Comparison of cetirizine, ebastine and loratadine in the treatment of immediate mosquito‐bite allergy

Karppinen, Ari; Kautiainen, Hannu; Petman, Leena; Burri, Peter H.; Reunala, Timo

doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2002.13201.x

Cited by 40 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5.9 mm2, giving the suppression index of 69.5% by Cetirizine (Reunala et al 1993). However, recent report by the same group of researcher found lower index of suppression (45%) (Karppinen et al 2002). The obvious difference to this study is the different protocol.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

Cetirizine Suppression to Skin Prick Test Results in Atopic Allergy Patients

Soegiarto¹,

Kurnia²,

Effendi³

et al. 2017

FMI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

Cetirizine Suppression to Skin Prick Test Results in Atopic Allergy Patients

Soegiarto¹,

Kurnia²,

Effendi³

et al. 2017

FMI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The immediate wheal and fl are response to mosquito bite reactions is due to an IgE-mediated reaction involving dermal mast cells and histamine release [98, 99 . Oral antihistamines decrease the immediate whealing and pruritus and may reduce itching associated with the subsequent delayed reaction [100,101] .…”

Section: Insect Bite Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antihistamines in Dermatology

Greaves¹

2005

Skin Pharmacol Physiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Along with antibiotics, antihistamines are the most widely used systemic drugs in dermatology. This is attributable to the major role played by histamine in common diseases such as urticaria and atopic eczema. Of the currently recognised four subtypes of G protein-coupled histamine receptors, only the H₁ and H₂ subtypes have been positively identified in human skin. Traditionally believed to be competitive antagonists of histamine, H₁ and H₂ antihistamines are now considered to behave as inverse agonists. By consensus, H₁ antihistamines are classified as ‘first generation’ (associated with troublesome side-effects including somnolence, anti-adrenergic and atropine-like actions) and ‘second-generation’ compounds (in which these side-effects are reduced or absent). The main indications for H₁ antihistamines in skin are suppression of pruritus in urticaria and atopic eczema, both of which are associated with increased mast cell numbers and tissue histamine levels. However the evidence basis for use in atopic eczema is ambiguous and controversial, even though these drugs are widely used in practice. Currently, significant side-effects are mainly confined to the first-generation compounds and are especially troublesome in the elderly. Psychomotor impairment may persist throughout the day following administration. Anti-cholinergic and anti-α-adrenergic blockade and cardiotoxicity (torsade de pointes) may also occur with first-generation antihistamines. Two early low-sedation second-generation antihistamines caused arrhythmias in a small number of patients but these compounds have now been withdrawn. Generally, the second-generation H₁ antihistamines are well tolerated.

show abstract

“…Prophylactic antihistamines were effective in relieving the immediate symptoms of mosquito bites [16,17,[25][26][27][28] ; however, while some studies show promising results in relieving delayed symptoms [17,26,27] , their effi cacy remains unclear ( table 3 ). Two drawbacks of oral antihistamine use is the need to be given prophylactically, which requires commitment from the user and the advanced knowledge that he or she is going to be exposed to mosquito and possible sedation [25,26,29] . To our knowledge, adherence to prophylactic administration of antihistamines in use of mosquito bites has not been studied; however, we suspect it would be low for the average consumer.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Karppinen et al [29] recently conducted a placebocontrolled, cross-over study using 29 adult subjects sensitive to A. aegypti mosquito bites. 10 mg cetirizine, 10 mg ebastine, 10 mg loratadine or placebo were prophylactically given for 4 days, and subjects were challenged to mosquito bites on day 3.…”

Section: Comparing Prophylactic Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mosquito Bite Therapy: Evidenced-Based

Modjtahedi¹,

Modjtahedi²,

Mansury³

et al. 2004

Exog Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mosquito bites in humans are characterized by an immediate wheal-and-flare type I hypersensitivity response, followed by a delayed type IV papular reaction approximately 24 h later. An intense pruritic reaction may accompany all phases of the bite. Prophylactically administered oral second-generation antihistamines inhibit the immediate histamine induced wheal-and-flare in skin, and some studies show that they are also useful in alleviating delayed bite symptoms. Topical antihistamines have not been documented to be useful in treatment; however, topical ammonium solution and other common allergic reaction remedies are promising as after-bite treatments. This review assesses the current evidence analyzing the efficacy of prophylactic, oral, second-generation antihistamines as well as topical therapies for mosquito bites.

show abstract

Comparison of cetirizine, ebastine and loratadine in the treatment of immediate mosquito‐bite allergy

Abstract: This comparative study in mosquito-bite-sensitive adults shows that cetirizine and ebastine decrease significantly whealing and accompanying pruritus, and that cetirizine seems to be the most effective against pruritus.

Cited by 40 publications

References 16 publications

Cetirizine Suppression to Skin Prick Test Results in Atopic Allergy Patients

Cetirizine Suppression to Skin Prick Test Results in Atopic Allergy Patients

Antihistamines in Dermatology

Mosquito Bite Therapy: Evidenced-Based

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About