While histamine plays an important role in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases, such as allergic rhinitis, H1-antihistamines, which have been using in the treatment of allergic diseases for more than 70 years, are considered as the cornerstone of the medication of allergic diseases. In this review, we discuss the history of histamine studies and anti-histamine discovery, the histamine receptors, as well as the mechanisms and the safety of H1-antihistamines.
Anti-Allergic Agents ; therapeutic use ; Histamine H1 Antagonists ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial ; drug therapy

Asthma ; drug therapy ; Child ; Histamine H1 Antagonists ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Promethazine ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use

OBJECTIVETo systematically evaluate the efficacy of intranasal antihistamine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

METHODSThe randomized controlled trials (RCT) about intranasal antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis between January 1985 and January 2014 were searched in OVID, PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, WanFang Data and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently screened the literatures, extracted the data, and evaluated the methodological quality, then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1 software.

RESULTSA total of thirteen RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the efficacy of intranasal antihistamine group was superior to the placebo group in total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), the difference was significant[WMD = -1.96, 95%CI (-2.06;-1.85), P < 0.01], and individual nasal symptom scores (blocked nose, rhinorrhea, and sneezing) [WMD = -0.18, 95%CI (-0.28;-0.08); WMD = -0.45, 95%CI (-0.52;-0.38); WMD = -0.41, 95%CI (-0.58;-0.24), all P < 0.01], with significant differences. There was no significant difference between the intranasal antihistamine group and the corticosteroid group in TNSS [WMD = -1.51, 95%CI (-3.51;0.49), P = 0.14], but the intranasal antihistamines group was superior to the corticosteroid group in individual nasal symptom scores (blocked nose, rhinorrhea, and sneezing) [WMD = -0.23, 95%CI (-0.40;-0.06); WMD = -0.35, 95%CI (-0.65;-0.05); WMD = -0.25, 95%CI (-0.42;-0.08), all P < 0.05], with significant differences. The intranasal antihistamine group was superior to the oral antihistamines group in TNSS [WMD = -0.88, 95%CI (-1.51;-0.25), P < 0.01].

CONCLUSIONIntranasal antihistamine is effective in the control of nasal symptoms in AR patients.

Administration, Intranasal ; Adrenal Cortex Hormones ; Anti-Allergic Agents ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Histamine Antagonists ; Histamine H1 Antagonists ; Humans ; Nasal Obstruction ; Rhinitis, Allergic ; drug therapy ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal ; Software

OBJECTIVETo search for an effective therapy for cold erythema multiforme in ham.

METHODSOne hundred and eighty cases with cold erythema multiforme in ham were randomly divided into a Santong group (n=90) and a western medicine group (n=90). The Santong group was treated by He's Santong needling methods and Huantiao (GB 30), Fengshi (GB 31), Zusanli (ST 36), etc. were selected. The western medicine group was treated by oral administration of Cinnarizine, Cyproheptadine and Vitamin E. Two weeks later, their therapeutic effects were observed.

RESULTSThe cured rate was 68.9% and the recurrence rate was 11.3% in the Santong group, and 33.3% and 53.3% in the western medicine group, with significant differences in the cured rate and the recurrence rate between the two groups (both P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONHe's Santong needling methods can increase the cured rate and reduce the recurrence rate of cold erythema multiforme in ham.

Acupuncture Therapy ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Cinnarizine ; therapeutic use ; Cyproheptadine ; therapeutic use ; Erythema Multiforme ; drug therapy ; therapy ; Female ; Histamine H1 Antagonists ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Male ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult

