Update on mosquito bite reaction: Itch and hypersensitivity, pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment

Mosquito bites are endured by most populations worldwide. Reactions to mosquito bites range from localized wheals and papules with associated pruritus to rare systemic reactions and anaphylaxis in certain populations. The mechanism of itch is due to introduction of mosquito saliva components into the cutaneous tissue, although the exact pathophysiology is unclear. Histamine is thought to be a key player through mosquito saliva itself or through activation of mast cells by IgE or through an IgE-independent pathway. However, other salivary proteins such as tryptase and leukotrienes may induce non-histaminergic itch. Some individuals have a genetic predisposition for mosquito bites, and people with hematologic cancers, HIV, and other conditions are susceptible to robust reactions. Prevention of mosquito bites is key with physical barriers or chemical repellents. Treatment consists of second-generation antihistamines and topical corticosteroids. Further research on topical treatments that target neural-mediated itch is needed.

Thiamine (vitamin B1) as an insect repellent: a scoping review

While the desire for systemic repellents is high, ineffective repellents put one at risk of insect-vectored pathogens. Vitamin B1, or thiamine, has been touted as a systemic insect repellent since 1943, and denounced as an ineffective placebo for just as long. This paper presents a scoping review of 104 relevant case reports, research studies, and review articles to trace the evolution of this idea and identify an evidence-based, scientific consensus. Reports of thiamine's systemic repellency are primarily anecdotal and based on uncontrolled trials and/or used bite symptoms as a proxy for reduced biting. Controlled experiments on insect landing and feeding found no evidence of repellency. Of the 49 relevant review papers, 16 insect bite prevention guidelines, and 4 government documents, none after the 1990s claimed thiamine is a repellent. The findings of this review are that thiamine cannot repel arthropods in any dosage or route of administration. Due to limited available evidence, the possibility that thiamine reduces the subjective symptoms of insect bites cannot currently be ruled out. Unfortunately, many medical professionals and travelers today still believe thiamine may be effective despite the evidence stating otherwise. Continued promotion of debunked repellents on the commercial market poses a serious risk in countries with the endemic, mosquito-vectored disease.

Critical commentary on "The potential of a site-specific delivery of thiamine hydrochloride as a novel insect repellent exerting long-term protection on human skin: In-vitro, ex-vivo study and clinical assessment"

This letter comments on a recent article by Halawani et al. (10.1016/j.xphs.2021.07.017), which claimed a complex hydrogel formulation of thiamine nanospheres is a topical insect repellent. The authors did not thoroughly review the extensive prior literature on the subject that found no evidence of repellency for thiamine, and the experiment described lacked negative controls. Its results are not conclusive.

The Potential of a Site-Specific Delivery of Thiamine Hydrochloride as a Novel Insect Repellent Exerting Long-Term Protection on Human Skin: In-vitro, Ex-vivo Study and Clinical Assessment

Thiamine hydrochloride (TH) was thought to exert a good insect repellent activity. The purpose of this work was to develop a formulation that releases TH in sustained regimen on human skin. Long lasting protection against mosquito bites was achieved. Pullulan acetate (PA) was used to prepare TH nanospheres. Optimal system was incorporated in Pluronic® hydrogel. Formulae were tested for in-vitro release and ex-vivo permeation. Complete protection time (CPT) was done adopting Kaplan-Meier survival function for the synthetic repellent (DEET), TH solution and nanospheres in hydrogel. Release profile of TH solution, nanospheres and nanosphere-loaded hydrogel (DG) demonstrated an added effect of DG, where t _1/2 was 11.2 ± 1.4 h. SEM for DG showed homogenous dispersion of nanospheres inside the matrix of the gel. Ex-vivo permeation showed only 0.761 ± 0.04% of TH in hydrogel permeated the skin after 12 h, while 44.98 ± 3.2% permeated when TH solution was applied. Clinical study revealed a significant difference in CPT between TH solution with either DEET or (DG) (p<0.05), and no significant difference between DEET and DG with CPT 400 ± 31 and 360 ± 18 min, respectively (P > 0.05). The high efficacy of TH-loaded hydrogel rendered it a successful alternative for DEET, offering long protection against mosquito bites.