The Effect of Vitamin C on Histamine and Dust Mite Epicutaneous Test Responses: A Randomized Control Trial
Le résumé fourni par la source
Objective: Vitamin C has antihistamine properties, but its e!ect on allergic skin responses is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the e!ect of vitamin C on skin wheal reactions to exogenous histamine and a known allergen during skin prick tests (SPTs). Methods: In this single-blinded randomized controlled trial, adults with allergic rhinitis and known positive SPT toward house dust mites were randomized into 2 groups: the intervention group received vitamin C (1000 mg daily for 7 days) and the control group kept a diet journal only. Repeat testing was conducted on day 8, and wheal sizes were measured using Image J software. Mean differences in wheal area (mm2) between groups were compared, and treatment effect sizes within groups were calculated using Cohen’s d formula. Results: Of 103 participants, 44 in the vitamin C group and 45 in the control group completed the study. Vitamin C led to a small, non-significant reduction in histamine-induced wheal size (-2.5 ± 11.57 mm2, Cohen’s d=0.30 vs. -0.92 ± 14.24 mm2, P=.56, Cohen’s d=0.08), but no reduction was seen for dust mite allergens (+4.48 ± 25.08 mm2, Cohen’s d=-0.20 vs. -0.16 ± 26.17 mm2, Cohen’s d=0.01, P=.40). Conclusion: Short-term vitamin C supplementation had a minor, non-significant suppressing effect on exogenous histamine but did not attenuate the skin allergen responses. Vitamin C may be useful for histamine intolerance, but this requires larger studies.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- The Effect of Vitamin C on Histamine and Dust Mite Epicutaneous Test Responses: A Randomized Control Trial
- Date Crossref
- 22/04/2025
- Éditeur
- Non renseigné
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.