PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “ANTIHISTAMINICS”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 613 records · Page 34Linked to original sources
PubMed1950

Antihistaminic drugs in dermatology.

From the results of treatment of 1,770 patients with dermatologic diseases (1,458 as reported in the literature and 312 observed by the author) it is concluded that antihistaminic preparations are of great value in allergic diseases where it is hypothecated that liberated histamine is the offender, as in acute edematous types of urticaria, erythema multiforme, and some cases of allergic pruritus. The indiscriminate use of these drugs is to be avoided. Antihistaminic drugs are palliative-they do not cure. They often prolong the disease. They give temporary relief from swelling and pruritus. They develop no specific immunity and do not replace immunizing efforts. They do not replace or interfere with epinephrine or ephedrine.

Anti-Allergic Agents↗
PubMed1951

Experimental investigations on action of antihistaminic nasal solutions; a preliminary report.

The effect of antihistaminic drugs in the form of solutions for nasal instillation on the mucous membranes of rabbits was investigated. So far as histologic observations would indicate, Antistine(R)-Privine(R) was the most harmful and caused almost complete necrosis throughout the entire nasal area. Pyribenzamine(R) was the least harmful. Allergan(R) caused more damage than did Pyribenzamine in the nasal mucosa of rabbits, but considerably less than Antistine-Privine.Clinically, the author has observed Antistine-Privine to be extremely irritating when employed as a topical application for symptomatic relief of nasal allergic disease. Pyribenzamine has caused considerable pain and discomfort in patients and has been least effective for relief of nasal congestion since it does not contain a vasoconstrictive agent. Allergan has not been observed by the author to be irritating to any degree in patients with nasal allergic disease unaccompanied by acute infection, and it has been noted to be the least irritating of these three antihistaminic solutions in nasal allergic disease complicated by infection.

Administration, Intranasal↗
PubMed2004

[Topical H1 antihistaminics in the therapy of acute conjunctival allergic reactions].

AIM: To determine, whether the immediately originated allergic reaction of conjunctivas may be treated with local H1 antihistaminic drugs in a monotherapy (Allergodil gtt, Emadine gtt). GROUP AND METHODS: The group included 30 patients at the age of 17 to 40 years at the mean age of 33.2 years, where chemosis and hyperemia of bulbar conjunctiva originated suddenly as well as edema of eyelids. The reported subjective symptoms were itching, burning sensation in the eyes, lacrimation, and the feeling of pressure under the eyelid. Local treatment with azelastin (Allergodil gtt. oph., Pliva), was applied in 15 patients, the other 15 patients were treated locally with emedastin (Emadine gtt. oph., Alcon) at the dose of one drop twice daily into the conjunctival sac of both eyes. The time of onset of the therapeutic effect and the disappearance of subjective symptoms and objective signs were observed. RESULTS: The disappearance of subjective symptoms after the start of therapy developed within 20 minutes after Allergodil gtt and within 5 minutes after Emadin. Subjective complaints disappeared in the range of 86-100% after Allergodil gtt and in the range of 90-100% after Emadin gtt. A substantial diminution or even complete disappearance of objective symptoms developed in 74-80% cases after the treatment with Allergodil gtt and in 80-87% subjects after Emadin gtt. CONCLUSION: The investigated local H1 antihistaminic drugs proved to be effective in monotherapy of acute phase of allergic conjunctivitis. The drugs influence subjective complaints faster and more efficiently than the objective signs. The therapy of objective manifestations requires longer period of time for the effect to develop.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1992

Ingestion of an antihistamine does not affect exercise performance.

