Management and diagnostic guidelines for urticaria and angio-oedema

Urticaria: selected highlights and recent advances

Urticaria has been called a vexing problem and remains so today. The most important part of the diagnostic evaluation remains a comprehensive and detailed history and physical examination, supplemented with limited laboratory testing. Although acute urticaria has been relatively well understood for some time, significant and important recent advances in under-standing the pathogenesis of chronic urticaria are beginning to provide insight in this challenging field, notably the identification of many of these patients with an autoimmune etiology. Antihistamines of various types continue to represent the keystone of symptomatic treatment, with adjunctive support from medications of other classes, such as antileukotrienes, adrenergics, and immunosuppressive and anti-inflammatory agents (including steroids and cyclosporine). Although some progress has been made at improving symptomatic control of urticaria, further research and discovery are necessary before there can yet be an effective impact on the underlying course and natural history of this condition.

Levocetirizine in the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Chronic urticaria is a common skin condition. It is frequently a disabling disease because of the persistence of clinical symptoms, the unpredictable course and its negative influence on the quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether levocetirizine is efficacious in the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in 106 patients with a diagnosis of chronic idiopathic urticaria. A 1-week single blind placebo run-in period (baseline) was followed by a 6-week double blind active treatment period. The patients were randomized to receive one of the following treatments once daily: (a) oral levocetirizine 5 mg, or (b) oral placebo. The study ended after another 1-week single blind placebo washout period.

RESULTS

The evaluable population consisted of 100 patients. Levocetirizine administered once daily is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of the symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria and in improving the patient's quality of life. Levocetirizine was superior to placebo in reducing the mean total symptoms score as well as individual symptoms, the number of daily episodes and the number of weals, the overall severity of symptoms and the quality of life. The significant beneficial effects of levocetirizine lasted only during the active trial, while at follow-up there was a significant worsening of all the variables evaluated in this study, after the end of the active trial (week 7).

CONCLUSIONS

A global assessment indicates that levocetirizine 5 mg once daily is an effective agent in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria, as its action provides a rapid and satisfactory control of the symptoms and measures of subjective disease, although this is limited to the duration of treatment.

Urticária

A urticária apresenta-se com diversas formas clínicas e causas distintas. Constitui uma das dermatoses mais freqüentes: 15% a 20% da população têm pelo menos um episódio agudo da doença em sua vida, resultando em percentual que varia de um a 2% dos atendimentos nas especialidades de Dermatologia e Alergologia. A urticária é classificada do ponto de vista de duração da evolução temporal em aguda (inferior a seis semanas) ou crônica (superior a seis semanas). O tratamento da urticária pode compreender medidas não farmacológicas e intervenções medicamentosas, as quais são agrupadas em tratamentos de primeira (anti-histamínicos), segunda (corticosteróides e antileucotrienos) e terceira linha (medicamentos imunomoduladores). As medidas terapêuticas de segunda e terceira linha apresentam maiores efeitos adversos, devendo ser reservadas aos doentes que não apresentaram controle da doença com os de primeira linha, ou àqueles a respeito dos quais não é possível estabelecer uma etiologia, tal como nas urticárias auto-imunes.

Evidence-based practice of photopheresis 1987-2001: a report of a workshop of the British Photodermatology Group and the U.K. Skin Lymphoma Group

Photopheresis or extracorporeal photochemotherapy (ECP) is a novel immunomodulatory therapy which involves separation of the patient's leucocyte-rich plasma, followed by ex vivo administration of a photosensitizer and ultraviolet A radiation, before reinfusion. ECP has been used successfully for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL: Sézary syndrome), graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and cardiac transplant rejection. ECP has a dose-sparing effect on concurrent immunosuppressive therapy. The procedure induces apoptosis of the irradiated lymphocytes, but the exact mechanism by which ECP exerts its therapeutic effect in these different conditions is uncertain. The treatment has very few adverse effects and in particular is not associated with an increased incidence of opportunistic infections. The evidence for the efficacy of ECP has been appraised by a combined British Photodermatology Group and U.K. Skin Lymphoma Group workshop on the basis of evidence published up to the end of 2001 and on the consensus of best practice. There is fair evidence for the use of ECP in erythrodermic CTCL and steroid-refractory GVHD, but randomized controlled studies are needed. There is good evidence supporting the use of ECP in preventing cardiac rejection following transplantation. Randomized controlled trials have also shown a therapeutic benefit in type 1 diabetes mellitus, but the inconvenience associated with the procedure outweighed the clinical benefit. There is fair evidence not to use ECP for the treatment of systemic sclerosis and multiple sclerosis, and good evidence not to use ECP for other forms of CTCL.

