIONS: The new system with added calling tasks allowed the extraction of the potential risks of driving performance of second-generation antihistamines that may have been previously overlooked. This study suggests that pharmacists and other healthcare professionals may need to instruct people taking any second-generation antihistamine to focus on driving and not on subtasks that require cognitive load such as talking while driving.

Icatibant averting mechanical ventilation in acute ischemic stroke patient with alteplase-induced orolingual angioedema.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Orolingual angioedema (OA) represents a rare but life-threatening complication among patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase. Novel agents, including icatibant, are recommended in resistant patients with alteplase-induced OA who have failed to respond to first-line therapies including corticosteroids, antihistamines, and/or adrenaline. METHODS: We present a patient with alteplase-induced OA who showed substantial clinical improvement following the administration of icatibant. RESULTS: We describe a 71-year-old woman with known arterial hypertension under treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, who presented with acute ischemic stroke in the territory of the right middle cerebral artery and received intravenous alteplase. During intravenous thrombolysis, the case was complicated with OA without any response to standard anaphylactic treatment including corticosteroids, dimetindene, and adrenaline. Thirty minutes after symptom onset, icatibant, a synthetic selective bradykinin B2-receptor antagonist, was administered subcutaneously. Substantial symptomatic resolution was observed only following the icatibant administration. CONCLUSIONS: This case highlights the effectiveness of icatibant in the acute management of alteplase-induced OA. In particular, icatibant administration, following first-line therapies including corticosteroids, antihistamines, and/or adrenaline, may avert tracheostomy and intubation in resistant and refractory cases with OA following intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.

The Role of Antihistamines and Dupilumab in the Management of Alopecia Areata: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% to 40% of alopecia areata (AA) patients have atopic dermatitis. Studies suggest that antihistamines and dupilumab may be effective treatments; however, the potential benefit of these therapies as either adjunct or monotherapy has yet to be elucidated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of antihistamines and dupilumab in the treatment of AA. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in August 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were articles describing the use of antihistamines or dupilumab for AA or those discussing AA development as an adverse event of these therapies. RESULTS: Forty-two articles with 395 patients describe the use of antihistamines or dupilumab in AA. The most common antihistamine regimens were oxatomide 30 mg twice a day, fexofenadine 60 or 120 mg/day, and ebastine 10 mg/day; and the majority of cases reported significant hair regrowth, decreased pruritus, and erythema. Studies on the use of dupilumab for AA demonstrated remarkable hair growth in some patients (n=23), no change in others (n=3), and no new hair loss in a patient with resolved alopecia universalis (AU) (n=1). In contrast, dupilumab therapy for AD has been implicated as a cause of AA (n=21), drug-induced alopecia (n=2), and AA-like psoriasis (n=1). CONCLUSION: Current literature is promising for the use of antihistamines as adjunct treatments for AA, while monotherapy needs to be further explored. The role of dupilumab in AA treatment and/or development also requires further research.J Drugs Dermatol. 2022;21(10):1070-1083. doi:10.36849/JDD.6553.

Urticaria relapse after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients affected by chronic spontaneous urticaria and treated with antihistamines plus omalizumab: A single-center experience.

Urticaria is a disease characterized by wheals and/or angioedema. Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) occurs for longer than 6 weeks and appears independently of any identifiable exogenous stimulus. During the vaccination campaign for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several cutaneous adverse events have been described, among which urticaria lasting less than 6 weeks (acute urticaria, AU). AU due to vaccines can be IgE or non-IgE mediated; the former typically develop within 4 h of drug exposure, the latter occurs later and the mechanism is unclear. In this retrospective study we analyzed the frequency and clinical characteristics of urticaria occurring after COVID-19 vaccine (post-vaccination urticaria relapse) in adult CSU patients treated with antihistamine and omalizumab, and in clinical remission.

Pharmacogenomics for the efficacy and side effects of antihistamines.

Antihistamines, especially H1 antihistamines, are widely used in the treatment of allergic diseases such as urticaria and allergic rhinitis, mainly for reversing elevated histamine and anti-allergic effects. Antihistamines are generally safe, but some patients experience adverse reactions, such as cardiotoxicity, central inhibition and anticholinergic effects. There are also individual differences in antihistamine efficacy in clinical practice. The concept of individualized medicine has been deeply rooted in people's minds since it was put forward. Pharmacogenomics is the study of the role of inheritance in individual variations in drug response. In recent decades, pharmacogenomics has been developing rapidly, which provides new ideas for individualized medicine. Polymorphisms in the genes encoding metabolic enzymes, transporters and target receptors have been shown to affect the efficacy of antihistamines. In addition, recent evidence suggests that gene polymorphisms influence urticaria susceptibility and antihistamine therapy. Here, we summarize current reports in this area, aiming to contribute to future research in antihistamines and clinical guidance for antihistamines use in individualized medicine.

