Corticosteroid-sparing effect of azelastine in the management of bronchial asthma

Azelastine potentiates antiasthmatic dexamethasone effect on a murine asthma model

Glucocorticoids are among the most effective drugs to treat asthma. However, the severe adverse effects associated generate the need for its therapeutic optimization. Conversely, though histamine is undoubtedly related to asthma development, there is a lack of efficacy of antihistamines in controlling its symptoms, which prevents their clinical application. We have reported that antihistamines potentiate glucocorticoids' responses in vitro and recent observations have indicated that the coadministration of an antihistamine and a synthetic glucocorticoid has synergistic effects on a murine model of allergic rhinitis. Here, the aim of this work is to establish if this therapeutic combination could be beneficial in a murine model of asthma. We used an allergen-induced model of asthma (employing ovalbumin) to evaluate the effects of the synthetic glucocorticoid dexamethasone combined with the antihistamine azelastine. Our results indicate that the cotreatment with azelastine and a suboptimal dose of dexamethasone can improve allergic lung inflammation as shown by a decrease in eosinophils in bronchoalveolar lavage, fewer peribronchial and perivascular infiltrates, and mucin-producing cells. In addition, serum levels of allergen-specific IgE and IgG1 were also reduced, as well as the expression of lung inflammatory-related genes IL-4, IL-5, Muc5AC, and Arginase I. The potentiation of dexamethasone effects by azelastine could allow to reduce the effective glucocorticoid dose needed to achieve a therapeutic effect. These findings provide first new insights into the potential benefits of glucocorticoids and antihistamines combination for the treatment of asthma and grants further research to evaluate this approach in other related inflammatory conditions.

Current Knowledge and Perspectives on Histamine H1 and H2 Receptor Pharmacology: Functional Selectivity, Receptor Crosstalk, and Repositioning of Classic Histaminergic Ligands

H₁ and H₂ histamine receptor antagonists, although developed many decades ago, are still effective for the treatment of allergic and gastric acid-related conditions. This article focuses on novel aspects of the pharmacology and molecular mechanisms of histamine receptors that should be contemplated for optimizing current therapies, repositioning histaminergic ligands for new therapeutic uses, or even including agonists of the histaminergic system in the treatment of different pathologies such as leukemia or neurodegenerative disorders. In recent years, new signaling phenomena related to H₁ and H₂ receptors have been described that make them suitable for novel therapeutic approaches. Crosstalk between histamine receptors and other membrane or nuclear receptors can be envisaged as a way to modulate other signaling pathways and to potentiate the efficacy of drugs acting on different receptors. Likewise, biased signaling at histamine receptors seems to be a pharmacological feature that can be exploited to investigate nontraditional therapeutic uses for H₁ and H₂ biased agonists in malignancies such as acute myeloid leukemia and to avoid undesired side effects when used in standard treatments. It is hoped that the molecular mechanisms discussed in this review contribute to a better understanding of the different aspects involved in histamine receptor pharmacology, which in turn will contribute to increased drug efficacy, avoidance of adverse effects, or repositioning of histaminergic ligands.

Antihistamines prescribed off-label among paediatric patients at a tertiary care hospital setting in Malaysia

Background Antihistamines are widely prescribed to children but should be used with caution in young children. Objective To determine the paediatric prescribing pattern of antihistamines with a focus on the off-label prescribing and factors that influence such prescribing. Setting Paediatric wards of a tertiary care hospital setting in Malaysia. Methods The pharmacy-based computer system and medical records were used to collect the required data. Labelling status of each antihistamine was determined based on the information provided in the product leaflets. Main outcome measure Antihistamines prescribed off-label and factors associated with such prescribing. Results Of the 176 hospitalised children aged <18 years prescribed with an antihistamine in the year 2012, 60.8 % received it in an off-label manner. Of 292 antihistamine prescription items, 55.5 % were prescribed off-label. Loratadine (35.3 %) was the most frequently prescribed antihistamine and chlorpheniramine maleate (34.0 %) was the most common antihistamine prescribed off-label. The main reason for the off-label prescribing of antihistamines was prescribing at higher than the recommended dose (30.2 %). Binary logistic regression showed that children aged <2 years (OR 12.65; 95 % CI 2.87-55.67) and the number of medications received (OR 1.14; 95 % CI 1.00-1.29) were significant predictors for the off-label prescribing of antihistamines. Conclusion Prescribing antihistamines for children in an off-label manner was prevalent at the studied locations and warrants further investigation on the consequences of such prescribing.

