Humoral and cellular responses to histamine and pollen allergen in a skin chamber model: effect of mizolastine

Mizolastine in primary acquired cold urticaria

BACKGROUND

Treatment of primary acquired cold urticaria (CU) is quite difficult because of variable clinical effectiveness and side effects of classic antihistamines.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mizolastine, an antihistaminic with antiallergic properties, versus placebo in primary acquired CU.

METHODS

This study was a phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study of mizolastine (10 mg, once daily) versus placebo in 28 patients with primary acquired CU. Efficacy was measured by the cold-stimulation time test, the wheal response, and pruritus intensity after an ice-cube test.

RESULTS

Mizolastine delayed the cold-induced wheal reaction, reduced wheal response at 3 and 10 minutes, and reduced pruritus intensity. Statistically significant differences were observed versus placebo for the cold-stimulation time test, wheal response at 3 and 10 minutes, and pruritus intensity (P =.006,.015,.009, and.005, respectively). No clinically relevant adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Mizolastine (10 mg, once daily) was shown to be superior to placebo for both delaying and reducing the cold-induced wheal reaction without significant adverse events. Results suggest that mizolastine may be effective in the treatment of CU.

Are cysteinyl leukotrienes involved in allergic responses in human skin?

BACKGROUND

Cysteinyl leukotrienes have been suggested to be involved in producing the symptoms of both the early and late phases of the allergic response in the lung and other tissues.

OBJECTIVE

To use scanning laser Doppler imaging, microdialysis and immunocytochemistry to explore the mediator and cellular mechanisms of the dermal allergic response.

METHODS

Thirteen atopic volunteers received intradermal injections into the forearm of grass pollen or D. pteronyssinus extract. Changes in dermal blood flow up to 8 h were monitored by scanning laser Doppler imaging. The release of histamine, PGD2 and LTC4/D4/E4 was assessed by dermal microdialysis. Skin biopsies were taken at 6 h to determine numbers of mast cells, eosinophils, basophils, Langerhans' cells, and monocytes/macrophages, and the expression of COX-1, COX-2, 5-LO and FLAP.

RESULTS

Allergen provocation produced an immediate weal and flare response followed by an erythematous induration peaking at 6 h. During the first hour, c. 84 pmoles of histamine and c. 0.3 pmoles of PGD2 were recovered by microdialysis (both P < 0.001) but LTC4/D4/E4 was undetectable. No histamine, PGD2 or LTC4/D4/E4 was detectable at later times. Immunocytochemical examination of biopsies taken at 8 h showed increased numbers of eosinophils and basophils and in COX-2, 5-LO and FLAP, but not COX-1. Expression of 5-LO and FLAP was associated primarily with eosinophils.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that inflammatory cells recruited to the site of allergen injection are not activated to release detectable amounts of cysteinyl leukotrienes. Hence, it is unlikely that the late-phase erythematous induration is mediated by this autocoid.

Comparative activity of cetirizine and mizolastine on histamine-induced skin wheal and flare responses at 24 h

AIMS

The aim of our study was to compare the activity of cetirizine 10 mg with that of mizolastine 10 mg vs placebo at 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled, three-way cross-over study with a wash-out period of 7 +/- 2 days between each period. The study included 36 healthy volunteers (18--50 years, mean age = 32 years; 9 males). The objective measurement was the cutaneous reactivity to increasing concentrations of histamine (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 mg ml(-1)) administered by prick tests. The reactivity was evaluated by the wheal and flare areas (mm2). The AUC (area under curves) values of the wheal and flare areas as a function of the log2 transformed histamine concentration were calculated for each subject and treatment, and compared.

