Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0033774 (pruritus)
 14,546 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Dimethyl cyanocarbonimidodithioate (CAS No. 10191-60-3) a raw material for cimetidine synthesis, is labelled as an irritant on its storage tank. There is no information available regarding the toxic effects of human exposure. We report a case of severe dermatitis clinically resembling erythema multiforme following an accidental exposure to dimethyl cyanocarbonimidodithioate in an occupational setting. A clerk sifted a handful of dimethyl cyanocarbonimidodithioate from an unlabelled bucket through his bare hands during an inspection prior to customs clearance. Five hours later, while he was washing his hands, pruritus, erythema and vesicles developed over the exposed area. The skin condition worsened within two weeks, extending to his whole body with generalized erythema and vesicles of various sizes. Some vesicles became confluent with ruptured bullae, resembling a second degree burn over 40% of the body. Elevation of the serum IgE (705 mu/mL, normal less than 300 mu/mL) and lymphocyte activation with an increased 3H-thymidine uptake by the patient's mononuclear cells suggested that this episode resulted from a cell-mediated allergic skin reaction. The skin lesions improved progressively after systemic steroid therapy for about two weeks. Dimethyl cyanocarbonimidodithioate is used as a raw material for cimetidine synthesis by some pharmaceutical manufacturers. Our experience suggests that a severe reaction similar to that caused by another H2-blocker, ranitidine and its intermediate may be caused by dimethyl cyanocarbonimidodithioate in occupational exposures. Systemic steroid administration is beneficial in treatment.
 ...
PMID:Dermatitis caused by dimethyl cyanocarbonimidodithioate. 135 16

The efficacy and safety of a new non-sedating antihistamine, loratadine (Clarityn, CAS 79794-75-5) 10 mg q.d., was compared to the classical antihistamine, hydroxyzine 25 mg t.i.d. and placebo in a 4-week (optional 12 week) randomized, double-blind, multi-center study in 203 patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Efficacy evaluations included weekly physician and patient assessments of pruritus, overall disease condition, and therapeutic response to treatment. Loratadine and hydroxyzine were significantly more effective than placebo and clinically comparable to each other as measured by all efficacy evaluations at each visit. Loratadine was safe and well tolerated with sedation and dry mouth similar to placebo and significantly less than hydroxyzine.
 ...
PMID:Relative efficacy and safety of loratadine, hydroxyzine, and placebo in chronic idiopathic urticaria. 144 78

Dimetindene maleate (DMM, Fenistil, CAS 3614-69-5) a specific H1-receptor antagonist, is therapeutically used for the treatment of respiratory allergies, urticaria, itching dermatoses and generally pruritic sensations occurring with various diseases. As it exhibits local anaesthetic activity in the rabbit cornea and the local anaesthetic activity of a couple of H1-antagonists was found to be linearly correlated to the H1-potency represented by the pA2-values--and dimethindene maleate demonstrates a high pA2-value--it seemed worth investigating the local anaesthetic potency in man making use of an objective and well validated pain model, the Laser algesimetry. The study was carried out with 24 healthy volunteers in a double-blind placebo- and reference-controlled, randomized, cross-over design. Three different medications were applied with occlusive dressing: DMM, lidocaine, and placebo. Selective thermo-noxious stimulation of A-delta- and C-fibers was induced by a CO2-laser. Somato-sensory evoked vertex potentials (SEPs) were simultaneously recorded. Both verum treatments showed a remarkable analgesic potency compared to placebo. Effects were preferably concentrated on the peripheral N1-component of the SEPs. The overall means of the N1-amplitudes were suppressed compared to placebo by both active drugs, with the effects being more pronounced for DMM.
 ...
PMID:Evaluation of the local anaesthetic activity of dimetindene maleate by means of laser algesimetry in healthy volunteers. 149 45

Nicotinic acid (CAS 59-67-6) is the only hypolipidemic agent whose activity has been shown both on atherosclerotic lesions and on long term mortality. Unfortunately, its use is hindered by the frequent occurrence ( > 70%) of adverse reactions (i.e. cutaneous rash, pruritus and, most significantly, flush). New prodrugs of nicotinic acid have been prepared by the use of diacylglycerol esters. In the rat, after acute oral administration of these products, a significant decrease of the free fatty acid plasma levels was obtained without the dramatic increase in nicotinic acid plasma levels observed after the oral administration of an equimolecular dose of nicotinic acid. The most interesting ester, S 16961 ((d,l)-1,2-dipalmitoyl-3-nicotinoyl glycerol, CAS 160555-46-4) is undergoing clinical trials.
 ...
PMID:Synthesis of 1,2-diacyl-3-nicotinoyl glycerol derivatives and evaluation of their acute effects on plasma lipids in the rat. 748 22

