Advertisement

Archives of Dermatological Research

, Volume 306, Issue 5, pp 505–509 | Cite as

Topical non-peptide antagonists of sensory neurotransmitters substance P and CGRP do not modify patch test and prick test reactions: a vehicle-controlled, double-blind pilot study

  • Joanna Wallengren
  • Lars Edvinsson
Concise Communication

Abstract

Immunologic responses in the skin can be modulated by such neurotransmitters of sensory nerve fibers as substance P (SP) and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). The first-generation receptor antagonists were peptides with large molecules and had to be injected intracutaneously. The aim of this study was to examine the topical effects of non-peptide antagonists to substance P (aprepitant) and CGRP (telcagepant), respectively, on delayed and immediate reactions in the skin and on associated pruritus. A lipophilic formulation of aprepitant 5 % and a hydrophilic formulation of telcagepant 1 % were developed. Their effect on the skin barrier was measured in terms of transepidermal water loss (TEWL) while permeation was calculated using permeation coefficients. Patch tests in patients allergic to nickel and prick test reactions to histamine were used as models. None of the treatments increased TEWL, suggesting there to be no impairment of the skin barrier. Permeation coefficients indicated moderate permeation. Histamine prick tests induced a flare with a mean area of 662 275 mm2 and a weal with a mean volume of 49 11 mm3. These reactions as well as histamine-induced pruritus were not affected significantly by any of the treatments. Treatment with aprepitant and its vehicle alone resulted in a potentiating of the infiltration of nickel reactions compared with test reactions obtained after no treatment (1147 423 mm3 and 1427 566 mm3 vs 683 +202 mm3) (p = 0.03). Telcagepant induced vasoconstriction in the skin but did not change the infiltration of nickel reactions. None of the treatments influenced the nickel patch test induced pruritus. The data suggest that the topical application of non-peptide antagonists penetrates the skin but does not inhibit contact dermatitis or pruritus.

Keywords

Neuropeptides Substance P Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Aprepitant Telcagepant Contact dermatitis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Assoc Prof Ola Bergendorff for performing calculation of the skin permeation coefficient. The study was supported by The Welander and Finsen Foundation and the Skane County Foundation.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Barber ED, Hill T, Schum DB (1995) The percutaneous absorption of hydroquinone (HQ) through rat and human skin in vitro. Toxicol Lett 80:167–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Booken N, Heck M, Nicolay JP, Klemke CD, Goerdt S, Utikal J (2011) Oral aprepitant in the therapy of refractory pruritus in erythrodermic cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Br J Dermatol 164:665–667PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duval A, Dubertret L (2009) Aprepitant as an antipruritic agent? N Engl J Med 361:1415–1416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edvinsson L, Linde (2010) M.New drugs in migraine treatment and prophylaxis: telcagepant and topiramate. Lancet 376:645–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Medicines Agency. Pharmaceutical quality system (ICH Q10) (2011) Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/skin/skinPermCalc.html
  6. 6.
    Frasch HF (2002) A random walk model of skin permeation. Risk Anal 22:265–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fregert S (1974) Patch testing. In: Fregert S (ed) Manual of contact dermatitis. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, p 53Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lodén M (1995) Biophysical properties of dry atopic and normal skin with special reference to effects of skin care products. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl 192:1–48Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Potts RO, Guy RH (1992) Predicting skin permeability. Pharm Res 9:663–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reich A, Heisig M, Phan NQ, Taneda K, Takamori K, Takeuchi S, Furue M, Blome C, Augustin M, Ständer S, Szepietowski J (2012) Visual Analogue Scale: Evaluation of the Instrument for the Assessment of Pruritus. Acta Derm Venereol 92(5):497–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shah PP, Desai PR, Patel AR, Singh MS (2012) Skin permeating nanogel for the cutaneous co-delivery of two anti-inflammatory drugs. Biomaterials 33:1607–1617PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shono Y, Jantratid E, Kesisoglou F, Reppas C, Dressman JB (2010) Forecasting in vivo oral absorption and food effect of micronized and nanosized aprepitant formulations in humans. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 76(1):95–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ständer S, Siepmann D, Herrgott I, Sunderkötter C, Luger TA (2010) Targeting the neurokinin receptor 1 with aprepitant: a novel antipruritic strategy. PLoS ONE 5(6):e10968. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010968 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wallengren J (1991) Substance P antagonist inhibits immediate and delayed type cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions. Br J Dermatol 124:324–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wallengren J (1999) Neuropeptides: Their significance in the skin. Drug News & Perspectives 12:401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wallengren J (2000) Dual effects of CGRP-antagonist on allergic contact dermatitis in human skin. Contact Dermatitis 43:137–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wallengren J (2012) Topical aprepitant does not attenuate clinical or experimental pruritus. Arch Dermatol 148(8):957–959PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wallengren J (2005) Neuroanatomy and neurophysiology of itch. Dermatol Ther 18(4):292–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilschut A, ten Berge WF, Robinson PJ, McKone TE (1995) Estimating skin permeation. The validation of five mathematical skin permeation models. Chemosphere 30(7):1275–1296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yosipovitch G, Duque MI, Patel TS, Ishiuji Y, Guzman-Sanchez DA, Dawn AG, Freedman BI, Chan YH, Crumrine D, Elias PM (2007) Skin barrier structure and function and their relationship to pruritus in end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22:3268–3279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Sciences, Section of DermatologyLund University, Skane University HospitalLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Sciences, Internal MedicineLund University, Skane University HospitalLundSweden

Personalised recommendations