OBJECTIVE: To determine if greater efficacy could be achieved with the intranasal antihistamine azelastine and the intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate used concurrently in the treatment of nasal obstruction of persistent non-allergic rhinitis. METHOD: A total of 162 persistent non-allergic rhinitis cases with moderate to severe nasal obstruction were randomized to treatment with the following: the combination therapy or nasal corticosteroids monotherapy. Efficacy was assessed by change from baseline in nasal obstruction score at week 2 and week 6 visits. The perceptions of global treatment satisfaction(convenience, side effects, cost and effectiveness) in both groups were analyzed. RESULT: In both groups, the nasal obstruction score assessment descended significantly at week 2 and week 6 visits versus at baseline (all P < 0.01). At week 2 and week 6 visits, the nasal obstruction score in the combination therapy groups were significantly improved than that in nasal corticosteroids monotherapy groups (all P < 0.01). The perceptions of global treatment satisfaction in the combination therapy groups were significantly better (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION Azelastine nasal spray and intranasal corticosteroid in combination may provide a substantial therapeutic benefit for patients with persistent non-allergic rhinitis, especially nasal obstruction. The combination therapy was well tolerated and safety.
Administration, Intranasal ; Adrenal Cortex Hormones ; therapeutic use ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Histamine H1 Antagonists ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Nasal Obstruction ; Phthalazines ; therapeutic use ; Rhinitis ; drug therapy

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of Mizolastine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. METHOD: Multicentric random Double-blind parallel-controlled study was adopted, and compared with placebo and Cetirizine. Patients (n = 177) were grouped, seventy-two in Mizolastine group, sixty-nine in Cetirizine and thirty-six in placebo group. RESULT: In the seventh curative day symptomatic and sign marks in Mizolastine group and Cetirizine group were lower, but the mark in Mizolastine group reduced more than in Cetirizine group and placebo group. Mizolastine group is better than Cetirizine group in improvement of nasal obstruction and itching with Visual analogue scale. In the twenty first curative day reduction of symptomatic and sign marks in Mizolastine group was lower than Cetirizine group, but no statistic difference. There were 27 adverse events, no serious adverse events in 177 patients during experimental period. Most adverse events were headache and dryness in mouth and eyes. There were 10 cases adverse events in Mizolastine group, one case was related with experiment and four cases might be related with experiment. There were 14 cases adverse events in Cetirizine group, one case was related with experiment and four cases might be related with experiment. There were three cases adverse events in placebo group. CONCLUSION Generally speaking the efficacy of Mizolastine in treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis is better than Cetirizine, Bad events are less. It is safe.
Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Benzimidazoles ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Cetirizine ; therapeutic use ; Child ; Double-Blind Method ; Female ; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial ; drug therapy ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Aerius to seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHOD: Using randomized, controlled method, treatment group 40 cases, oral administration Aerius 5 mg/d for 12 days; control group 35 cases, oral administration Aerius 5 mg/d for 12 days, investigating their efficacy and safety. RESULT: The total effective rate of treatment group was 92.50%, while control group was 85.71%, there was significant difference between them (P<0.05). Significant improvements of seasonal allergic rhinitis nasal obstruction were seen in treatment group after using Aerius (P<0.05). The incidence of side effect of treatment group was 2.50%. CONCLUSION Aerius is safe and can effectively reduction in nasal and nonnasal symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Adolescent ; Adult ; Anti-Allergic Agents ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Child ; Female ; Histamine H1 Antagonists ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Loratadine ; adverse effects ; analogs & derivatives ; therapeutic use ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal ; drug therapy ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult

OBJECTIVETo investigate the basic clinical features of non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) in age, sex, incentives, and the effect of treatment with combined intranasal steroids and antihistamines.

METHODSOne hundred consecutive NAR patients were included in this study and the age, gender, predisposing factors and clinical symptoms were analyzed. Combined intranasal steroids and antihistamines used for 8 weeks, the symptoms were recorded before and after treatment with visual analogue scale(VAS) score as the assessment of treatment effects. SPSS 17.0 software was used to analyze the data.