The long-term efficacy and tolerability of azelastine (CAS 58581-89-8) nasal spray (0.14 mg/nostril b.i.d.) was investigated in patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinitis. 185 patients entered an initial 6 months' study; 35 of them continued in a follow-up for a further 30 to 60 weeks' treatment. Azelastine both attenuated the severity and reduced the incidence of rhinitis symptoms, with the highest rate of improvement during the first month with some additional improvement during the following months. The most marked effects were on those symptoms which were initially most severe: nasal obstruction, mucosal swelling, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching. Signs of rhinitis identified by rhinoscopic examination improved in parallel to symptoms. 84.1% of patients reported 'good' or 'very good' efficacy as did 94.3% during the follow-up. Approximately 96% of patients rated the tolerability of treatment as 'very good' or 'good'. The incidence of adverse events of possibly causal relationship to azelastine treatment was low during the first 6 months. The most frequent events were the experience of application site reactions (e.g. burning) and bitter or unpleasant taste, specific to azelastine. No unwanted effects were reported by patients continuing treatment. In addition, results of nasal biopsies indicate that with the dose used azelastine nasal spray is a safe drug for long-term treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.
 ...
PMID:Investigation of long-term efficacy and tolerability of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. 810 60

The efficacy and safety of a new antiallergic drug, intranasal azelastine (CAS 58581-89-8), in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis was investigated in a 16 patient double-blind comparison with placebo and another 36 patient open comparison with budesonide (CAS 51333-22-3). Efficacy was assessed in terms of 13 signs and symptoms of allergic rhinitis and tolerability on the basis of spontaneously reported adverse events. In the first study, compared to placebo a one week's treatment with azelastine resulted in substantial relief of sneezing (p = 0.009), nasal itching (p = 0.009), swelling of the nasal mucosa (p = 0.067) and rhinorrhoea (p = 0.262) in patients having the above symptoms at baseline of at least moderate to severe intensity. According to the judgement of the supervising physician, 7/8 azelastine-treated patients but none receiving placebo responded well to therapy (p = 0.001). In the second study a two weeks' treatment with intranasal azelastine was found not to differ significantly from budesonide 67% of patients showed improvement in principal signs of rhinitis after one week's therapy irrespective of treatment. Nasal symptoms, including nasal obstruction, were most markedly improved by both treatments. Azelastine, but not budesonide, also relieved ocular symptoms associated with rhinitis. Adverse events did not occur more frequently under azelastine than under placebo treatment and were often of uncertain relationship to treatment.
 ...
PMID:Efficacy and tolerability of azelastine nasal spray in patients with allergic rhinitis compared to placebo and budesonide. 810 85

The safety and efficacy of loratadine (Sch 29851, CAS 79794-75-5) syrup (5 or 10 mg QD) was compared to terfenadine (CAS 50679-08-8) suspension (30 mg b.i.d.) in a randomized, third party blind, parallel-group, multicenter trial. Two hundred thirty-six children ages 6-12 years, with chronic allergic skin disorders were treated for 14 days. The predominant skin condition was atrophic dermatitis (88% of the efficacy population). Evaluation of efficacy was based on investigator and patient assessment of symptoms, overall condition of the disease, and therapeutic response to treatment. After 7 and 14 days of treatment, and in the endpoint analysis (last valid study visit for all patients) the decreases from baseline in mean total sign/symptom scores, and all individual symptoms, did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) between treatments. Itching improved 54% in the loratadine group and 58% in the terfenadine group in the endpoint analysis. Forty-five percent of patients treated with loratadine and 46% of terfenadine-treated patients treated had complete or marked relief of their symptoms at endpoint. The efficacy of loratadine increased during the study, suggesting that patients did not develop tolerance to the medication over the 14-day course of therapy. Mild to moderate treatment-related adverse experiences were reported in 7/113 patients (6%) treated with loratadine and 11/119 patients (9%) treated with terfenadine. Single daily doses of 5 mg or 10 mg loratadine syrup were comparable to terfenadine suspension 30 mg twice daily for improving the symptoms of chronic allergic skin disorders in children. Loratadine was safe and well tolerated.
 ...
PMID:Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of loratadine syrup and terfenadine suspension in the treatment of chronic allergic skin diseases in a pediatric population. 829 64