A Review of the Evidence from Comparative Studies of Levocetirizine and Desloratadine for the Symptoms of Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Levocetirizine and desloratadine are newer antihistamines indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria.

OBJECTIVE

This article discusses the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of levocetirizine and desloratadine and reviews studies that have directly compared the effects of these 2 drugs in allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

METHODS

Relevant articles were identified through a search of MEDLINE from 1999 through 2004 using the main search terms levocetirizine and desloratadine.

RESULTS

Levocetirizine is absorbed rapidly and reaches a steady-state plasma concentration more quickly than does desloratadine. It is also metabolized to a lesser extent than desloratadine, has a lower V(d), and has higher specificity for histamine(1) receptors. Eight well-controlled trials were identified that directly compared the effects of levocetirizine and desloratadine in the skin and nose of healthy individuals and patients with allergic rhinitis. Drug activity was measured in terms of wheal, flare, and itch reactions; nasal symptoms or symptom scores; increases in concentrations of inflammatory markers; or facial thermography. In most of these trials, levocetirizine had a faster onset and greater consistency of effect than desloratadine. The differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the 2 drugs may partially explain these clinical findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Levocetirizine may be preferred to desloratadine as a treatment option for allergic rhinitis because of its faster onset of action and greater consistency of effect. Although comparative studies in chronic idiopathic urticaria are not available, data from histamine-induced wheal and flare studies in healthy volunteers suggest that levocetirizine may be more effective in preventing itching than desloratadine.

Narrowband UVB phototherapy in skin conditions beyond psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Narrowband (NB) UVB phototherapy has been proven to be clearly more effective than broadband UVB and safer and/or more practicable than psoralen-UVA in the management of psoriasis. However, the role of NB UVB seems to be less clear in the management of skin conditions beyond psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to give an update on clinical experiences in NB UVB of nonpsoriatic skin conditions, and to establish its current position within the spectrum of competing photo(chemo)therapeutic options.

METHODS

The computerized bibliographic database PubMed, without time limits, and other sources were screened for clinical trials on NB UVB. Included were research articles of randomized controlled trials, open prospective studies, and retrospective observations on NB UVB in skin disorders other than psoriasis.

RESULTS

A total of 28 articles met our eligibility criteria including 6 randomized controlled studies, 16 open prospective studies, and 6 retrospective observations. NB UVB is effective in patients with chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) (n = 719) and generalized vitiligo (n = 305) and appears to have some advantages over competing photo(chemo)therapeutic regimens. NB UVB also seems to be effective in patients with polymorphic light eruption (n = 25), early stages of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (n = 108), chronic urticaria (n = 88), lichen planus (n = 15), pruritus associated with polycythemia vera (n = 10), seborrheic dermatitis (n = 18), actinic prurigo (n = 6), and acquired perforating dermatosis (n = 5). The quality of evidence determined for the aforementioned diagnoses ranged from high to moderate to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The best currently available data on NB UVB in nonpsoriatic conditions exist for AD and generalized vitiligo. In view of its efficacy, benefit/risk profile, and costs, NB UVB may be considered the first-line photo(chemo)therapeutic option for moderately severe AD and widespread vitiligo. In the treatment of most other nonpsoriatic conditions, NB UVB appears to be effective, but current data allow no definitive conclusions as to whether NB UVB should be preferred to competing photo(chemo)therapeutic options such as UVA1 and psoralen-UVA regimens. Because NB UVB may have a wider indication spectrum, including AD, vitiligo, and early-stage T-cell lymphoma, and appears to be equally effective or even more effective than broadband UVB, a switch from broadband UVB to NB UVB seems to be justified.

