Display options
Cite
Tsuda H, Takiwaki H. Comparison of on-site and photographic evaluations of the suppressive effects of cetirizine, loratadine, and fexofenadine on skin response to histamine lontophoresis: A double-blind, crossover study in healthy volunteers. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2005;66(4):307-22doi: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2005.08.011.
Tsuda, H., & Takiwaki, H. (2005). Comparison of on-site and photographic evaluations of the suppressive effects of cetirizine, loratadine, and fexofenadine on skin response to histamine lontophoresis: A double-blind, crossover study in healthy volunteers. Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental, 66(4), 307-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.curtheres.2005.08.011
Tsuda, Hidetaka, and Takiwaki, Hirotsugu. "Comparison of on-site and photographic evaluations of the suppressive effects of cetirizine, loratadine, and fexofenadine on skin response to histamine lontophoresis: A double-blind, crossover study in healthy volunteers." Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental vol. 66,4 (2005): 307-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.curtheres.2005.08.011
Tsuda H, Takiwaki H. Comparison of on-site and photographic evaluations of the suppressive effects of cetirizine, loratadine, and fexofenadine on skin response to histamine lontophoresis: A double-blind, crossover study in healthy volunteers. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2005 Jul;66(4):307-22. doi: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2005.08.011. PMID: 24672131; PMCID: PMC3964551.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2005 Jul;66(4):307-22. doi: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2005.08.011.

Comparison of on-site and photographic evaluations of the suppressive effects of cetirizine, loratadine, and fexofenadine on skin response to histamine lontophoresis: A double-blind, crossover study in healthy volunteers.

Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental

Hidetaka Tsuda, Hirotsugu Takiwaki

Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Tokushima,Tokushima, Japan.

PMID: 24672131 PMCID: PMC3964551 DOI: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2005.08.011

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The standard method used to determine the potency of antihistaminesis to assess the degree of suppression of skin response to histamine challenge.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of 3 antihistaminesusing a histamine challenge test and the usefulness of on-site evaluation with that of photographic evaluation of skin-test reactions.

METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind, crossover study, healthy volunteerswere given cetirizine 5 mg (CTZ-5) and 10 mg (CTZ-10), loratadine 10 mg (LOR), fexofenadine 60 mg BID (FEX), and placebo (PLC), in a randomly assigned order, with an interval of at least 1 week between treatments. Before and 0.5 to 24 hours after administration, the areas of flare and wheal induced by histamine iontophoresis were measured directly (on site) by 1 evaluator and by another evaluator using photographic images on a computer monitor.

RESULTS: Ten healthy volunteers (6 men, 4 women; mean age, 28.2 years[range, 20-39 years]; mean weight, 60.7 kg [range, 41-81 kg]) were enrolled. The data from 9 subjects were analyzed; the data from 1 subject were omitted because the subject used an over-the-counter cold medication containing diphenhydramine several times during the study. By both methods, all antihistamines were shown to suppress flare significantly from 4 to 24 hours after administration. CTZ was most potent in suppressing both flare and wheal. For flare, the areas as measured using on-site evaluation were larger overall than those measured using photographic evaluation, but the shapes of the time-course graphs were similar for both. Overall, the flare area measurements started to decrease significantly from baseline values 4 hours after drug administration, reached a nadir at 10.5 hours, and remained significantly lower compared with baseline values at 24 hours. Comparisons between antihistamines showed significant differences in mean flare areas between the 2 doses of CTZ and LOR from 8 to 12 hours after administration in both evaluation methods. The wheal areas were significantly reduced from baseline values by most of the antihistamines 4 to 12 hours after drug administration, reached their lowest values at 10.5 hours, and returned to near-baseline values at 24 hours. Comparisons with PLC values at each time point, however, showed significant differences only for CTZ-5 and CTZ-10 from 4 to 12 hours after administration. Comparison between antihistamines showed significant differences in mean flare areas between the 2 doses of CTZ and LOR from 8 to 12 hours after administration in both evaluation methods. Although the flare areas measured by both methods correlated linearly (r = 0.90; P < 0.001), the correlation for wheal areas was weaker (r = 0.76; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: In this study in healthy volunteers, single doses of CTZ 5 mg and CTZ 10 mg were more potent compared with single-dose LOR 10 mg and FEX 60 mg BID in suppressing skin response. Although linear correlations were found between skin-response areas, as measured by on-site and photographic evaluation, it was difficult to differentiate between wheal and flare by photographic evaluation, especially when a typical wheal was suppressed to slightly edematous erythema by antihistamines.

Keywords: ImageJ; antihistamine; cetirizine; fexofenadine; flare; histamine challenge test; histamine iontophoresis; loratadine; wheal

References

  1. Dermatology. 1998;197(2):146-51 - PubMed
  2. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002 Nov;110(5):777-83 - PubMed
  3. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2001 Apr;86(4):387-92 - PubMed
  4. J Med Assoc Thai. 2004 May;87(5):551-6 - PubMed
  5. Ann Allergy. 1987 Sep;59(3):235-8 - PubMed
  6. J Dermatol. 2005 Jan;32(1):58-61 - PubMed
  7. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1990 Oct;86(4 Pt 1):540-7 - PubMed
  8. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002 Feb;88(2):190-7 - PubMed
  9. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004 Sep;114(3):465-74; quiz 475 - PubMed
  10. J Dermatol Sci. 2001 Jan;25(1):59-63 - PubMed
  11. Allergy. 2001 Jan;56(1):50-7 - PubMed
  12. Allergy. 1995;50(24 Suppl):24-30 - PubMed
  13. J Dermatol. 1989 Jun;16(3):196-206 - PubMed
  14. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2004 Dec;93(6):562-7 - PubMed
  15. Allergy. 1999 Jul;54(7):700-7 - PubMed
  16. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2004 Sep;29(5):526-32 - PubMed
  17. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2004 Jun;92(6):635-40 - PubMed

Publication Types