The role of antihistamines in asthma management

Histamine is an important mediator in airway inflammation. It is elevated in the airways of asthmatic patients and is responsible for many of the pathophysiological features in asthma. Antihistamines block the actions of histamine and also have effects on inflammation which is independent of histamine-H(1)-receptor antagonism. Antihistamines have been shown to have bronchodilatory effects, effects on allergen-, exercise-, and adenosine-monophosphate-challenge testing, and also to prevent allergen-induced nonspecific airways hyperresponsiveness. Clinical studies have shown mixed results, and some studies have reported beneficial effects of azelastine, cetirizine, desloratadine, and fexofenadine on asthma symptoms or physiological measures in patients with asthma. The combination of an antihistamine and a leukotriene receptor antagonist has been shown to have additive effects in certain studies. Antihistamines have also been shown to delay or prevent the development of asthma in a subgroup of atopic children. These data suggest that antihistamines may have beneficial effects in the management of asthma.

Effects of histamine H1 receptor signaling on glucocorticoid receptor activity. Role of canonical and non-canonical pathways

Histamine H1 receptor (H1R) antagonists and glucocorticoid receptor (GR) agonists are used to treat inflammatory conditions such as allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis and asthma. Consistent with the high morbidity levels of such inflammatory conditions, these receptors are the targets of a vast number of approved drugs, and in many situations their ligands are co-administered. However, this drug association has no clear rationale and has arisen from clinical practice. We hypothesized that H1R signaling could affect GR-mediated activity, impacting on its transcriptional outcome. Indeed, our results show a dual regulation of GR activity by the H1R: a potentiation mediated by G-protein βγ subunits and a parallel inhibitory effect mediated by Gαq-PLC pathway. Activation of the H1R by its full agonists resulted in a composite potentiating effect. Intriguingly, inactivation of the Gαq-PLC pathway by H1R inverse agonists resulted also in a potentiation of GR activity. Moreover, histamine and clinically relevant antihistamines synergized with the GR agonist dexamethasone to induce gene transactivation and transrepression in a gene-specific manner. Our work provides a delineation of molecular mechanisms underlying the widespread clinical association of antihistamines and GR agonists, which may contribute to future dosage optimization and reduction of well-described side effects associated with glucocorticoid administration.

The effect of rupatadine on lung histopathology in a murine model of chronic asthma

INTRODUCTION

Rupatadine is a new second-generation antihistamine with H(1) receptor antagonist activity and platelet-activating factor antagonist properties. This study aimed to investigate the effect of rupatadine on histologic changes in the lungs in a murine model of chronic asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-five BALB/c mice were divided into five groups of seven mice each: group I (control), group II (placebo [saline]), group III (dexamethasone 1 mg · kg(-1)·d(-1)), group IV (rupatadine 3 mg·kg(-1) d(-1)), and group V (rupatadine 30 mg·kg(-1)·d(-1)). Groups II through V were sensitized and challenged with ovalbumin and treated once per day via the oral route (gavage). Animals were sacrificed 24 h after the last treatment was administered. Airway histopathology was evaluated using light and electron microscopy in all groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences observed in any of the histologic parameters between groups II and IV. There were significantly thinner basement membrane, subepithelial smooth muscle layer, and epithelia were significantly thinner in group V than in group II (p < .05). There were no statistically significant differences in the thicknesses of the basement membrane, subepithelial smooth muscle layer and epithelia between groups III and V.

CONCLUSION

Rupatadine had a beneficial effect on histologic changes in a chronic murine model of asthma.

Is asthma research in dead end?

Despite enormous therapeutic advances, bronchial asthma remains a highly prevalent and serious health problem. Although we have learnt much about the pathogenesis of asthma and developed some new drugs within the last few years, there is still an urgent need for new treatments. The so-called single mediator approach appears to be ineffective in the treatment of asthma. Drugs with multiple sites of mode of action would have greater chances to be successfully introduced into therapy. The present drug screening strategy should be reconsidered and probably be replaced by new and more serendipity-based research.

