Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0042109 (urticaria)
 6,569 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

To investigate the mechanisms of non-immunologic contact urticaria (NICU), the effect of 120 mg of terfenadine (H1-antagonist) on contact reactions to methyl nicotinate, diethyl fumarate, benzoic acid, cinnamic acid, cinnamic aldehyde and dimethyl sulfoxide was studied in 20 subjects. Erythema and edema were observed visually, and the changes in the skin blood flow were monitored with laser-Doppler flowmetry. Terfenadine did not have any significant inhibitory effect on erythema or edema from 6 contact urticariants tested, but it inhibited erythema and edema of prick test reactions to histamine. Non-specific histamine release from mast cells does not seem to be the mechanism of NICU from these substances.
 ...
PMID:Terfenadine does not inhibit non-immunologic contact urticaria. 288 50

In the present study we examined the effects of chlorpheniramine and ranitidine, indomethacin, BW755C (an inhibitor of cyclo-oxygenase and lipo-oxygenase enzymes of arachidonic acid metabolism), dexamethasone, and capsaicin on nonimmunologic contact urticaria (NICU) induced in the guinea pig ear by benzoic, acid cinnamic acid, cinnamic aldehyde, methyl nicotinate, diethyl fumarate, or dimethyl sulfoxide. The intensity of edema in the urticarial reaction was quantified by measuring the ear thickness. Antihistamines inhibited reactions to intradermal histamine but not to agents causing NICU. Indomethacin and dexamethasone inhibited reactions to cinnamic acid and cinnamic aldehyde but not to other NICU agents. BW755C and capsaicin had no effect on reactions to any of the NICU agents. Mast cell degranulation during the reaction was not seen in histologic sections. Histamine and capsaicin-sensitive nerves did not seem to be essential for the development of NICU in the guinea pig ear. The details of the inhibitory effects of indomethacin and dexamethasone are not clear, but it seems probable that more than one mechanism is involved in NICU due to different agents.
 ...
PMID:Pharmacological studies on nonimmunologic contact urticaria in guinea pigs. 310 19

To investigate the mechanisms of non-immunologic contact urticaria (NICU), the effects of 1g + 1g of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) on contact reactions to methyl nicotinate, diethyl fumarate, benzoic acid, cinnamic acid, cinnamic aldehyde and dimethyl sulfoxide were studied in 21 test subjects. Erythema and edema reactions were observed visually, and the changes in the skin blood flow were monitored using laser-Doppler flowmetry. ASA had a significant inhibitory effect on erythema from all 6 agents and also on edema from all substances except dimethyl sulfoxide. The mechanism of the effect may be a result of the inhibitory influence of ASA on prostaglandin bioformation. Thus, to avoid false negative test results, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should not be used during NICU tests.
 ...
PMID:Acetylsalicylic acid inhibits non-immunologic contact urticaria. 355 89

In order to find the most suitable animal species for studies on nonimmunologic contact urticaria (NICU), human NICU agents: 20% benzoic acid (BA), 10% sorbic acid (SA), 15% cinnamic acid (CA), 20% cinnamic aldehyde (CAL), 1.0% diethyl fumarate (DEF), 0.2% methyl nicotinate (MN), all in absolute ethyl alcohol, and 100% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) were each applied to the earlobes of guinea pigs, rats, and mice. Guinea pig ear reacted with swelling to all agents tested. The mean maximal increase in thickness of the guinea pig ear, measured with a micrometer, was 114 +/- 46%. No response to BA, SA, CA, DEF, or MN was noted in the rat or mouse ear. However, DMSO and CAL caused significant ear swelling both in the mouse and the rat. Thus, the guinea pig ear is more sensitive to a variety of human NICU agents than is rat or mouse ear. The striking differences in species reactivity to NICU agents suggest the possibility that there are several mechanisms (mediators) involved in reactions to different substances. The guinea pig ear swelling test remains the best quantitative animal method available for screening human NICU agents.
 ...
PMID:Species specificity of nonimmunologic contact urticaria: guinea pig, rat, and mouse. 404 Sep 28