Cetirizine: a review of its use in allergic disorders

Cetirizine is a selective, second-generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist, with a rapid onset, a long duration of activity and low potential for interaction with drugs metabolised by the hepatic cytochrome P450 system. Cetirizine was generally more effective than other H1 receptor antagonists at inhibiting histamine-induced wheal and flare responses. Cetirizine is an effective and well tolerated agent for the treatment of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) in adult, adolescent and paediatric patients. In adults with these allergic disorders, cetirizine was as effective as conventional dosages of ebastine (SAR, PAR, CIU), fexofenadine (SAR), loratadine (SAR, CIU) or mizolastine (SAR). This agent was significantly more effective, and with a more rapid onset of action, than loratadine in 2-day studies in environmental exposure units (SAR). In paediatric patients, cetirizine was as at least as effective as chlorphenamine (chlorpheniramine) [SAR], loratadine (SAR, PAR) and oxatomide (CIU) in the short term, and more effective than oxatomide and ketotifen (PAR) in the long term. Cetirizine was effective in reducing symptoms of allergic asthma in adults and reduced the relative risk of developing asthma in infants with atopic dermatitis sensitised to grass pollen or house dust mite allergens. It had a corticosteroid-sparing effect in infants with severe atopic dermatitis and was effective in ameliorating reactions to mosquito bites in adults. Cetirizine was well tolerated in adults, adolescents and paediatric patients with allergic disorders. In adult, adolescent and paediatric patients aged 2-11 years, the incidence of somnolence with cetirizine was dose related and was generally similar to that with other second-generation H1 receptor antagonists. Although, its sedative effect was greater than that of fexofenadine in some clinical trials and that of loratadine or fexofenadine in a postmarketing surveillance study. In infants aged 6-24 months, the tolerability profile of cetirizine was similar to that of placebo. Cetirizine did not have any adverse effects on cognitive function in adults, or cognitive function, behaviour or achievement of psychomotor milestones in paediatric patients. Cetirizine was not associated with cardiotoxicity.

CONCLUSION

Cetirizine is well established in the treatment of symptoms of SAR, PAR or CIU. It demonstrated a corticosteroid-sparing effect and reduced the relative risk of developing asthma in sensitised infants with atopic dermatitis. Cetirizine was effective in the treatment of allergic cough and mosquito bites; however, its precise role in these indications has yet to be clearly established. On the basis of its favourable efficacy and tolerability profile and rapid onset of action, cetirizine provides an important option for the treatment of a wide range of allergic disorders.

Hereditary and acquired angioedema: problems and progress: proceedings of the third C1 esterase inhibitor deficiency workshop and beyond

Hereditary angioedema (HAE), a rare but life-threatening condition, manifests as acute attacks of facial, laryngeal, genital, or peripheral swelling or abdominal pain secondary to intra-abdominal edema. Resulting from mutations affecting C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH), inhibitor of the first complement system component, attacks are not histamine-mediated and do not respond to antihistamines or corticosteroids. Low awareness and resemblance to other disorders often delay diagnosis; despite availability of C1-INH replacement in some countries, no approved, safe acute attack therapy exists in the United States. The biennial C1 Esterase Inhibitor Deficiency Workshops resulted from a European initiative for better knowledge and treatment of HAE and related diseases. This supplement contains work presented at the third workshop and expanded content toward a definitive picture of angioedema in the absence of allergy. Most notably, it includes cumulative genetic investigations; multinational laboratory diagnosis recommendations; current pathogenesis hypotheses; suggested prophylaxis and acute attack treatment, including home treatment; future treatment options; and analysis of patient subpopulations, including pediatric patients and patients whose angioedema worsened during pregnancy or hormone administration. Causes and management of acquired angioedema and a new type of angioedema with normal C1-INH are also discussed. Collaborative patient and physician efforts, crucial in rare diseases, are emphasized. This supplement seeks to raise awareness and aid diagnosis of HAE, optimize treatment for all patients, and provide a platform for further research in this rare, partially understood disorder.

Urticaria and angioedema: an overview

Persistent or frequent episodes of urticaria are difficult to evaluate and treat. The best test to identify most patients with a specific underlying cause (eg, physical trigger, allergen, systemic disease) likely is the taking of a careful and detailed history and performance of a physical examination by a specialist who is knowledgeable in urticarial disease. Further study of the pathogenesis and treatment of urticaria is crucial. Given the limited efficacy of presently approved antihistamine treatments and the significant side effects of steroids and cyclosporine, there is a pressing need to evaluate other anecdotally supported urticaria treatments in randomized, controlled trials.

Suspected tartrazine-induced acute urticaria/angioedema is only rarely reproducible by oral rechallenge

BACKGROUND

Tartrazine has been frequently linked to several diseases. However, a cause-and-effect role for tartrazine in these illnesses, especially in urticaria, has not always been established.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of intolerance to tartrazine among subjects who experienced an acute episode of urticaria/angioedema following the ingestion of a meal or a product containing this substance.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study based on analysis of data of patients reported to have experienced episodes of urticaria and/or angioedema after ingesting meals or products containing tartrazine. At the first visit to the outpatients clinic, a careful anamnesis had been taken. Patients had then been submitted to the following diagnostic tests: IgE tests to common inhalant allergens and food allergens and a double-blind placebo-controlled challenge with tartrazine.

