Feeling itchy? FDA warns about rare side effect from some allergy drugs
Feeling itchy? FDA warns about rare side effect from some allergy drugs
Show Caption
Hide Caption
You're not crazy. Allergy season is getting worse.
New research shows that pollen season is getting longer and more intense. But why?
As pollen peaks for the season, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning that some popular allergy medications could cause a rare but severe itching side effect.
The FDA said in a safety warning issued on May 16 that some patients who have taken oral allergy medicines daily for long periods of time — at least a few months but often several years — have experienced a severe type of itching, which is known medically as pruritus.
The affected medicines include cetirizine, which is popularly sold under the brand name Zyrtec, and levocetirizine, sold as Xyzal.
While reported cases of the severe itching side effect are rare, some have been serious and required medical intervention, according to the FDA.
A spokesperson for Opella, which manufactures Xyzal, said in a statement that the medicine "has a strong track record of efficacy backed by scientific research and user satisfaction."
"Opella stands by the safety of Xyzal, despite this rare reaction, when used as directed," the spokesperson said.
USA TODAY has reached out to Kenvue, which manufactures Zyrtec, for comment.
Which allergy medicines could cause itching side effect?
The FDA said cetirizine and levocetirizine are the allergy medicines that could cause the itching side effect. They are sold under the brand names Zyrtec and Xyzal, respectively.
Both medicines are available over-the-counter or through a prescription.
The FDA said it has revised the prescribing information for both medicines to include a warning about the possible effect.
This year's pollen maps Allergy sufferers expected to have worse season than usual
FDA warns about rare itching side effect. What is pruritus?
Some allergy medicines may cause a severe itching side effect known as pruritus, according to the FDA.
Pruritus is the medical term for itching, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
The most common cause of pruritus is dry skin, but others include inflammation or swelling within the body, an underlying medical condition affecting skin or internal organs or nerve damage, according to Cleveland Clinic.
Melina Khan is a national trending reporter for USA TODAY. She can be reached at melina.khan@usatoday.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Urgent fish recall issued over botulism concerns
Fish sold in multiple U.S. states have been urgently recalled because they may have been contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium that can cause illness or death. P. East Trading Corp. is recalling its Salted Smoked Split Herring, according to a press release shared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday. The product is five inches in length and uneviscerated, meaning they had not had its internal organs removed. According to the FDA, the recalled fish may contain Clostridium botulinum spores that cause botulism, 'as they are more likely to be concentrated in the viscera than any other portion of the fish.' Botulism is a rare but serious condition caused by a toxin that attacks the body's nerves. Symptoms include general weakness, dizziness, double-vision, trouble with speaking or swallowing, difficulty in breathing, abdominal distension, and constipation. The recall came after the Salted Smoked Split Herring was sampled by a New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspector. A subsequent analysis of the product confirmed that the 'herring was not properly eviscerated prior to processing.' There have been no reported illnesses so far. The recalled fish was sold at retail locations in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. It was sold in 18-pound wooden boxes with the container code Lot 1 PRC5073. However, the FDA noted that the product could have been repacked by retail store workers in 'deli-style or other retail packaging.' A specific list of the stores that received and potentially sold the herring can be found here. Consumers are urged not to eat the recalled herring. Instead, they should return the product to the place of purchase for a full refund. This isn't the only product that's been recalled due to a risk of botulinum. In April, Walker's Wine Juice recalled its pumpkin juice, sold in 12 states, because it may have contained the potentially fatal form of food poisoning. The recall was issued after the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors discovered the juice's pH was 'too high to be processed per Walker's 'hot fill' schedule process.' The recall applied to all lots of Walker's Wine Juice's 2.5-gallon bag in a box and 5-gallon hot pack labeled 'pumpkin' in addition to their 30-, 60-, and 275-gallon bulk containers also labeled 'pumpkin.' The last two years have also seen an alarming and unexplained rise in recalls. In 2024, approximately 300 food recalls were issued, with those recalls being linked to nearly 1,400 illnesses, a Public Interest Research Group report revealed. Out of the 1,400 illnesses, 487 people became sick enough to require hospitalization, and 19 people died. While those numbers are still low when weighed against the entire U.S. population, they are also double the number of hospitalizations and deaths from food-borne illnesses in 2023. In May, cucumbers sold across the country were recalled after people in 15 states reported getting ill from salmonella. Florida-based Bedner Growers, Inc. recalled the vegetables distributed by Fresh Start Produce Sales, Inc. from April 29 to May 19.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Lawmakers urge Trump administration to clamp down on illicit GLP-1 sales
A bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers is calling on the Trump administration to address the continued sale of illicit, compounded GLP-1 products, warning that consumers may be accessing these drugs without knowing the product could be fraudulent. North Carolina Reps. Brad Knott (R) and Deborah Ross (D) wrote to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, imploring them to end the sale of 'counterfeit, research-grade and illegal copycats' of popular GLP-1 medications. When the commercial, branded versions of tirzepatide and semaglutide were declared to no longer be in shortage, compounding pharmacies were disallowed from continuing to sell compounded versions of those drugs. While telehealth companies have transitioned away from compounded versions, state officials have warned that 'copycat' drugs have proliferated in the months since the shortages ended. Earlier this year, the National Association of Attorneys General sent a letter to the FDA to warn that 'counterfeit GLP-1 drugs have infiltrated the U.S. supply chain from China, Turkey, India, and other foreign sources.' According to the attorneys general, online retailers sell the active ingredient for the GLP-1s under the claim that they're 'for research purposes only' or 'not for human consumption' while still marketing them to consumers on social media. The FDA issued a warning in April, telling consumers to not take counterfeit Ozempic. The drug's manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, had alerted the agency that several hundred units of counterfeit product had entered the U.S. supply chain. At the time, the FDA said it was aware of six adverse events associated with the counterfeit products. Though the FBI issued a public service warning soon after the letter from the attorneys general was sent, Knott and Ross said raising public awareness wasn't enough. 'FDA has received hundreds of reports of adverse events, even some resulting in the hospitalization and death of patients who used illicit GLP-1s,' they wrote. 'This is likely a significant underreporting of adverse events experienced by patients because federal law does not require state-licensed pharmacies that are not outsourcing facilities to submit adverse events to FDA.' The lawmakers asked that the Trump Cabinet members fully use 'the legal tools at your discretion' to further detect illicit and enforce U.S. drug standards. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) sent his own letter to Cabinet members, calling for enhanced collaboration among agencies like FDA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Justice Department in order to stop the counterfeit products from reaching the supply chain in the first place. The Hill has reached out to the agencies named in the letter for comment.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
What makes a food ultraprocessed? The FDA is about to weigh in.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Dr. Marty Makary, the commissioner of the FDA, said he expected the definition would encourage companies to label foods as 'non-ultraprocessed' to entice customers, similar to how food manufacturers market their products as being free from added sugars. Advertisement 'We do not see ultraprocessed foods as foods to be banned,' he said. 'We see them as foods to be defined so that markets can compete based on health.' The idea that consumers may go out of their way to avoid these items reflects growing concerns about the potential harms of ultraprocessed foods, which include many breakfast cereals, instant noodles, protein bars, meal-replacement shakes, flavored yogurts, hot dogs and more. Scientists have increasingly linked ultraprocessed foods to poor health outcomes, such as Type 2 diabetes, some types of cancers, and heart and gastrointestinal issues. Advertisement Kyle Diamantas, the deputy commissioner of the FDA's food division, said that there were some 'obvious areas' the agency would consider when crafting its definition, including synthetic dyes, emulsifiers and preservatives. 'We don't have in our home kitchens these new novel ingredients that help a Twinkie stay on the shelf for six years or whatever it might be,' Diamantas said. He also suggested that a standard definition of ultraprocessed foods could be used for regulating the meals served to members of the military and at prisons and Veterans Affairs hospitals. The government will almost certainly face pushback from some corners of the food industry, which has relied on preservatives and artificial ingredients to produce cheap, convenient foods at a large scale. Related : Any definition the government comes up with would be 'hotly contested' by the food industry, said Marion Nestle, an emerita professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. By defining ultraprocessed foods, the government will also weigh in on issues that have divided nutrition experts and confused consumers: Do plant-based meats and milks belong in the same category as sodas and candy bars? And are all ultraprocessed foods inherently unhealthy? Some, like various yogurts and whole-grain breads and cereals, contain valuable nutrients and have been associated with positive health outcomes. The broad term can 'demonize' foods that aren't necessarily harming consumers, said Maya Vadiveloo, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of Rhode Island. Advertisement The federal push follows recent efforts in a handful of states to restrict ultraprocessed foods sold and served in schools. In Arizona, lawmakers defined ultraprocessed foods only as those with certain food additives, like artificial dyes. But additives may only be one part of what makes certain ultraprocessed foods unhealthy, said Brenda Davy, a professor of nutrition at Virginia Tech — and if the federal definition follows Arizona's example, it would likely miss a great number of ultraprocessed foods, she said, like a sugar-loaded cereal that does not use certain food colorings. 'If their focus is too narrow, it may be limited in how much that might improve health,' she said. Still, a federal definition would be a 'big step forward,' Nestle said. It could pave the way for new types of warning labels, or for the government to regulate whether food makers could continue marketing ultraprocessed foods to children, she said. 'All of those are up for grabs if there's a definition,' she said. She added: 'It matters a lot.' This article originally appeared in .
