Background: Unwanted side effects such as dryness, hypersensitivity, and cutaneous photosensitivity are challenge for adherence and therapeutical success for patients using treatments for inflammatory and allergic skin response.
Aims: In this study, we compared the effects of two dermatological formulations, which are used in inflammatory and/or allergic skin conditions: dexchlorpheniramine maleate (DCP; 10 mg/g) and promethazine (PTZ; 20 mg/g).
Methods: We evaluated both formulations for phototoxicity potential, skin irritation, anti-inflammatory and antihistaminic abilities, and skin barrier repair in vitro and ex vivo using the standard OECD test guideline n° 432, the ECVAM protocol n° 78, and cultured skin explants from a healthy patient. Ultraviolet A was chosen as exogenous agent to induce allergic and inflammatory response.
Results: Both PTZ and DCP promoted increases in interleukin-1 (IL-1) synthesis in response to ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation compared to control. However, the increase observed with PTZ was significantly greater than the DCP, indicating that the latter has a lower irritant potential. DCP also demonstrated a protective effect on UVA-induced leukotriene B4 and nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) synthesis. Conversely, PTZ demonstrates more robust UVA antihistaminic activity. Likewise, PTZ promoted a significantly greater increase in the production of involucrin and keratin 14, both associated with protective skin barrier property.
Conclusion: In conclusion, these data suggest possible diverging UVA response mechanisms of DCP and PTZ, which gives greater insight into the contrasting photosensitizing potential between DCP and PTZ observed in the patients.
Keywords: anti-inflammatory; antihistamines; dexchlorpheniramine; phototoxicity; promethazine; skin barrier.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.