Explore the vast range of titles available.

Antihistamines targeting the histamine H1 receptor play an important role in improving and maintaining the quality of life of patients with allergic rhinitis. For more effective and safer use of second-generation drugs, which are recommended by various guidelines, a classification based on their detailed characteristics is necessary. Antihistamines for first-line therapy should not have central depressant/sedative activities. Sedative properties (drowsiness and impaired performance) are associated with the inhibition of central histamine neurons. Brain H1 receptor occupancy (H1RO) is a useful index shown to be correlated with indices based on clinical findings. Antihistamines are classified into non-sedating (<20%), less-sedating (20–50%), and sedating (≥50%) groups based on H1RO. Among the non-sedating group, fexofenadine and bilastine are classified into “non-brain-penetrating antihistamines” based on the H1RO. These two drugs have many common chemical properties. However, bilastine has more potent binding affinity to the H1 receptor, and its action tends to last longer. In well-controlled studies using objective indices, bilastine does not affect psychomotor or driving performance even at twice the usual dose (20 mg). Upon selecting antihistamines for allergic rhinitis, various situations should be taken into our consideration. This review summarizes that the non-brain-penetrating antihistamines should be chosen for the first-line therapy of mild allergic rhinitis.

Mast cells play a critical role in the pathogenesis of allergic asthma. Histamine is a central mediator released from mast cells through allergic reactions. Histamine plays a role in airway obstruction via smooth muscle contraction, bronchial secretion, and airway mucosal edema. However, previous clinical trials of H1 receptor antagonists (H1RAs) as a treatment for asthma were not successful. In recent years, type 2 innate immunity has been demonstrated to be involved in allergic airway inflammation. Allergic asthma is defined by IgE antibody-mediated mast cell degranulation, while group 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2) induce eosinophilic inflammation in nonallergic asthma without allergen-specific IgE. Anti-IgE therapy has demonstrated prominent efficacy in the treatment of severe allergic asthmatics sensitized with specific perennial allergens. Furthermore, recent trials of specific cytokine antagonists indicated that these antagonists were effective in only some subtypes of asthma. Accordingly, H1RAs may show significant clinical efficacy for some subtypes of allergic asthma in which histamine is deeply associated with the pathophysiology.

Histamine is a biogenic amine that is critical in various physiological and pathophysiological processes, including but not limited to allergic reactions, wakefulness, gastric acid secretion and neurotransmission. Here, we determine 9 cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structures of the 4 histamine receptors in complex with four different G protein subtypes, with endogenous or synthetic agonists bound. Inside the ligand pocket, we identify key motifs for the recognition of histamine, the distinct binding orientations of histamine and three subpockets that facilitate the design of specific ligands. In addition, we also identify key residues responsible for the selectivity of immethridine. Moreover, we reveal distinct structural features as determinants of Gq vs. Gs or Gs vs. Gi coupling differences among the histamine receptors. Our study provides a structural framework for understanding the ligand recognition and G protein coupling of all 4 histamine receptors, which may facilitate the rational design of ligands targeting these receptors. Histamine mediates allergic reactions, inflammation, wakefulness, gastric acid secretion and neurotransmission, among others. Here, the authors determine 9 cryo-EM structures of the 4 histamine receptors in complexes with four different G protein subtypes, with endogenous or synthetic agonists bound, revealing their distinct features.

Izuforant is a selective, and potent histamine H4 receptor (H4R) antagonist developed to treat atopic dermatitis (AD). There is an unmet medical need for therapeutic agents to control inflammation and pruritus. Izuforant is a strong candidate for this task based on the findings of non‐clinical studies showing that inhibition of the histamine‐mediated signaling pathway via H4R by izuforant results in decreased pruritus and inflammation. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of izuforant. Dose‐block‐randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, single‐ and multiple ascending dose studies were conducted in 64 healthy volunteers. For the single ascending dose (SAD) study, 10–600 mg izuforant was administered to the designated groups. For the multiple ascending dose (MAD) study, 100–400 mg izuforant was administered to three groups. The clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of izuforant was evaluated using plasma and urine concentrations. Blood sampling for the PD assay, which measured imetit‐induced eosinophil shape changes (ESC), was also conducted. A one‐compartment PK model described the distribution and elimination profiles of izuforant. An imetit‐induced ESC inhibition test was established and validated for PD evaluation as a measure of the H4R antagonistic effect. ESC inhibition was observed even at doses as low as 10 mg; however, this inhibition became stronger and lasted longer as the dose increased. All izuforant doses were well tolerated, and no discontinuations due to adverse events (AE) or deaths were reported.