The effects of a single oral dose of a sedating and nonsedating H1 receptor antagonist on exercise performance and tolerance were examined in a double-blind, randomized study. Twelve healthy, physically active subjects were tested under a placebo condition and two antihistamine conditions (diphenhydramine hydrochloride (50 mg) and terfenadine (60 mg)). The following treadmill exercise tests were administered: maximal aerobic power (MAX), submaximal steady state (SS), and high-intensity, intermittent exercise (HI). The MAX test consisted of incremental treadmill running to volitional exhaustion. For the SS test, subjects ran for 30 min on the treadmill at approximately 55% of their VO2max. The HI test consisted of alternated 30-s bouts of running and rest to volitional exhaustion; the treadmill grade was 10% and the intensity was nearly 90% of VO2max. Measures of oxygen uptake, heart rate, rectal temperature, post-exercise plasma lactate concentration, and time on treadmill for the MAX and HI tests were compared across treatment conditions. There were no statistically significant differences in performance measures across treatment conditions. The results indicate that a single dose of antihistamine will neither compromise nor improve aerobic and glycolytic work performance under these exercise conditions.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Treatment of atopic dermatitis with antihistamines: lessons from a single-patient, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-patient randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can be utilized to maintain methodologic precision in the analysis of treatment effect in individual patients. We describe the results of a single-patient RCT in a patient with atopic dermatitis and review practical considerations regarding the use of antihistamines. METHODS: Using double-blind, crossover techniques, the patient was randomly allocated to four 2-week treatment periods with the following regimens: chlorpheniramine, 8 mg twice daily; chlorpheniramine, 12 mg twice daily; terfenadine, 120 mg twice daily; and placebo (phase 1). The drug that produced superior results from phase 1 (chlorpheniramine, 8 mg) was subsequently compared with astemizole, 10 mg/d, during phase 2, consisting of four 4-week, double-blind, crossover trial periods with random allocation of study drugs. Daily symptom scores, as well as end of treatment period summary impressions by patient and investigator, were analyzed. RESULTS: In both phases, chlorpheniramine produced the most noticeable positive therapeutic effect on the patient's mild but most disturbing symptoms (pruritus and eye irritation) associated with atopic dermatitis. Drowsiness was reported with chlorpheniramine. Tolerance to this side effect, however, developed quickly. CONCLUSIONS: A single-patient RCT with different antihistamines in a patient with chronic atopic dermatitis was a useful tool in achieving a favorable balance among efficacy, toxicity, and cost of therapy.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

Antihistamine effect of supplemental ascorbic acid and neutrophil chemotaxis.

Renewed interest in the antihistamine action of ascorbic acid has emerged with the recently recognized immunosuppressive role of histamine. We examined the antihistamine effect of acute and chronic vitamin C (VC) administration and its effect on neutrophil chemotaxis in healthy men and women. In the chronic study, 10 subjects ingested a placebo during weeks 1, 2, 5 and 6, and 2 g/day of VC during weeks 3 and 4. Fasting blood samples were collected after the initial 2-week period (baseline) and at the end of weeks 4 and 6. Plasma ascorbate rose significantly following VC administration compared to baseline and withdrawal values. Neutrophil chemotaxis rose 19% (NS) during VC administration, and fell 30% after VC withdrawal, but these changes were not correlated to plasma ascorbate levels (r = 0.01). Chemotaxis was inversely correlated to blood histamine (r = -0.32, p = 0.045), and, compared to baseline and withdrawal values, histamine levels were depressed 38% following VC supplementation. Blood histamine and neutrophil chemotaxis did not change 4 hours following a single 2 g dose of ascorbic acid, although plasma ascorbate rose 150%. These data indicate that VC may indirectly enhance chemotaxis by detoxifying histamine in vivo.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Phencarol--an antihistaminic preparation from the quinuclidylcarbinol group].

A high antihistaminic activity of quinuclidyl-3-diphenylcarbinol (phencarol) has been ascertained. In pharmacological experiments phencarol is superior to dimedrol (diphenhydramine), both as concerns its antihistaminic activity and the duration of its action. Unlike dimedrol and diprazine (promethazine) it has no inhibitory effect on the central nervous system. With its clinical use phencarol is effective in treating urticaria, Quincke's edema and allergic skin reactions. The drug is well tolerated by the patients and does not produce any inhibitory or soporific action. Phencarol has an authorized permission to be used for medical purposes.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1992

Histamine and antihistamines in anaesthesia and surgery: from experimental pharmacology to clinical decision making.

The problem of whether antihistamines (histamine H1 + H2-antagonists) should be administered prophylactically before surgical interventions rose after animal experiments with hypnotics, opioids, muscle relaxants and plasma substitutes. It could, however, not be solved by classical biomedical research, but needed a heuristic problem-solving strategy. This strategy was formalized and in this way changed into a scientific structure by the thinking-aloud technique and the building of a decision tree with 9 nodes and various study designs to answer questions at particular decision nodes. The first question, whether the incidence of the reactions was high, was answered by several controlled clinical trials. The second question of life-threatening degrees of severity in single cases, was answered by a drug surveillance study. The third question, of whether severe incidents could always be avoided was answered by medical audit. The same was the case if death had to be considered as the final therapeutic failure. The fifth question was, "are the risks of histamine release comparable to other risks in the perioperative period?" They were--if thromboembolism, infection and stress ulcers were considered. The sixth and seventh questions referred to an experimentally and clinically effective prophylaxis. They were answered by animal and clinical studies with histamine antagonists, mainly with dimetindene and cimetidine. Undesired, adverse reactions to prophylaxis are rare since the drugs are given only once. Prophylaxis was calculated to be fairly cost-effective. Problem-solving strategies are very helpful in transferring facts and conclusions from experimental basic research to clinical decision making. This was convincingly demonstrated in antihistamine prophylaxis in anaesthesia and surgery.