RESULTS

A total of 102 subjects were enrolled in the study: 19 (18.6%) showed at least one relevant positive reaction to an IgE test for food allergy. Only one subject (1%) had reactions after ingestion of 5 mg of tartrazine, given on day 5. She did not have adverse reactions to placebo.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the percentage of acute urticaria and/or angioedema induced by tartrazine is very low (1%). In view of our results, we suggest that all physicians with patients who have suffered adverse reactions that could be attributed to tartrazine should also carefully evaluate other possible causes.

Urticaria

Urticaria has been known as a disease since antiquity. However, in the last decades an increasing understanding of the mechanisms involved in its pathogenesis has shown the high heterogeneity of different urticaria subtypes. Clear distinction of the subtypes is required not only to choose the correct measures in diagnosis and management, but also to interpret the available data in research. The subtypes can be grouped into spontaneous urticaria, which includes acute urticaria and chronic urticaria, the physical urticarias, special types of urticaria including, e.g. contact urticaria, and diseases related to urticaria for historical reasons, e.g. urticaria pigmentosa. Most urticaria subtypes have a profound impact on the quality of life and effective treatment is thus required in case the diagnostic procedures do not reveal a cause which can be treated. Although, for symptomatic relief, nonsedating H1-antihistamines are the first choice in most subtypes of urticaria, double-blind controlled studies have shown that dosages required may exceed those recommended for other diseases, e.g. allergic rhinitis. Alternative treatments should be reserved for unresponsive patients.

IL3 effect on basophils histamine release upon stimulation with chronic urticaria sera

BACKGROUND

Chronic urticaria is thought to be an autoimmune disorder in 35-40% of patients because of the presence of an immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody reactive with the IgE receptor. Patients possessing this antibody are identified by the ability of serum to degranulate donor basophils to release histamine. We questioned whether priming of basophils with interleukin 3 (IL3) would facilitate identification of patients and/or alter the percentage of patients who have a positive assay.

METHODS

We incubated 37 chronic urticaria sera with basophils from donors with no urticaria with and without priming with IL3 and compared histamine release in each instance. We also preincubated basophils from a 'non-releaser' with IL3, used these cells to assay chronic urticaria sera, and assessed the contribution of complement.

RESULTS

Interleukin 3 increases the amount of histamine release by the sera which is able to activate basophils, but it does not convert negative sera into positive releasers. Interleukin 3 is able to partially reverse 'non-releaser' basophils into cells that respond to chronic urticaria sera, and complement cannot account for the augmentation seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Preincubating basophils with IL3 facilitates the identification of sera with anti-IgE receptor antibody but does not affect the percentage of sera designated as positive.

Laboratory tests and identified diagnoses in patients with physical and chronic urticaria and angioedema: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The value of laboratory tests in chronic urticaria is still controversial.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess this value in clinical studies, and to identify factors explaining the variation in the number of identified causes.

METHODS

A total of 4 electronic databases were searched, and a manual literature search was performed. Only unselected patient series with more than 50 adult patients were included. From each included study predefined items were recorded to assess their quality (consecutive patients, use of standardized diagnostic criteria) and validity (follow-up, assessment of treatment effects, level of evidence).

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies were included, involving 6462 patients. The verification of the validity of the results and the level of evidence of the included studies were limited.

CONCLUSION

No relationship between the number of identified diagnoses and the number of performed laboratory tests, the different settings, the study design, or the publication period was found. On the basis of this systematic review and the relevant literature, a clinical guideline in the form of a flowchart is presented.

Clinical and aetiological aspects in urticaria and angio-oedema

BACKGROUND

Urticaria is a common disorder that affects as many as 20% of all people at some time during their lifetime.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the prevalence of various forms of urticaria according to an aetiological and clinical classification, we carried out a 4-year study in an outpatient clinic.

METHODS

The study was carried out on 562 consecutive patients (178 males and 384 females; mean age 35.4 +/- 16), who had been referred to our unit for the study of urticaria and angio-oedema. Baseline investigations included: the patient's family and personal history of allergy; duration of symptoms, presence of associated symptoms and objective signs of the current episode; clinical, laboratory and instrumental investigations; assessment of response to antihistamine treatment.

