MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407782547 · doi:10.1111/all.16507

The Effect of Oral Antihistamines on the Sweating Response During Heat Stress in Adults

2025· letter· en· W4407782547 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Douglas Newhouse, Taryn Klarner, Mario Nucci, Nicholas Ravanelli

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityLakehead UniversityHealth Sciences North
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeat stressMedicineFight-or-flight responseAnesthesiaChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Allergy Organization confirms the prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) has increased worldwide due to climate change—inflicting 1 in 5 people globally [1]. Global warming and elevations in atmospheric carbon dioxide have caused an earlier onset, prolonged duration, increased intensity, and have amplified allergenicity during the pollen season [1]. Public health guidance heeds certain medications during hot weather, informing general practitioners to be aware of the potential side effects and adjust dosage as needed [2]. Of particular concern are drugs with anticholinergic effects, which may blunt the sweating response. These medications, which include antihistamines, continue to be identified as a risk factor for heat-related illness [3]. A recent systematic review concluded that limited evidence (n = 1) exists to confirm or refute whether antihistamines impair thermoregulation during heat stress [4]. The only evidence examined fexofenadine, which, unlike other antihistamines, does not bind to M3 muscarinic receptors [5] – the primary receptor stimulating sweat secretion from eccrine sweat glands. Determining if other over-the-counter antihistamines, an accessible and common treatment for AR, impair sweating is important as pollen season coincides with the hottest period of the year. Using a randomized double-blind crossover design, we investigated whether oral antihistamines across generations and different muscarinic affinity [5] impair thermoregulatory sweating in adults during heat stress. Following approval from Health Canada (AH-PHS-2023) and Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre Research Ethics Board (#100241), and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT06217367), healthy adults aged 18–49 years were recruited from Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, between January and June 2024, with follow-up completed July 2024. The study follows CONSORT reporting guidelines. With ≥ 48 h between trials and the order determined a priori, participants consumed recommended doses of either (i) diphenhydramine (50 mg, first generation, high muscarinic affinity); (ii) loratadine (10 mg, second generation, low muscarinic affinity); (iii) desloratadine (5 mg, third generation, high muscarinic affinity); or (iv) a placebo (sugar) pill before resting for ~2 h at 25°C/50%RH. Following this, participants were instrumented and passively heated by perfusing 50°C water through a tube-lined garment until mean body temperature (Tb) increased 1.5°C above baseline. Tb was estimated in real-time as a weighted average of esophageal (80%) and mean skin temperature (4-site weighted average, 20%) measured using a thermistor probe and t-type thermocouple wires, respectively. Primary outcomes measured at baseline and after every 0.25°C rise in Tb include forearm local sweat rate, heart rate, skin blood flow, and brachial blood pressure, while whole-body sweat rate (in g/h) was calculated as the change in nude body mass divided by heating time. Data S1 provides detailed methods and statistical approach. Of 26 participants recruited, only 10 were eligible (5 females, 23 ± 2 y, 73.6 ± 10.8 kg, no known/diagnosed allergies) and completed all 4 conditions after providing written and verbal consent. Heating duration was not different between conditions (Table 1). No significant differences were observed for sweating onset, thermosensitivity, and whole-body sweat rate (Table 1). No main effect of drug was observed for forearm sweat rate, heart rate, skin blood flow, and mean blood pressure (Figure 1). Data S2 contains all individual data. Neither antihistamine dose altered the sweating response to heat stress compared to placebo, suggesting the absence of, or insufficient, binding to M3 muscarinic receptors. These findings extend the recent systematic review [4] and corroborate the absence of sweating impairments during exercise following oral diphenhydramine consumption [6] supporting their safe use within the manufacturers recommended dose prior to heat stress. Limitations include healthy adults and a small sample size. Future work should evaluate antihistamine use during heat stress in individuals diagnosed with an allergy and/or experiencing allergic reactions, other administration means (e.g., topical), higher doses, and/or vulnerable populations who may have attenuated sweating responses (e.g., elderly, comorbid). Nicholas Ravanelli had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design: Douglas Newhouse and Nicholas Ravanelli. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors. Drafting of the manuscript: Douglas Newhouse and Nicholas Ravanelli. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: Douglas Newhouse and Nicholas Ravanelli. Obtained funding: Nicholas Ravanelli. Administrative, technical, or material support: Nicholas Ravanelli. Study supervision: All authors. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the Supporting Information of this article. Data S1. Data S2. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergySame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207