Anesthesia↗
PubMed1991

Control of nausea and autonomic dysfunction with terfenadine, a peripherally acting antihistamine.

Terfenadine (Seldane) was administered to 14 male subjects in a randomized, double-blinded, and crossed-over design to assess the efficacy of this peripherally active antihistamine as an anti-motion sickness drug. Terfenadine possesses practically no central side effects. A Staircase Profile Test was administered 4 h following placebo or a single oral dose of terfenadine (300 mg). The study revealed a statistically significant therapeutic effect from terfenadine (p less than 0.05). This led us to conclude that because the drug does not or only poorly crosses the blood-brain barrier, a selective peripheral antihistamine (H1) action may be sufficient in the control of motion sickness induced through cross-coupled accelerative semicircular canal stimulation using a rotating chair. This finding implies that other peripherally acting agents might be found that possess even greater anti-motion sickness efficacy. The present research raises additional questions regarding current theories on the etiology of motion sickness, its associated autonomic system dysfunction, and the validity of assumptions that effective pharmacological agents must act centrally.

Autonomic Nervous System↗
PubMed1976

Treatment of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome by antihistamine.

Ovarian hyperstimulation was produced by human menopausal gonadotropin and chorionic gonadotropin in rabbits. A more rapid regression of the hyperstimualted ovaries was observed in an antihistamine-treated group than in a control group. The difference in regression was found to be statistically significant. The possibility of treating the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome by antihistamine is cited.

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Hyposensitization and antihistamines in the treatment of bronchial and allergic rhinitis].

The control of symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis and bronchial asthma can not be always attained with hyposensitization. This may be achieved with more success with additional treatment with H1 antagonists of histamine receptors. By hyposensitization statistically significant decrease of the total IgE was achieved. Contrary to this, in cases in which the symptoms could not be controlled with hyposensitization, only antihistamines were additionally administered, no significant decrease of IgE took place. These were, probably, more severe cases in which the symptoms could not be controlled with the hyposensitization only. No significant effect on the values of blood eosinophiles was registered with hyposensitization or additional administration of antihistamines.

Asthma↗
PubMed1990

AHR-14310C: a potent, long-acting, nonsedating H1-antihistamine that prevents antigen-induced mucus formation in sensitive rats.

AHR-14310C(5-[2-[4-[bis(4-fluorophenyl)hydroxymethyl- 1-piperidinyl]ethyl]-3-methyl]-2-oxazolidinone ethanedioate, hydrochloride salt) displays potent and long-acting antihistaminic activity in guinea pigs and in dog and guinea pig models of immediate hypersensitivity. Given orally 1, 5 or 24 hr before an i.v. histamine challenge, AHR-14310C produced ED50 values of 0.76, 0.22 and 0.58 mg/kg, respectively, in protecting naive guinea pigs from the lethal effects of the histamine challenge. AHR-14310C was also effective when the histamine was administered as an aerosol (1-, 5- and 24-hr ED50 values = 0.69, 0.38 and 1.08 mg/kg, respectively). AHR-14310C also attenuated the anaphylactic responses to aerosolized antigen in sensitive guinea pigs and the skin response to antigen in naturally sensitive dogs. AHR-14310C, at doses in vastly excess of those required to block histamine-induced hypotension, did not alter the electroencephalogram of cats, as did the sedating antihistamine, diphenhydramine. AHR-14310C did not affect the autonomic responses to acetylcholine, isoproterenol, epinephrine or 1,1-dimethyl-4-phenylpiperazinium chloride in dogs. At low doses (0.316-1.0 mg/kg p.o.), AHR-14310C blocked antigen-induced tracheal mucous changes in sensitive rats. AHR-14310C has therapeutic potential in allergic individuals, particularly in asthmatics, where bronchorrhea or mucus plugging is a problem.

Acetylcholine↗
PubMed1990

[The use of H-1 antihistamine preparations in neurodermatitis patients].