RESULTS

A family history of atopy was present in 35% of patients and a personal history of allergy in 24%. We subdivided urticaria and angio-oedema into several groups on the basis of their clinical and aetiological aspects. Of the 562 patients, 424 (76%) presented with ordinary urticaria (43 acute urticaria, 311 chronic urticaria, 70 episodic urticaria), 80 (14%) physical urticaria, 49 (9%) angio-oedema without weals, six (1%) IgE-mediated contact urticaria and three (0.5%) urticarial vasculitis. In 64 cases (11%) urticaria/angio-oedema was associated with one or more symptoms. We identified 394 cases (82%) of idiopathic urticaria, 42 (9%) of immunological urticaria, 29 (6%) of non-immunological urticaria and 17 (3%) of urticaria secondary to infections. Of the treated subjects, 54% showed a good response to treatment with antihistamines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data provide an overview of urticaria/angio-oedema in a large series of patients, based on clinical-aetiological aspects, and related to recent diagnostic guidelines.

[Etiological diagnosis and treatment of chronic urticaria]

PURPOSE

Urticaria is a muco-cutaneous illness which is characterized by a dermal or hypodermal oedema due to a vasodilatation attributed to the release of histamine by mast cells and basophils. Urticaria is a very common complaint, since among 20% of the population will experience at least one episode of urticaria during their life. Chronic urticaria by definition is daily and has persisted for at least six weeks. By contrast with acute urticaria, its etiological and therapeutic approaches can present a significant challenge, leadind to repeated examinations.

CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS

Questioning and clinical examination are essential for the etiological diagnosis of chronic urticaria, because they are able to lead rapidly to the suspicion of several causes which can be eradicated to treat the symptoms. If no cause is found, further investigations may be required. Recent studies have shown the lack of profitability of exhaustive laboratory investigations. Thus, many authors at present time advise minimal and non expensive investigations which are determinated by anamnestic data. But most often, the etiology of urticaria remains unknown and this situation leads to the diagnosis of chronic idiopathic urticaria. The treatment of chronic urticaria is above all based on the elimination of the symptoms, either on a specific fashion if the etiological diagnosis is already known, or in a non specific way. The anti-H1 agents are the medications of choice for first line treatment.

FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS

Pathophysiology of chronic urticaria is to date well established. As the mechanisms responsible for chronic urticaria are better defined, more therapeutic agents, which are effective on other targets than histamine, should become available. Moreover, recent advances have supported the notion that an underlying autoimmune process could account for many cases of chronic "idiopathic" urticaria. In such severe and refractory urticaria, immunomodulation therapy may bring about clinical improvement.

Thyroid autoimmunity in chronic idiopathic urticaria: implications for therapy

The association between thyroid autoimmunity and chronic idiopathic urticaria has long been recognized, although prevalence rates differ in the studies reported to date (from 12 to 29%). There is, therefore, a strong indication to screen patients affected by chronic urticaria of unknown origin for thyroid antibodies (antithyroperoxidase and antithyroglobulin) and, when positive, for serum thyrotropin to assess thyroid functional status. Less clear is the implication of thyroid autoimmunity for therapy, as most patients with urticaria who have associated thyroid autoimmunity are euthyroid. There is no doubt that cases with clinical or subclinical thyroid dysfunction should undergo treatment with either levothyroxine or antithyroid drugs for hypo- or hyper-function, respectively. Although the best remission rates for symptoms of urticaria have so far been obtained with levothyroxine in patients who are euthyroid, monitoring of thyroid function through serum thyrotropin determination is highly recommended because of the risk of hyperthyroidism, especially in the elderly.

Rapid effects of olopatadine hydrochloride on the histamine-induced skin responses

Olopatadine hydrochloride is one of the second-generation nonsedating antihistamines that are used for treating allergic disorders such as urticaria, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. We examined the inhibitory effects of this drug on the flare and wheal responses induced by histamine iontophoresis at 30, 60, and 90 min after oral administration in a double-blind, cross-over, and placebo-controlled study. Olopatadine hydrochloride significantly inhibited the histamine-induced flare and wheal responses as early as 60 min after oral administration when compared with placebo. Significant inihibitory effects of olopatadine hydrochloride on the itch responses were seen at 90 min after administration. Thus, olopatadine hydrochloride exhibited a very rapid and potent antihistamine effect on the histamine-induced skin responses.