Addition of fexofenadine to inhaled corticosteroid therapy to reduce inflammatory biomarkers in atopic asthma

BACKGROUND

We previously showed that H1-antihistamines may shift the PC20 (provocation concentration that caused a decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 20%) threshold to adenosine monophosphate (AMP) challenge but may paradoxically prolong recovery.

OBJECTIVES

To measure AMP recovery using a constant predetermined AMP PC20 and to evaluate whether fexofenadine use confers add-on effects to treatment with either fluticasone propionate alone or combined fluticasone propionate-salmeterol.

METHODS

Fourteen atopic patients with mild-to-moderate asthma (forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 76%) completed a double-blind, randomized, crossover study consisting of 3-week treatment blocks of either fluticasone propionate-salmeterol, 250 microg twice daily, or fluticasone propionate alone, 250 microg twice daily, in conjunction with either fexofenadine, 180 mg once daily, or matched placebo. Recovery after a predetermined AMP PC20 challenge was measured (primary outcome), along with exhaled nitric oxide levels, plasma eosinophil cationic protein levels, peripheral eosinophil counts, pulmonary function, diary card outcomes, and quality of life (all secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

There were no differences in any of the primary or secondary outcomes when fexofenadine was added to treatment with either fluticasone propionate-salmeterol or fluticasone propionate alone. The mean AMP recovery time was 25.0 vs 23.4 minutes for fexofenadine and placebo, respectively, as add-on to fluticasone-salmeterol and 22.5 vs 23.9 minutes, respectively, as add-on to fluticasone alone.

CONCLUSION

Fexofenadine did not affect recovery to a fixed dose of AMP challenge or any other surrogate inflammatory markers when given as add-on therapy to corticosteroid-treatedatopic asthmatic patients.

Second-generation antihistamines in asthma therapy: is there a protective effect?

Second-generation histamine H(1) receptor antagonists are recognized as being highly effective treatments for allergic-based disease and are among the most frequently prescribed drugs in the world. The newer antihistamines represent a heterogeneous group of compounds with markedly different chemical structures, a spectrum of antihistaminic properties, adverse effects, half-life, tissue distribution, metabolism and varying degrees of anti-inflammatory effects. Histamine is an important mast cell- and basophil-derived mediator that has been implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma, resulting in smooth muscle contraction, mucus hypersecretion, and increased vascular permeability leading to mucosal edema. Antihistamines should never be used as monotherapy for asthma but there is evidence that these drugs give a measure of protection in histamine-induced bronchoconstriction. Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated that the use of second-generation antihistamines, as adjunct therapy, may benefit those patients whose allergic asthma co-exists with allergic rhinitis. Indeed, many patients present with both allergic rhinitis and asthma. The link between the upper and lower respiratory airways is now well established and there is increasing evidence that allergic rhinitis is a risk factor for the development of asthma. More recently, a number of novel antihistamines have been developed which are either metabolites of active drugs or enantiomers and there is emerging evidence that at least one of these drugs, desloratadine, may give significant symptomatic benefit in some types of asthma. It is of interest to note that cetirizine provides a primary pharmacological intervention strategy to prevent the development of asthma in specifically-sensitized high risk groups of infants. Moreover, the documented anti-inflammatory activities of antihistamines may provide a novel mechanism of action for the therapeutic control of virus-induced asthma exacerbations by inhibiting the expression of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) by airway epithelial cells. Finally, several well-conducted studies suggest that combination therapy with antihistamines and antileukotrienes may be as effective as corticosteroid use in patients with allergic asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The histamine-cytokine network in allergic inflammation

Histamine is synthesized and released by human basophils, mast cells, and neurons. Its pleiotropic effects are mediated by the activation of 4 receptors: H(1), H(2), H(3), and H(4). With the advent of selective antagonists (the antihistamines widely used to treat allergic disorders), the H(1)-receptor was the first member of the receptor family to be pharmacologically defined. Increasing evidence indicates that, in addition to exerting immediate vascular and bronchial responses, histamine might modulate the immune reaction by interacting with T cells, macrophages, basophils, eosinophils, and monocytes. We have shown that, in vitro, histamine induces a concentration-dependent release of IL-6 and beta-glucuronidase from macrophages isolated from the human lung parenchyma. These effects are inhibited by fexofenadine, an H(1)-receptor antagonist, but not by ranitidine, an H(2)-receptor antagonist. This observation raises the possibility that long-term treatment with fexofenadine might have beneficial effects on immune dysregulation and tissue damage/remodeling associated with histamine-mediated macrophage activation.