Correlations between clinical variants of neurodermatitis course and patients' lymphocyte sensitivity to histamine are analyzed. The atopic form is associated with high lymphocyte sensitivity to histamine. Administration of H-1 antihistaminic agents to these patients is not always justified. Antihistaminic drugs should be prescribed to neurodermatitis patients with due consideration for the individual sensitivity of patient's lymphocytes to histamine.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1990

Antianaphylactic and antihistaminic activity of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory compound nimesulide in guinea-pig.

Nimesulide (4-nitro-2-phenoxymethane sulfonanilide, Aulin, Mesulid) is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory compound which shows antihistaminic activity and inhibits the immune release of histamine. The antihistaminic activity of this compound is specific for H1-receptor and has been demonstrated on isolated strips of guinea-pig trachea and on histamine-induced multiphasic inotropic response in left atria of guinea pig electrically driven. The effect of nimesulide is of non competitive type and, at the concentration of 1 x 10(-5) mol/l, is nearly 2 time less potent than pyrilamine (mepyramine) at 1 x 10(-6) mol/l. Nimesulide (1.6 mumol/kg i.v.) inhibits both bronchoconstriction (69%) and TXB2 formation (93%) induced by histamine (0.05 mumol/kg i.v.) in anaesthetized guinea-pigs. In contrast indomethacin (1.6 mumol/kg i.v.) decreases the generation of TXB2 (89%) without affecting the enhancement in tracheal insufflation pressure induced by histamine. In actively sensitized guinea-pigs both nimesulide and indomethacin protect the animals from deadly anaphylactic crisis. The rise in tracheal pressure induced by the antigenic challenge is inhibited of 80% and 63% respectively by nimesulide and indomethacin (6.4 mumol/kg i.v.). At this dose the two compounds reduced of 90% approximately the immunological release of TXB2 in the circulation. The release of histamine, induced by the anaphylactic reaction caused in perfused lungs obtained from actively sensitized guinea-pigs, is lessened by nimesulide (EC50 = 3.06; fid. lim. 2.59-3.63 mumol/l) and potentiated by indomethacin (EC50 = 0.89; fid. lim. 0.67-1.17 mumol/l).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Airway Resistance↗
PubMed1988

In vitro and in vivo studies of the non-sedating antihistamine epinastine.

Epinastine (3-amino-9,13b-dihydro-1H-dibenz [c,f]imidazo[1,5-a]azepine hydrochloride, WAL 801 CL) was tested in vitro and in vivo in comparison with other H1-receptor antagonists. In the guinea pig ileum and in receptor binding studies the test substance showed a high affinity to H1-receptors. The following rank order was determined: WAL 801 CL greater than astemizole greater than terfenadine. These results were confirmed in vivo. The studies were carried out with oral and intravenous administration of WAL 801 CL to assess the inhibition of histamine-induced reactions in the skin or the lung of rats, dogs and guinea pigs. 10- to 100fold antihistaminic doses of WAL 801 CL showed no effect on the sleeping-waking behaviour of cats. From this and other results it is suggested that the compound does not penetrate in the central nervous system. The action pattern of WAL 801 CL as a non-sedating antihistamine corresponds more to that of terfenadine than that of ketotifen.

Animals↗
PubMed1989

Central nervous system effects of antihistamines on evoked potentials.

Sedation is the most common side effect of antihistamine therapy. As with many behavioral constructs, attempts at quantification are difficult, and consequently, subjective reports of antihistamine sedation are frequently relied upon. Evoked potential activity is one method to quantitate the brain's response to subtle cognitive change. Evoked potentials are characteristic shifts in the brain's electrical activity that are obtained by time-locking the ongoing EEG to a stimulus over repeated trials. A late positive component of the evoked potential (P3) has been related to various psychologic properties including expectation, selective attention, and information processing speed. Because of this relationship, we employed the latency of the P3 evoked potential to measure the cognitive effects of chlorpheniramine and terfenadine. In healthy young subjects, we observed that terfenadine produces significantly less cognitive slowing of the P3 potential than chlorpheniramine. This finding supports the subjective findings of reduced sedative side effects of terfenadine.

Adult↗
PubMed1985

[CNS activity of antihistaminics].

All the antihistamines tested, except astemizole, alter the S-W cycle in dogs. The changes are consistent with the well-known, sedative side-effects observed with most agents from this class. Astemizole, however, produced no EEG changes even at 50 times the effective antihistamine dose. This finding supports the clinical observation that the drug does not cause drowsiness or sedation.

Animals↗