Assessment of cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, and mutagenicity of the dexchlorpheniramine reference standard and pharmaceutical formula in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells

Abstract Dexchlorpheniramine is a first-generation classical antihistamine, clinically used to treat allergies. The main objective of our study was to evaluate the effects of the dexchlorpheniramine reference standard (DCPA Ref. St) and a pharmaceutical formula on DNA in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). We exposed PBMCs to five different concentrations (0.5, 2.5, 5, 10, and 50 ng/mL) of DCPA Ref. St DCPA Ref. St and pharmaceutical formula in order to evaluate their cytotoxic, genotoxic, and mutagenic potential. The results showed that both dexchlorpheniramine formulations did not affect PBMC viability and CD3+, CD4+, or CD8+ lymphocyte subpopulations. The DCPA Ref. St and pharmaceutical formula neither induced genotoxic or mutagenic effects nor numerical or structural chromosomal alterations in PBMCs after 24 hours of exposure.

Drug triggered pruritus, rash, papules, and blisters - is AGEP a clash of an altered sphingolipid-metabolism and lysosomotropism of drugs accumulating in the skin?

Rash, photosensitivity, erythema multiforme, and the acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) are relatively uncommon adverse reactions of drugs. To date, the etiology is not well understood and individual susceptibility still remains unknown. Amiodarone, chlorpromazine, amitriptyline, and trimipramine are classified lysosomotropic as well as photosensitizing, however, they fail to trigger rash and pruritic papules in all individuals. Lysosomotropism is a common charcteristic of various drugs, but independent of individuals. There is evidence that the individual ability to respond to external oxidative stress is crosslinked with the elongation of long-chain fatty acids to very long-chain fatty acids by ELOVLs. ELOVL6 and ELOVL7 are sensitive to ROS induced depletion of cellular NADPH and insufficient regeneration via the pentose phosphate pathway and mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation. Deficiency of NADPH in presence of lysosomotropic drugs promotes the synthesis of C16-ceramide in lysosomes and may contribute to emerging pruritic papules of AGEP. However, independently from a lysosomomotropic drug, severe depletion of ATP and NAD(P)H, e.g., by UV radiation or a potent photosensitizer can trigger likewise the collapse of the lysosomal transmembrane proton gradient resulting in lysosomal C16-ceramide synthesis and pruritic papules. This kind of papules are equally present in polymorphous light eruption (PMLE/PLE) and acne aestivalis (Mallorca acne). The suggested model of a compartmentalized ceramide metabolism provides a more sophisticated explanation of cutaneous drug adverse effects and the individual sensitivity to UV radiation. Parameters such as pKa and ClogP of the triggering drug, cutaneous fatty acid profile, and ceramide profile enables new concepts in risk assessment and scoring of AGEP as well as prophylaxis outcome.

US Emergency Department Visits Attributed to Medication Harms, 2017-2019.

IMPORTANCE: Assessing the scope of acute medication harms to patients should include both therapeutic and nontherapeutic medication use. OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of emergency department (ED) visits for acute harms from both therapeutic and nontherapeutic medication use in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Active, nationally representative, public health surveillance based on patient visits to 60 EDs in the US participating in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance Project from 2017 through 2019. EXPOSURES: Medications implicated in ED visits, with visits attributed to medication harms (adverse events) based on the clinicians' diagnoses and supporting data documented in the medical record. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Nationally weighted estimates of ED visits and subsequent hospitalizations for medication harms. RESULTS: Based on 96 925 cases (mean patient age, 49 years; 55% female), there were an estimated 6.1 (95% CI, 4.8-7.5) ED visits for medication harms per 1000 population annually and 38.6% (95% CI, 35.2%-41.9%) resulted in hospitalization. Population rates of ED visits for medication harms were higher for patients aged 65 years or older than for those younger than 65 years (12.1 vs 5.0 [95% CI, 7.4-16.8 vs 4.1-5.8] per 1000 population). Overall, an estimated 69.1% (95% CI, 63.6%-74.7%) of ED visits for medication harms involved therapeutic medication use, but among patients younger than 45 years, an estimated 52.5% (95% CI, 48.1%-56.8%) of visits for medication harms involved nontherapeutic use. The proportions of ED visits for medication harms involving therapeutic use were lowest for barbiturates (6.3%), benzodiazepines (11.1%), nonopioid analgesics (15.7%), and antihistamines (21.8%). By age group, the most frequent medication types and intents of use associated with ED visits for medication harms were therapeutic use of anticoagulants (4.5 [95% CI, 2.3-6.7] per 1000 population) and diabetes agents (1.8 [95% CI, 1.3-2.3] per 1000 population) for patients aged 65 years and older; therapeutic use of diabetes agents (0.8 [95% CI, 0.5-1.0] per 1000 population) for patients aged 45 to 64 years; nontherapeutic use of benzodiazepines (1.0 [95% CI, 0.7-1.3] per 1000 population) for patients aged 25 to 44 years; and unsupervised medication exposures (2.2 [95% CI, 1.8-2.7] per 1000 population) and therapeutic use of antibiotics (1.4 [95% CI, 1.0-1.8] per 1000 population) for children younger than 5 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: According to data from 60 nationally representative US emergency departments, visits attributed to medication harms in 2017-2019 were frequent, with variation in products and intent of use by age.

