ADVERTISEMENT

If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

Clinical and Experimental Dermatology

Clinical and Experimental Dermatology

Volume 7 Issue 5, Pages 529 - 536

Published Online: 27 Apr 2006

Journal compilation © 2010 British Association of Dermatologists



< Previous Abstract  |  Next Abstract >

Save Article to My Profile      Download Citation      Request Permissions

Abstract |  References  |  Full Text: PDF (Size: 402K)  | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

Evaluation of six antihistamines in vitro and in patients with urticaria
A. COUTTS 1 M.W. GREAVES 1
  1 Wellcome Laboratories for Skin Pharmacology, Institute of Dermatology, Homerton Grove, London E9 6BX
Correspondence to  Professor M. W. Greaves.
Copyright 1982 Blackwell Science Ltd

ABSTRACT

AbstractReferences

Six commonly prescribed antihistamines have been ranked according to their relative potencies in blocking H1 and muscarinic receptors by an in vitro method on the myenteric plexus-longitudinal muscle preparation of the guinea pig ileum. Calculation of the ratios of Ke against acetyl choline to Kc against histamine suggested that mepyramine was the drug which discriminated most clearly between histamine H1 and acetyl choline receptors.

In contrast, using a self-assessment method in patients with chronic urticaria, cyproheptadine was the highest ranked antihistamine in terms of both effectiveness and relative freedom from side-effects. It is concluded that in vitro evaluation of antihistaminic and antimuscarinic potencies may produce misleading results in terms of clinical usefulness of a given antihistamine.


Accepted for publication 23 July 1981

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1365-2230.1982.tb02471.x About DOI

Related Articles

  • Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience
  • Find articles in Wiley InterScience written by any of the authors

Wiley InterScience is a member of CrossRef.

Cross Ref Member


Sign Up Now
Sign Up Now
Sign Up Now
Wiley Medical Twitter