Desloratadine inhibits allergen-induced airway inflammation and bronchial hyperresponsiveness and alters T-cell responses in murine models of asthma

BACKGROUND

Histamine elicits many features of immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Recent evidence indicates that H1 receptors modulate immune responses to antigens. Desloratadine (DL), a new, long-acting, H1 receptor antagonist, has both a potent antihistaminic function and anti-inflammatory properties.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the effect of DL on allergic-airway responses in mice after inhalation of the naturally occurring aeroallergen Aspergillus fumigatus (Af ) and to examine the effects of DL on specific immune responses to a defined protein antigen with the use of an ovalbumin (OVA) model of asthma.

METHODS

Mice were subjected either to repeated, intranasal application of Af extract or to intraperitoneal immunization with OVA, followed by inhalation challenge. DL or a control fluid was given daily throughout the sensitization process. Immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, bronchoalveolar lavage-fluid cytokines and cytology, lung histology, and physiologic responses to methacholine were assessed in the allergen-treated mice. Anti-OVA IgE responses and OVA-driven T-cell cytokine production were examined.

RESULTS

Treatment with DL did not impair IgE production but did inhibit bronchial inflammation and bronchial hyperresponsiveness in both Af- and OVA-treated mice. This inhibition required that DL be administered concurrently with allergen sensitization, indicating that the attenuation of bronchial hyperresponsiveness and inflammation was not caused by anticholinergic receptor effects. OVA-responsive T cells from DL-treated mice exhibited depressed production of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 and normal amounts of interferon-gamma. The amounts of IL-5 and IL-13 were also diminished in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid.

CONCLUSION

DL, given at the time of exposure to the allergen, inhibits T(H)2 responses, the induction of allergic pulmonary inflammation, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. These results suggest that DL or similar agents given during times of antigen exposure might alter disease progression in patients with respiratory allergy.

Disruption of L-histidine decarboxylase reduces airway eosinophilia but not hyperresponsiveness

Histamine has a variety of airway actions and is considered to be an important mediator in asthma. This study examined the role of endogenous histamine in allergic airway eosinophil recruitment and hyperresponsiveness using L-histidine decarboxylase gene knockout mice. Histamine levels of the airways in L-histidine decarboxylase knockout mice were largely diminished compared with wild-type mice. Inhalation challenge with ovalbumin (OVA) in OVA-sensitized wild-type mice caused eosinophil accumulation in the lung as well as airway hyperresponsiveness to methacholine 3 days after the challenge. The eosinophil recruitment was significantly reduced in the knockout mice. In the bone marrow, the proliferation of eosinophils was enhanced after OVA challenge in the wild-type mice; however, the proliferation was significantly reduced in the knockout mice. The induction of P-selectin in the lung after OVA challenge was also inhibited in the knockout mice. In contrast, airway hyperresponsiveness was not suppressed in the knockout mice. These results suggest that endogenous histamine is involved in the accumulation of eosinophils into the airways after allergic challenge, possibly acting in the bone marrow and producing P-selectin in the airways. Furthermore, allergen-induced airway hyperresponsiveness appeared to occur independently of airway eosinophilia in our present model.

Are antihistamines useful in managing asthma?

There continues to be a great deal of interest in the anti-asthmatic role of antihistamines. Antihistamines have recently been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties that are more extensive than simply the blocking of histamine receptors. For example, new evidence suggests that the suppression of cell adhesion molecule expression occurs with these drugs. The anti-inflammatory and anti-asthmatic effects of antihistamines have been evaluated in patients with both allergic asthma and rhinitis, given the established association between allergic inflammation of the upper and lower airways, with evidence to suggest that antihistamines have clinically relevant anti-asthmatic properties. As well as conferring benefits in asthma symptom control and the measurement of lung function, studies assessing the effect of histamine receptor antagonists on bronchial hyperresponsiveness suggest that there is bronchoprotection during both methacholine and mannitol challenges. Recently, there has also been considerable interest in the effect of combining an antihistamine with a leukotriene receptor antagonist. This combination has an anti-asthmatic effect that is greater than that of either drug given alone and may be comparable to inhaled corticosteroid therapy.

