Search

Chronic urticaria is highly prevalent in the general population, and while there are multiple treatments for the disorder, the results obtained are not completely satisfactory. The second-generation H1 antihistamines remain the symptomatic treatment option of choice. Depending on the different pharmacokinetics and H1 receptor affinity of each drug substance, different concentrations in skin can be expected, together with different efficacy in relation to the histamine-induced wheal inhibition test--though this does not necessarily have repercussions upon clinical response. The antiinflammatory properties of the H1 antihistamines could be of relevance in chronic urticaria, though it is not clear to what degree they influence the final therapeutic result. Before moving on to another therapeutic level, the advisability of antihistamine dose escalation should be considered, involving increments even above those approved in the Summary of Product Characteristics. Physical urticaria, when manifesting isolatedly, tends to respond well to H1 antihistamines, with the exception of genuine solar urticaria and delayed pressure urticaria. In some cases of chronic urticaria, the combination of H2 antihistamines may prove effective--though only with common liver metabolism (CYP3A4 isoenzyme-mediated) H1 antihistamines, due to the existence of mutual metabolic interferences. The role of leukotriene antagonists associated to antihistamines in application to chronic urticaria remains to be clearly defined.

Drugs with antihistamine action are among the most commonly prescribed medicines in pediatrics. According to the International Medical Statistics (IMS), almost two million antihistamine units (in solution) for pediatric use were sold in Spain during 2006--at a cost of nearly 6 million euros. Of this amount, 34% corresponded to first-generation (or sedating) antihistamines. The difficulties inherent to research for drug development increase considerably when the pediatric age range is involved. The use of any medication in this age group must adhere to the strictest safety criteria, and must offer the maximum guarantees of efficacy. For this reason, detailed knowledge of the best scientific evidence available in relation to these aspects is essential for warranting drug use. The first-generation antihistamines have never been adequately studied for pediatric age groups, though they are still widely used in application to such patients. In contrast, studies in children have been made with the second-generation antihistamines, allowing us to know their safety profile, and such medicines are available at pediatric dosages that have been well documented from the pharmacological perspective. The present review affords an update to our most recent knowledge on antihistamine use in children, based on the best scientific evidence available.

Histamine is a major inflammatory molecule released from the mast cell, and is known to activate endothelial cells. However, its ability to modulate endothelial responses to bacterial products has not been evaluated. In this study we determined the ability of histamine to modulate inflammatory responses of endothelial cells to Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial cell wall components and assessed the role of Toll-like receptors (TLR) 2 and 4 in the co-operation between histamine and bacterial pathogens. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) were incubated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS), lipoteichoic acid (LTA), or peptidoglycan (PGN) in the presence or absence of histamine, and the expression and release of interleukin-6 (IL-6), and NF-kappaB translocation were determined. The effect of histamine on the expression of mRNA and proteins for TLR2 and TLR4 was also evaluated. Incubation of HUVEC with LPS, LTA and PGN resulted in marked enhancement of IL-6 mRNA expression and IL-6 secretion. Histamine alone markedly enhanced IL-6 mRNA expression in HUVEC, but it did not stimulate proportional IL-6 release. When HUVEC were incubated with LPS, LTA, or PGN in the presence of histamine marked amplification of both IL-6 production and mRNA expression was noted. HUVEC constitutively expressed TLR2 and TLR4 mRNA and proteins, and these were further enhanced by histamine. The expression of mRNAs encoding MD-2 and MyD88, the accessory molecules associated with TLR signalling, were unchanged by histamine treatment. These results demonstrate that histamine up-regulates the expression of TLR2 and TLR4 and amplifies endothelial cell inflammatory responses to Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial components.

We studied, separately, the effects of the histamine antagonist, fexofenadine hydrochloride, and the leukotriene antagonist, montelukast sodium, and their placebos on airway sensitivity to and recovery from inhaled mannitol in subjects with asthma. Two 180-mg doses of fexofenadine were taken over 14 h, and three 10-mg doses of montelukast over 36 h, with the last dose 5 h before challenge. Fexofenadine reduced sensitivity to mannitol and the PD(15) was (mean [95% confidence interval] 138 [95, 201]) mg versus placebo (51 [25, 106] mg) (p < 0.001). The final percent reduction in FEV(1) with fexofenadine was 20.8 +/- 5.4% and not different from placebo (20.1 +/- 5.3%) (p = 0.7); however, recovery was slower with fexofenadine compared with placebo (p < 0.001). By contrast, montelukast had no effect on sensitivity to mannitol and the PD(15) was 71 [36, 144] mg versus placebo (87 [51, 148] mg (p = 0.35). The total dose of mannitol delivered and the final percent reduction in FEV(1) with montelukast were 171 +/- 142 mg and 21 +/- 4% and for placebo were 182 +/- 144 mg and 20 +/- 5% (p = 0.35, p = 0.59, respectively). However, recovery of FEV(1) to baseline was faster with montelukast, with the area under the percent reduction FEV(1)-versus-time curve reduced (220 +/- 121% change.min) compared with placebo (513 +/- 182% change.min) (p < 0.001). We conclude that whereas histamine is important for the initial airway response, leukotrienes are important in sustaining the airway response to inhaled mannitol.

The effect of the H2-receptor antagonist cimetidine upon H1-receptor antagonist tolerant histamine induced weal and flare responses was studied in nine healthy male subjects taking clemastine 1 mg orally twice a day. After 21 days clemastine therapy, the weal response became tolerant to clemastine but the flare response did not. Cimetidine, 400 mg, did not produce a significantly greater decrease in the area of the H1-receptor antagonist tolerant weal response than in the non-tolerant weal response. The results suggest that histamine mediated skin reactions may develop a tolerance to H1-receptor antagonist therapy that cannot be overcome by the addition of the H2-receptor antagonist cimetidine.