The decrease in the swelling capacity and the length of the refractory period after nonimmunologic contact urticaria produced by one application of six human nonimmunologic contact urticaria agents was studied with the use of the guinea pig ear test. On retesting 1 day later, all substances (benzoic acid, cinnamic acid, cinnamic aldehyde, diethyl fumarate, methyl nicotinate, and dimethyl sulfoxide) showed reactions decreased by at least 50%. This decrease was most marked with cinnamic aldehyde (91% decrease), cinnamic acid (88%), and benzoic acid (86%). The tachyphylaxis was not specific to the substance producing it; reactivity to other contact urticaria agents decreased as well. The refractory period was 4 days after methyl nicotinate, 8 days after diethyl fumarate and cinnamic aldehyde, and 16 days after the other agents. These results suggest the following practical application: there is a need for (1) appropriate scheduling in the reuse of animals for testing for nonimmunologic contact urticaria and (2) an awareness of possible false-negative results in human tests for this form of urticaria because of tachyphylaxis.
 ...
PMID:Long refractory period after one application of nonimmunologic contact urticaria agents to the guinea pig ear. 407 49

The suitability of the guinea pig for studies on nonimmunologic contact urticaria (NICU) was investigated. Groups of five, female Hartley guinea pigs were challenged by applying 50 microliters of various concentrations of human NICU agents, benzoic acid (BA), sorbic acid (SA), cinnamic acid (CA), cinnamaldehyde (CAL), methyl nicotinate (MN) and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), in absolute ethyl alcohol to both sides of the earlobe. The thickness of the ear (0.85 +/- 0.11 mm, means +/- SD, 100 animals) was measured with a string micrometer before application and at 5- to 30-min intervals thereafter. Maximal increase in ear thickness was produced within 30 to 40 min by 20% BA (0.70 +/- 0.09 mm), 10% SA (0.30 +/- 0.05 mm), 15% CA (0.58 +/- 0.12 mm), 5.0% CAL (0.37 +/- 0.09 mm), 0.2% MN (0.80 +/- 0.03 mm), and 100% DMSO (0.74 +/- 0.11 mm). All responses were dose dependent. The histology of the maximal reactions showed dermal edema, and intra- and perivascular infiltrate of heterophils (neutrophils in man), eosinophils, and some lymphocytes. DMSO also caused vacuolization of the epidermal cells. CAL, MN, and DMSO, applied to different parts of the guinea pig body, produced only erythema most frequently on the upper back, but BA, SA, and CA did not cause any reactions. The guinea pig ear-swelling test provides a quantitative animal model to screen human NICU agents.
 ...
PMID:An animal model for nonimmunologic contact urticaria. 649 29

Adverse skin reactions cover many types of response: toxic, irritant, allergic, urticarial, sensory, etc. The relationships between an individual's tendency to develop different types of skin response are not well-described. We examined whether those who perceive stinging might be more likely to experience urticarial, sensory and irritation reactions in skin. A panel of 86 volunteers was tested with 10% lactic acid in the nasolabial fold to assess their ability to perceive stinging. At the same time, their capacity to develop non-immunologic contact urticaria was evaluated using chemicals of different structural type and urticant ability: methyl nicotinate, benzoic acid, cinnamic acid, cinnamaldehyde and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). DMSO was also used to assess sensory effects and skin irritation. 44 were classes as "stingers" and 42 as "non-stingers". The pattern of urticant reactivity in the stingers and non-stingers was essentially the same, with neat DMSO generating the strongest reactions in both groups. Sensory reactions to DMSO (stinging, itching, tingling or burning) were similar in stingers and non-stingers; although the former may have reacted more quickly, a smaller proportion reacted (64% versus 76%). The skin irritation response to DMSO was also identical in stingers and non-stingers and the intensity of the urticant response in an individual did not correlate with the intensity of their subsequent irritant reaction. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that an individual's ability to perceive skin stinging does not give a general indication of their susceptibility to other types of non-immunologic skin response. Indeed, there appeared to be little evidence of correlations between any of the skin effects studied.
 ...
PMID:Susceptibility to skin stinging, non-immunologic contact urticaria and acute skin irritation; is there a relationship? 950 21