BackgroundMast cell activation is thought to be involved in visceral hypersensitivity, one of the main characteristics of the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A study was therefore undertaken to investigate the effect of the mast cell stabiliser ketotifen on rectal sensitivity and symptoms in patients with IBS.Methods60 patients with IBS underwent a barostat study to assess rectal sensitivity before and after 8 weeks of treatment. After the initial barostat, patients were randomised to receive ketotifen or placebo. IBS symptoms and health-related quality of life were scored. In addition, mast cells were quantified and spontaneous release of tryptase and histamine was determined in rectal biopsies and compared with biopsies from 22 age- and gender-matched healthy volunteers.ResultsKetotifen but not placebo increased the threshold for discomfort in patients with IBS with visceral hypersensitivity. This effect was not observed in normosensitive patients with IBS. Ketotifen significantly decreased abdominal pain and other IBS symptoms and improved quality of life. The number of mast cells in rectal biopsies and spontaneous release of tryptase were lower in patients with IBS than in healthy volunteers. Spontaneous release of histamine was mostly undetectable but was slightly increased in patients with IBS compared with healthy volunteers. Histamine and tryptase release were not altered by ketotifen.ConclusionsThis study shows that ketotifen increases the threshold for discomfort in patients with IBS with visceral hypersensitivity, reduces IBS symptoms and improves health-related quality of life. Whether this effect is secondary to the mast cell stabilising properties of ketotifen or H1 receptor antagonism remains to be further investigated.Trial Registration NumberNTR39, ISRCTN22504486.

There is evidence that H2R blockade improves ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury, but the underlying cellular mechanisms remain unclear. Histamine is known to increase vascular permeability and induce apoptosis, and these effects are closely associated with endothelial and mitochondrial dysfunction, respectively. Here, we investigated whether activation of the histamine H2 receptor (H2R) exacerbates myocardial I/R injury by increasing mitochondrial and endothelial permeability. Serum histamine levels were measured in patients with coronary heart disease, while the influence of H2R activation was assessed on mitochondrial and endothelial function in cultured cardiomyocytes or vascular endothelial cells, and myocardial I/R injury in mice. The serum histamine level was more than twofold higher in patients with acute myocardial infarction than in patients with angina or healthy controls. In neonatal rat cardiomyocytes, histamine dose-dependently reduced viability and induced apoptosis. Mitochondrial permeability and the levels of p-ERK1/2, Bax, p-DAPK2, and caspase 3 were increased by H2R agonists. In cultured human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), H2R activation increased p-ERK1/2 and p-moesin levels and also enhanced permeability of HUVEC monolayer. All of these effects were abolished by the H2R blocker famotidine or the ERK inhibitor U0126. After I/R injury or permanent ischemia, the infarct size was reduced by famotidine and increased by an H2R agonist in wild-type mice. In H2R KO mice, the infarct size was smaller; myocardial p-ERK1/2, p-DAPK2, and mitochondrial Bax were downregulated. These findings indicate that H2R activation exaggerates myocardial I/R injury by promoting myocardial mitochondrial dysfunction and by increasing cardiac vascular endothelial permeability.

Cancer therapy is often hampered by the disease’s development of resistance to anticancer drugs. We previously showed that the autonomously upregulated product of fibroblast growth factor 13 gene ( FGF13 ; also known as FGF homologous factor 2 ( FHF2 )) is responsible for the cisplatin resistance of HeLa cisR cells and that it is likely responsible for the poor prognosis of cervical cancer patients treated with cisplatin. Here we show that cloperastine and two other histamine H1 receptor antagonists selectively kill HeLa cisR cells at concentrations that little affect parental HeLa S cells. The sensitivity of HeLa cisR cells to cloperastine was abolished by knocking down FGF13 expression. Cisplatin-resistant A549 cisR cells were similarly susceptible to cloperastine. H2, H3, and H4 receptor antagonists showed less or no cytotoxicity toward HeLa cisR or A549 cisR cells. These results indicate that histamine H1 receptor antagonists selectively kill cisplatin-resistant human cancer cells and suggest that this effect is exerted through a molecular mechanism involving autocrine histamine activity and high-level expression of FGF13 . We think this represents a potential opportunity to utilize H1 receptor antagonists in combination with anticancer agents to treat cancers in which emergent drug-resistance is preventing effective treatment.

The biogenic amine histamine is an important pharmacological mediator involved in pathophysiological processes such as allergies and inflammations. Histamine H 1 receptor (H 1 R) antagonists are very effective drugs alleviating the symptoms of allergic reactions. Here we show the crystal structure of the H 1 R complex with doxepin, a first-generation H 1 R antagonist. Doxepin sits deep in the ligand-binding pocket and directly interacts with Trp 428 6.48 , a highly conserved key residue in G-protein-coupled-receptor activation. This well-conserved pocket with mostly hydrophobic nature contributes to the low selectivity of the first-generation compounds. The pocket is associated with an anion-binding region occupied by a phosphate ion. Docking of various second-generation H 1 R antagonists reveals that the unique carboxyl group present in this class of compounds interacts with Lys 191 5.39 and/or Lys 179 ECL2 , both of which form part of the anion-binding region. This region is not conserved in other aminergic receptors, demonstrating how minor differences in receptors lead to pronounced selectivity differences with small molecules. Our study sheds light on the molecular basis of H 1 R antagonist specificity against H 1 R. An antihistamine/receptor complex The common antihistamines are antagonists of histamine H1 receptor (H1R), a G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) that is expressed in various tissues including airway, intestinal smooth muscle and brain. The X-ray crystal structure of human H1R in the presence of doxepin, a first-generation H1R antagonist, is now reported. It shows that the drug resides in a much deeper pocket than in other aminergic GPCR structures. Analysis of drug–protein interactions should facilitate the development of antihistamines that are more selective and less likely to cause side effects than those currently available.

Narcolepsy is characterised by excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) and cataplexy. Histamine neurons are crucial to maintain wakefulness. We assessed the safety and efficacy of pitolisant (previously called BF2.649), a selective histamine H3 receptor inverse agonist that activates these neurons, in patients with narcolepsy. For this double-blind, randomised, parallel-group controlled trial, we recruited patients with narcolepsy from 32 sleep disorder centres in five European countries. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had not taken psychostimulants for at least 14 days, and had EDS (defined as an Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS] score of at least 14). Using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, we randomly allocated patients to receive pitolisant, modafinil, or placebo (1:1:1). Treatment lasted 8 weeks: 3 weeks of flexible dosing according to investigator's judgment (10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg a day of pitolisant; 100 mg, 200 mg or 400 mg a day of modafinil) followed by 5 weeks of stable dosing. Patients took four tablets a day in a double-dummy design to ensure masking. For the primary analysis, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, we assessed the superiority of pitolisant versus placebo, and the non-inferiority of pitolisant versus modafinil. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01067222. Between May 26, 2009, and June 30, 2010, we screened 110 patients, 95 of whom were eligible and randomly assigned to treatment: 30 to placebo, 32 to pitolisant, and 33 to modafinil. Over the 8-week treatment period, mean ESS score reductions were −3·4 (SD 4·2) in the placebo group, −5·8 (6·2) in the pitolisant group, and −6·9 (6·2) in the modafinil group. Our primary analysis of between-group differences in mean ESS score at endpoint (adjusted for baseline) showed pitolisant to be superior to placebo (difference −3·0, 95% CI −5·6 to −0·4; p=0·024), but not non-inferior to modafinil (difference 0·12, 95% CI −2·5 to 2·7; p=0·250). We recorded 22 adverse events with pitolisant, 26 with modafinil, and ten with placebo. Six severe adverse events were treatment-related: one with pitolisant (abdominal discomfort) and five with modafinil (abdominal pain, abnormal behaviour, amphetamine-like withdrawal symptoms, lymphoadenopathy, and inner ear disorders). Pitolisant at doses up to 40 mg was efficacious on EDS compared with placebo and well tolerated compared with modafinil. If these findings are substantiated in further studies, pitolisant could offer a new treatment option for patients with narcolepsy. Bioprojet, France.

Histamine dihydrochloride (HDC) injection has been approved in Europe for the treatment of adults with acute myeloid leukemia, used in combination therapy with the T-cell−derived cytokine interleukin-2. Despite years of clinical applications of HDC in Europe, no data are available on its tolerability and pharmacokinetic properties in Chinese patients. The objective of this study was to determine the safety profile and pharmacokinetic properties of HDC in Chinese healthy volunteers (HVs). In this Phase I, single-center, open-label, randomized study, 20 Chinese HVs were randomized to receive a single dose of 0.5 or 1.0 mg HDC via a 10-minute subcutaneous injection. Whole-blood and urine samples were collected at designated time points after dosing. Plasma and urine concentrations of histamine and metabolite N-methyl histamine were measured using a validated HPLC-MS/MS method. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated through noncompartmental procedures based on concentration-time data. Adverse events and evaluation of clinical laboratory tests were used to assess the safety profile. The pharmacokinetic profile for a single-dose of 1.0 mg HDC in Chinese HVs was compared with that in Western HVs. No severe adverse events occurred in this study, and the severity of all adverse events was grade I according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. For the pharmacokinetic parameters of histamine at the 0.5-mg and 1.0-mg dose levels, t½ was 0.50 and 1.02 hours; Tmax was 0.15 and 0.14 hours; mean Cmax was 26.59 and 71.01 nmol/L; AUC0−t was 8.35 and 20.43 nmol/h/L; AUC0−∞ was 9.61 and 22.69 nmol/h/L; accumulated amount excreted in urine within 24 hours was 125.93 and 145.52 nmol; and maximum urine excretion rates were 21.85 and 38.94 nmol/h, respectively. For N-methyl histamine at the 0.5-mg and 1.0-mg dose levels, t½ was 0.58 and 0.66 hours; Tmax was 0.28 and 0.26 hours; mean Cmax was 17.01 and 23.54 nmol/L; AUC0−t was 7.72 and 17.08 nmol/h/L; AUC0−∞ was 9.01 and 19.62 nmol/h/L; accumulated amount excreted in urine within 24 hours was 331.7 and 583.21 nmol; and maximum urine excretion rates were 53.29 and 133.53 nmol/h, respectively. Both single-dose 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg HDC were well tolerated in Chinese HVs, and the pharmacokinetic profile of HDC in Chinese HVs was characterized in this study. A single dose of 1.0 mg HDC had a more rapid but similar extent of absorption, a wider distribution, and a little more rapid elimination in Chinese HVs compared with Western HVs. Findings from this study support additional clinical trials for HDC using in Chinese patients. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry identifier: ChiCTR-ONC-13003954.