Comparison of proton pump inhibitors and histamine 2 receptor antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), followed by histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), are the most commonly used drugs to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients through stress ulcer prophylaxis. The relative efficacy and drug-related adverse events of PPIs and H2RAs remain unclear. In this retrospective, observational, comparative cohort study, PPIs and H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients were compared using a common data model. After propensity matching, 935 patients from each treatment group (PPI or H2RA) were selected. The PPI group had a significantly higher 90-day mortality than the H2RA group (relative risk: 1.28; P = 0.01). However, no significant inter-group differences in the risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding were observed. Moreover, there were no significant differences between the groups concerning the risk of pneumonia or Clostridioides difficile infection, which are known potential adverse events related to these drugs. Subgroup analysis of patients with high disease severity were consistent with those of the total propensity score-matched population. These findings do not support the current recommendations, which prefer PPIs for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in the intensive care unit.

Comparative study evaluating antihistamine versus leukotriene receptor antagonist as adjuvant therapy for rheumatoid arthritis.

PURPOSE: Investigating the efficacy and safety of rupatadine (RUP) versus montelukast (MON) as adjuvant therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: From December 2018 to December 2019, 75 patients with active RA were enrolled in this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. The patients were randomized into three groups (n = 25 in each group); methotrexate (MTX) group which received MTX 15-25 mg/week plus placebo tablet once daily; MTX/RUP group which received MTX plus RUP 10 mg once daily; and MTX/MON group which received MTX plus MON 10 mg once daily. The treatment duration was 3 months. At baseline and 3 months after treatment, blood samples were collected for the biochemical analysis of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukins 8 and 17 (IL-8, IL-17), E-selectin, and clusterin (CLU) levels. Clinical and functional assessments using Disease Activity Score-CRP (DAS28-CRP) and Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) were performed. RESULTS: Both RUP and MON produced clinical and functional improvements which were translated by significant improvements in DAS28-CRP score and MDHAQ. Rupatadine significantly reduced all measured parameters (P < 0.05) except for IL-17 and CLU. Montelukast significantly decreased all measured variables (P < 0.05) except for E-selectin. Interleukin-8 was positively correlated with IL-17 and CLU, while hs-CRP was positively correlated with E-selectin and body mass index (BMI). Both drugs were well tolerated; somnolence was the common side effect for RUP. No neuropsychiatric events were reported with MON. CONCLUSION: Rupatadine or montelukast may serve as a potential adjuvant therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis secondary to the preliminary evidence of efficacy and safety. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03770923, December 10, 2018.

The role of QT-prolonging medications in a forensic autopsy study from Western Denmark.

Medication-induced prolongation of the QT-interval (miQTP) can lead to cardiac arrhythmia. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of forensic autopsy cases where fatal cardiac arrhythmia related to treatment with QT-prolonging medications (QT-PMs) could be suspected. We performed a cross-sectional study of 741 forensic autopsies undertaken at our institution in non-drug addicts aged 15 years or above from 2017 to 2019. We defined a high risk of miQTP by one detected QT-PM in a concentration above therapeutic level, or two or more detected QT-PMs in post mortem blood. We reviewed the autopsy reports from cases with a high miQTP-risk to identify cases with no other apparent cause of death. We discarded suicides and cases with lethal levels of QT-PMs. We identified 167 cases (22.5%) with high risk of miQTP, and discarded 36 suicides (4.9%) and 7 (0.9%) with lethal levels of QT-PMs. Apart from a high risk of miQTP, no other apparent explanation of the cause of death was present in seven (0.9%). In 18 cases (2.4%) with high miQTP-risk, the cause of death was primarily attributed to cardiac changes other than acute cardiovascular events. In conclusion, 22.5% had a high risk of miQTP, and fatal cardiac arrhythmia related to treatment with QT-PMs could be suspected in 0.9%. However, a genetic pro-arrhythmic background could not be excluded in our study. Furthermore, it is possible that QT-PMs could have played a role in some of the 2.4% of cases where the cause of death was mainly attributed to cardiac changes and the risk of miQTP was high.