The efficacy and safety of nimesulide (Aulin, CAS 51803-78-2) in a new pharmaceutical suppository form (200 mg) were assessed in a double-blind study versus paracetamol suppositories (500 mg). The study was conducted in a sample of aged in-patients suffering from viral or bacterial infections of upper and lower respiratory tract with fever. Thirty-nine patients were randomly assigned to treatment with nimesulide or paracetamol (18 nimesulide, 21 paracetamol). Both drugs, administered t.i.d. for 2 consecutive days followed by observation without therapy on the 3rd day, showed an adequate control of hyperpyrexia with significant reduction of body temperature from baseline. Tolerability was good for both drugs. Only one patient of the nimesulide group could not complete the study because of an adverse reaction consisting in cutaneous erythema with itching that regressed spontaneously. It is concluded that nimesulide is as active and safe as paracetamol in treating hyperpyrexia of the aged.
 ...
PMID:Nimesulide in the treatment of hyperpyrexia in the aged. Double-blind comparison with paracetamol. 845 39

The efficacy and safety of a nasal spray containing azelastine (CAS 58581-89-8; e.g. Afluon, Allergadil, Rhinolast) in the treatment of both perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis have been evaluated in two postmarketing drug surveillance programmes (PMS) conducted in Spain. The present analysis reports on the data from a subpopulation from these studies and includes 211 children aged less than 13 years of age. In 73% of children the administered dose of azelastine was one spray puff per nostril twice daily, corresponding to the recommended daily, dosage of 0.56 mg azelastine. Patients with seasonal rhinitis were treated for a period of two weeks, those perennial rhinitis were treated for four weeks. The efficacy of the azelastine was assessed by the changes in severity of the following 10 individual symptoms of rhinitis: sneezing, nose itching, nose congestion, rhinorrhoea, smell reduction, eye itching, lachrimation, photophobia, throat itching, and coughing. Symptoms were rated according to a four-point scale: 0 = absent, 1 = slight, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe. Both the investigators and the patients were requested to evaluate efficacy and tolerance according to a four point scale: 1 = very good, 2 = good, 3 = moderate, 4 = bad. All of the 10 clinical symptoms underwent a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction during the treatment period. Nose itching, sneezing, and rhinorrhoea were the symptoms which completely disappeared in the highest number of patients by the end of therapy. The mean sum of all 10 symptom scores pre-treatment (baseline visit) was 11.03 while at the completion of therapy (control visit) it was 3.21. Overall, a decrease of this score was seen in 112 (98%) patients for whom complete data was available, whereas an increase was registered only in 2 (2%) cases. The mean total of the five nasal scores at the baseline visit was 7.64, and at the control visit its value measured 2.31. One hundred and twenty-one (98%) patients exhibited a decrease in the total nasal score, and only 3 (2%) demonstrated an increase. The mean total of the three ocular symptoms scores at the baseline visit was 2.25, while at the control visit its value was only 0.48. A decrease in the total ocular score was observed in 78 (62%) patients, while an increase occurred in only one patient. Overall, 85% of doctors evaluated the efficacy of the drug as "very good/good". 90% of patients did not report adverse events (AEs) during treatment with azelastine and only four patients discontinued treatment due to AEs. General tolerance was evaluated as "very good or good" by 97% of the treating physicians. Local tolerance was rated as "very good or good" by 94%. The most positive characteristics of the therapy according to the physicians were: rapid onset of action in 56% of cases, good efficacy in 46%, simple application in 44%, no sedation in 34%, and long duration of action in 22% of cases. Based upon the excellent risk-benefit assessment of this PMS, our results confirm the suitability of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in juvenile patients.
 ...
PMID:Evaluation of the drug monitoring programme of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in children under 13 years of age. 927 42

The efficacy and tolerability of dimethindene maleate (CAS 3614-69-5, DMM, Fenistil) as drops in the treatment of pruritus in children suffering from chicken-pox were investigated in a study with two different doses of dimethindene maleate and placebo. 128 children, 1 to 6 years of age, were included in a double blind, randomized, placebo controlled, multi-center clinical trial. Patients received either a dosage of DMM of 0.1 mg/kg x d, or 0.05 mg/kg x d, or placebo, respectively. All patients received a commercially available astringent lotion for topical treatment of skin lesions. The primary efficacy criterion which was the change in the itching severity score from baseline to the end of the treatment assessed as area under the baseline (AUB) showed for both treatments with DMM a statistically significant superiority versus placebo in reducing the severity of itching. There was no statistically proven difference between the two verum groups.
 ...
PMID:Dimethindene maleate in the treatment of pruritus caused by varizella zoster virus infection in children. 942 81


1 2 3 Next >>