RESULTSNinety-three NAR patients were adults, and the sex ratio was 1:1.2 (male:female), and the peak age incidence was between 30 - 39 years old. The main nasal symptoms were sneezing (96 cases), rhinorrhea (88 cases), nasal blockage (72 cases) and nasal itching (69 cases). The symptoms of eye and respiratory tract were always accompanied as eye itching (49 cases), tears (32 cases), congestion (22 cases), swelling (13 cases), cough (21 cases), suffocation (19 cases), chest compression (13 cases), wheezing (10 cases); Seventy-nine (79.0%) patients could indicate at least one kind of incentives, the temperature change (54 cases), dust (28 cases), irritating odor (21 cases) was the main incentive of NAR. Forty-seven patients completed the combined treatment of intranasal steroids and antihistamines, 38 (80.9%) patients were satisfied with the result with all symptoms relieved except wheezing (P < 0.05), but 36 patients had the NAR returned when they were exposed with the predisposing factors in the coming year; the remaining 9 (19.1%) patients failed the treatment.

CONCLUSIONSThe clinical features of NAR were as follows: adult constituted the main patient population, women were slightly more than man but with no difference between genders; sneezing and nasal discharge were the main clinical symptoms, always more than 1 incentives. The combination of intranasal steroids and antihistamines could control the most of clinical symptoms.

Administration, Intranasal ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Anti-Inflammatory Agents ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Female ; Glucocorticoids ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Histamine Antagonists ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Histamine H1 Antagonists ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Rhinitis ; drug therapy ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult

Levocetirizine is a second-generation nonsedative antihistaminic agent that has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for treating allergic disease. There was only one case report of levocetirizine-induced liver toxicity, but a liver biopsy was not performed. In this article, we present the first case of levocetirizine-induced liver injury with histologic findings. A 48-year-old man was hospitalized with jaundice and generalized pruritus that had developed after 2 months of therapy with levocetirizine for prurigo nodularis. Laboratory findings revealed acute hepatitis with cholestasis. A liver biopsy demonstrated portal inflammation and hepatitis with apoptotic hepatocytes. The patient fully recovered 3 weeks after withdrawing levocetirizine. Although levocetirizine is safe and effective, physicians should be aware of its potential hepatotoxicity.
Cetirizine/*adverse effects/therapeutic use ; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury/*diagnosis/pathology ; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating/*adverse effects/therapeutic use ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity/drug therapy ; Jaundice/etiology ; Liver/pathology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pruritus/etiology

OBJECTIVETo assess the therapeutic effects on acupuncture preventive treatment of no-aura migraine and its influence on the QOL (quality of life) of the patients.

METHODSRandomized controlled, double-blind and double-dummy research methods were adopted, 60 cases were randomly divided into an observation group and a control group, 30 cases in each group. The observation group was treated with acupuncture combined with oral administration of Flunarizine Hydrochloride vacuity capsules, and Baihui (GV 20), Shenting (GV 24) and Benshen (GB 13) were selected as main points. The control group was treated with oral administration of Flunarizine Hydrochloride capsules combined with acupuncture at placebo-points, thrice each week, for 4 weeks. The SF-36 QOL Scale and effective rate were used for assessment of therapeutic effects before treatment, after treatment and 3 months later.

RESULTSThere were significant differences in each dimension scores of SF-36 at 3 time points between the two groups (all P < 0.05). The dimension of the physiological function in the observation group was superior to that of the control group after treatment (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in other 7 dimensions between the two groups (all P > 0.05). After treatment and 3 months later, the effective rates were 68.0%, 68.0% in the observation group and 24.0%, 32.0% in the control group, respectively, with significant differences between the two groups (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONAcupuncture preventive treatment can effectively improve the life quality of the patients with migraine and reduce the migraine attack. There is no significant difference in improving the physical and psychological health of the migraine patients between acupuncture and Flunarizine Hydrochloride, and acupuncture is more effective in reducing the migraine attack days.

Acupuncture Points ; Acupuncture Therapy ; methods ; Adult ; Double-Blind Method ; Female ; Flunarizine ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Histamine H1 Antagonists ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Migraine without Aura ; prevention & control ; therapy ; Quality of Life ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult