4.6 Review

Pharmacogenomics for the efficacy and side effects of antihistamines

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY
卷 31, 期 7, 页码 993-1004

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/exd.14602

关键词

adverse reactions; antihistamines; individualized medicine; pharmacogenomics; urticaria

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [82173424, 81974476]
  2. Program of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities (111 Project) [B20017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antihistamines, especially H1 antihistamines, are widely used in the treatment of allergic diseases. However, there are individual differences in their efficacy and adverse reactions can occur. The concept of individualized medicine and the study of pharmacogenomics provide new ideas for research and clinical guidance in antihistamines.
Antihistamines, especially H1 antihistamines, are widely used in the treatment of allergic diseases such as urticaria and allergic rhinitis, mainly for reversing elevated histamine and anti-allergic effects. Antihistamines are generally safe, but some patients experience adverse reactions, such as cardiotoxicity, central inhibition and anticholinergic effects. There are also individual differences in antihistamine efficacy in clinical practice. The concept of individualized medicine has been deeply rooted in people's minds since it was put forward. Pharmacogenomics is the study of the role of inheritance in individual variations in drug response. In recent decades, pharmacogenomics has been developing rapidly, which provides new ideas for individualized medicine. Polymorphisms in the genes encoding metabolic enzymes, transporters and target receptors have been shown to affect the efficacy of antihistamines. In addition, recent evidence suggests that gene polymorphisms influence urticaria susceptibility and antihistamine therapy. Here, we summarize current reports in this area, aiming to contribute to future research in antihistamines and clinical guidance for antihistamines use in individualized medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据