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.

Is antihistamine (H1-receptor antagonist) therapy useful in clinical asthma?

Airway hyperresponsiveness to histamine is a hallmark of asthma, and histamine inhalation reproduces asthma symptoms. Plasma histamine concentrations are elevated during the early and late responses to inhaled allergens, and may also increase during spontaneous acute asthma episodes. Ordinary doses of currently available antihistamines (H1-receptor antagonists) have minimal bronchodilator and bronchoprotective activity. In severe persistent asthma, H1 antagonists have no significant clinical effect. In moderate persistent asthma, clinical benefits of H1 antagonists are apparent, but may not be worth the potential risks of the higher-than-usual doses required. When mild seasonal asthma and allergic rhinitis coexist, however, relief of rhinitis symptoms with H1 antagonists administered in ordinary dose is associated with significant improvement in asthma symptoms.

Management of allergic rhinitis with a combination antihistamine/anti-inflammatory agent

Azelastine nasal spray is a topical antihistamine treatment for the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Besides histamine antagonism, azelastine affects other chemical mediators of the inflammatory response including leukotrienes and kinins. This article reviews and discusses the antihistaminic and anti-inflammatory properties of azelastine and the results of pharmacokinetic studies and controlled clinical trials.

Executive summary

Allergic rhinitis is now recognized as a major cause of morbidity that significantly impairs function and quality of life. Moreover, it is now widely held that the pathophysiologic mechanisms causing nasal allergy contribute, or predispose many individuals, to the development of other airway diseases, including asthma. Allergic rhinitis may well be a factor in 24% of children with otitis media with effusion (OME), and perhaps 28% of cases of chronic sinusitis. As many as 78% of persons with asthma aged 15 to 30 years have elevated serum IgE antibodies to five common aeroallergens. In many instances, nasal allergy signals the presence of more severe disease.

Considerable evidence now suggests that early and appropriate intervention can improve the quality of life and productivity of patients with allergic rhinitis, enhance the academic performance of children, and reduce the prevalence of airway complications. The goal of treatment has shifted from mere symptom alleviation to blocking the pathophysiologic mechanisms that cause chronic allergic inflammation and leave patients vulnerable to airway infections. The earlier in a patient's life that this can be accomplished, the better the anticipated consequences.

A panel of experts was convened in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, on 2 September 1996, to explore these issues and their impact on allergy prevention and treatment in primary care. Their undertaking was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Schering‐Plough Pharmaceuticals.

Effect of azelastine hydrochloride on release and production of platelet activating factor in human neutrophils

Effect of azelastine hydrochloride (azelastine) on release and production of platelet-activating factor (PAF) in neutrophils obtained from asthmatic and non-asthmatic patients was investigated. Neutrophils were preincubated with or without azelastine and stimulated with f-Met-Leu-Phe (fMLP, 10 microM) for 15 min. PAF-like activity was detected by aggregation of washed guinea pig platelets. PAF-like activity released from asthmatic neutrophils without preincubation of azelastine was 5.67[0.89] (mean[SD], ng/10(7) cells) in supernatants and 21.8[0.76] in cell pellets. After preincubation with 10(-8), 10(-6), and 10(-4) M of azelastine, PAF-like activity reduced to 5.96[0.97] (mean[SD], ng/10(7) cells), 3.49[0.63], and 1.89[0.09] (n = 15) in the supernatants, and 20.7[0.97], 13.9[0.29], and 8.91 [0.99] (n = 15) in the cell pellets, respectively. PAF-like activity in non-asthmatic neutrophils without preincubation of azelastine was 4.67[0.19] (mean[SD], ng/10(7) cells) in supernatants and 18.5[0.34] in cell pellets. After preincubation with 10(-8), 10(-6), and 10(-4) M of azelastine, PAF-like activity reduced to 4.39[0.51] (mean[SD], ng/10(7) cells), 2.77[0.22], and 1.75[0.07] (n = 15) in the supernatants, and 17.9[0.54], 10.8[0.25], and 5.97 [0.59] (n = 15) in the cell pellets, respectively. Our results showed that preincubation with azelastine caused a dose-dependent inhibition of intra and extracellular PAF-like activity from asthmatic and non-asthmatic neutrophils in the same manner.