H1-antihistamines suppress wheal-and-flare reaction and skin blood perfusion measured by Laser Dopppler flowmetry: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design study
Abstract
H1-antihistamines suppress wheal-and-flare reaction and skin blood perfusion measured by Laser Dopppler flowmetry: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design study The aim of our study was to compare the influence of pre-treatment with H1-antihistamines (levocetirizine, desloratadine, clemastine, quifenadine, and sequifenadine) and a placebo on the histamine-induced weal and flare reaction, increase of skin blood perfusion and sedation. Thirty healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study. The study design was a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, balanced clinical trial. Volunteers in randomised and double-blind order were treated with oral levocetirizine 5 mg, desloratadine 5 mg, clemastine 1 mg, quifenadine 50 mg, sequifenadine 50 mg or a placebo. Two hours after intake of medication, the histamine skin prick test was performed and skin blood perfusion was registered with further evaluation of sedative effect. We conclude that levocetirizine induced a significant and pronounced decrease of weal and flare reaction and skin blood perfusion compared to the placebo and the other H1-antihistamines. The effect of quifenadine and sequifenadine on weal reaction area was similar to desloratadine and clemastine. Regarding the sedative effect, we can conclude that second generation antihistamines appear to be not non-sedative but the least impairing, and the first generation antihistamines appear to be the most impairing on…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students on Application, Education, and Ethical Aspects
- Information quality of videos related to esophageal cancer on tiktok, kwai, and bilibili: a cross-sectional study
- The quality and reliability of short videos about hypertension on TikTok: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability evaluation of pancreatic cancer-related video content on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study
- Association between metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) and hypertension: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2007–2018
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.