RESULTS

A highly significant treatment effect was evidenced both for wheal and flare responses (P = 0.0001). This indicates the good activity of both cetirizine 10 mg and mizolastine 10 mg in inhibiting skin wheal and flare reactions to histamine. In addition, the mean AUC values significantly differed between cetirizine and mizolastine (64.8 and 117.8 log2 (mg ml(-1)) x mm2 for wheal, and 939.4 and 2340.8 for flare, respectively; P = 0.0001), with a superior activity of cetirizine than mizolastine at 24 h after intake both on wheal and flare responses. The tolerance of cetirizine and mizolastine was good. The severity of the adverse events was never more than 'moderate', 'fatigue' being the most frequent reported symptom [cetirizine (6 subjects), placebo (3), mizolastine (5)], followed by 'somnolence' [cetirizine (0), placebo (1), mizolastine (3)]. There was no serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that cetirizine (10 mg) suppresses skin reactivity to histamine more effectively than mizolastine (10 mg) 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers.

UV erythema reducing capacity of mizolastine compared to acetylsalicylic acid or both combined in comparison to indomethacin

UV light exerts hazardous effects such as induction of skin cancer and premature skin aging. In this study we evaluated an assumptive anti-inflammatory effect of the nonsedative histamine H1-receptor antagonist, mizolastine, on UV-induced acute sunburn reaction. Therefore, a clinical, randomized, double-blind, four-arm, crossover study was conducted in healthy young female volunteers (skin type II) comparing the UV sensitivity under mizolastine, acetyl-salicylic acid (ASA), indomethacin or a mizolastine/ASA combination. Moreover, HaCaT keratinocytes were incubated with mizolastine under various UV treatment modalities in vitro to study its effect on the release of inflammatory cytokines, i.e. interleukin (IL)-1 alpha, IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha). All three drugs were effective in suppressing the UVB-, UVA- and combined UVA/UVB-erythema. However, the strongest effects were observed using the combined treatment with both 250 mg ASA and 10 mg mizolastine. An inhibitory effect in vitro of 10 nM mizolastine upon UV-induced cytokine release from HaCaT keratinocytes was observed for IL-1 alpha at 24 h after 10 J/cm2 UVA1, for IL-6 at 48 h after 10 J/cm2 UVA1 and 30 mJ/cm2 UVB, and also for TNF-alpha at 4 h after 10 J/cm2 UVA, 10 J/cm2 UVA1 and 30 mJ/cm2 UVB, respectively. The combination of mizolastine and ASA can be strongly recommended as a protective measure against UV erythema development with a lower unwanted side effect profile than that of the hitherto treatment modality, i.e. indomethacin.

New insights into the second generation antihistamines

Second generation antihistamines are recognised as being highly effective treatments for allergy-based disease and are among the most frequently prescribed and safest drugs in the world. However, consideration of the therapeutic index or the benefit/risk ratio of the H1 receptor antagonists is of paramount importance when prescribing this class of compounds as they are used to treat non-life threatening conditions. There are many second generation antihistamines available and at first examination these appear to be comparable in terms of safety and efficacy. However, the newer antihistamines in fact represent a heterogeneous group of compounds, having markedly differing chemical structures, adverse effects, half-life, tissue distribution and metabolism, spectrum of antihistaminic properties, and varying degrees of anti-inflammatory effects. With regard to the latter, there is growing awareness that some of these compounds might represent useful adjunct medications in asthma therapy. In terms of safety issues, the current second generation grouping includes compounds with proven cardiotoxic effects and others with the potential for adverse drug interactions. Moreover, some of the second generation H1 antagonists have given cause for concern regarding their potential to cause a degree of somnolence in some individuals. It can be argued, therefore, that the present second generation grouping is too large and indistinct since this was based primarily on the concept of separating the first generation sedating compounds from nonsedating H1 antagonists. Although it is too early to talk about a third generation grouping of antihistamines, future membership of such a classification could be based on a low volume of distribution coupled with a lack of sedating effects, drug interactions and cardiotoxicity.

Antiallergic effects of H1-receptor antagonists

The primary mechanism of antihistamine action in the treatment of allergic diseases is believed to be competitive antagonism of histamine binding to cellular receptors (specifically, the H1-receptors), which are present on nerve endings, smooth muscles, and glandular cells. This notion is supported by the fact that structurally unrelated drugs antagonize the H1-receptor and provide clinical benefit. However, H1-receptor antagonism may not be their sole mechanism of action in treating allergic rhinitis. On the basis of in vitro and animal experiments, drugs classified as H1-receptor antagonists have long been recognized to have additional pharmacological properties. Most first-generation H1-antihistamines have anticholinergic, sedative, local anaesthetic, and anti-5-HT effects, which might favourably affect the symptoms of the allergic response but also contribute to side-effects. These additional properties are not uniformly distributed among drugs classified as H1-receptor antagonists. Azatadine, for example, inhibits in vitro IgE-mediated histamine and leukotriene (LT) release from mast cells and basophils. In human challenge models, terfenadine, azatadine, and loratadine reduce IgE-mediated histamine release. Cetirizine reduces eosinophilic infiltration at the site of antigen challenge in the skin, but not the nose. In a nasal antigen challenge model, cetirizine pretreatment did not affect the levels of histamine and prostaglandin D2 recovered in postchallenge lavages, whereas the levels of albumin, N-tosyl-L-arginine methyl ester (TAME) esterase activity, and LTs were reduced. Terfenadine, cetirizine, and loratadine blocked allergen-induced hyperresponsiveness to methacholine. In view of the complexity of the pathophysiology of allergy, a number of H1 antagonists with additional properties are currently under development for allergic diseases. Mizolastine, a new H1-receptor antagonist, has been shown to have additional actions that should help reduce the allergic response. In animal models, mizolastine inhibits antigen-induced eosinophil infiltration into mouse skin and into the nasal cavity of guinea-pigs. Mizolastine also significantly inhibits antigen-induced neutrophil infiltration into the bronchoalveolar lavage fluids of guinea-pigs. In addition, it inhibits arachidonic acid-induced paw oedema in rats without affecting carrageenin-induced rat paw oedema, suggesting an effect on LT generation. In man, mizolastine inhibits early and late antigen-induced soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) levels in skin blisters. It also inhibits anaphylactic release of histamine from rodent mast cells, LTC4 and LTB4 release from mouse bone-marrow-derived mast cells, LTC4 release from rat intestinal mast cells, and 5-lipoxygenase activity of polymorphonuclear neutrophils of guinea-pig intestines and rat basophilic leukaemia cells. It is clear that a number of H1-antihistamines have multiple effects on the allergic inflammatory response. It is equally clear that these antiallergic effects are not uniformly shared among all drugs of this class. The assessment of the clinical significance of these results and research regarding the parts of the molecules responsible for these activities are underway.

Clinical advantages of dual activity in allergic rhinitis

Symptoms of allergic rhinitis include sneezing; itching of the eyes, nose, and throat; nasal obstruction; and rhinorrhoea; they may be seasonal or perennial, depending on the causative allergen. The major symptom of perennial allergic rhinitis is nasal obstruction. Sneezing and rhinorrhoea are often present, but are less troublesome than in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Symptom relief is a priority in allergic rhinitis because patients have a severely impaired quality of life. The nasal vascular system is complex. Histamine acts on postcapillary venules during both the immediate and late phase of reactivity and causes plasma extravasation. Other inflammatory mediators can also induce this reaction. Thus, histamine antagonists that also have some additional antiallergic properties have advantages in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Mizolastine is a second-generation antihistamine that has been shown, in experimental studies, to possess 5-lipoxygenase inhibitory properties in addition to its H1-receptor antagonistic activity. In the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, mizolastine 10 mg/day has been shown to be effective in reducing nasal and ocular symptoms. It has been shown to be significantly more effective than placebo with a greater percentage of responders. Another study has shown that symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis in mizolastine-treated patients were reduced more significantly than in cetirizine-treated patients on the second and third days of treatment. In perennial allergic rhinitis, mizolastine significantly improved symptoms of nasal obstruction compared with placebo and also significantly reduced nasal membrane colour, nasal secretions, and mucosal swelling as shown by rhinoscopy. These effects were maintained over a 5-month treatment period. Mizolastine has also been shown to be at least as effective as loratadine, and in one trial even superior in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.