Antihistamines in the Treatment of Urticaria

Urticaria

Urticaria is an inflammatory skin disorder that affects up to 20% of the world population at some point during their life. It presents with wheals, angioedema or both due to activation and degranulation of skin mast cells and the release of histamine and other mediators. Most cases of urticaria are acute urticaria, which lasts ≤6 weeks and can be associated with infections or intake of drugs or foods. Chronic urticaria (CU) is either spontaneous or inducible, lasts >6 weeks and persists for >1 year in most patients. CU greatly affects patient quality of life, and is linked to psychiatric comorbidities and high healthcare costs. In contrast to chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) has definite and subtype-specific triggers that induce signs and symptoms. The pathogenesis of CSU consists of several interlinked events involving autoantibodies, complement and coagulation. The diagnosis of urticaria is clinical, but several tests can be performed to exclude differential diagnoses and identify underlying causes in CSU or triggers in CIndU. Current urticaria treatment aims at complete response, with a stepwise approach using second-generation H1 antihistamines, omalizumab and cyclosporine. Novel treatment approaches centre on targeting mediators, signalling pathways and receptors of mast cells and other immune cells. Further research should focus on defining disease endotypes and their biomarkers, identifying new treatment targets and developing improved therapies.

Antihistamines and itch

Histamine is one of the best-characterized pruritogens in humans. It is known to play a role in pruritus associated with urticaria as well as ocular and nasal allergic reactions. Histamine mediates its effect via four receptors. Antihistamines that block the activation of the histamine H₁receptor, H₁R, have been shown to be effective therapeutics for the treatment of pruritus associated with urticaria, allergic rhinitis, and allergic conjunctivitis. However, their efficacy in other pruritic diseases such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis is limited. The other histamine receptors may also play a role in pruritus, with the exception of the histamine H₂receptor, H₂R. Preclinical evidence indicates that local antagonism of the histamine H₃receptor, H₃R, can induce scratching perhaps via blocking inhibitory neuronal signals. The histamine H₄receptor, H₄R, has received a significant amount of attention as to its role in mediating pruritic signals. Indeed, it has now been shown that a selective H₄R antagonist can inhibit histamine-induced itch in humans. This clinical result, in conjunction with efficacy in various preclinical pruritus models, points to the therapeutic potential of H₄R antagonists for the treatment of pruritus not controlled by antihistamines that target the H₁R.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of safety and efficacy of miltefosine in antihistamine-resistant chronic spontaneous urticaria

BACKGROUND

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), a mast cell-driven condition, is debilitating, common, and hard to treat. Miltefosine, a lipid raft modulator, can inhibit mast cell responses in vivo.

OBJECTIVE

To study the safety and efficacy of systemic miltefosine treatment in CSU patients resistant to standard-dosed antihistamines.

METHODS

In this investigator-initiated multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, CSU patients were treated for 4 weeks with daily doses of up to 150-mg miltefosine (n = 47) or placebo (n = 26). Disease activity was assessed using the urticaria activity score. Safety and tolerability of miltefosine were also assessed.

RESULTS

After 4 weeks of treatment, Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) levels were substantially more reduced in miltefosine-treated patients (-6.3 vs. -3.5 in placebo-treated patients; P = 0.05). Also, the number of weals, but not the intensity of pruritus, was significantly reduced in miltefosine-treated patients vs. placebo-treated patients (P = 0.02). In general, adverse events were frequent in both groups (miltefosine: 88%, placebo: 65% of patients) but mostly mild to moderate in severity. We did not observe any serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that miltefosine is an effective and safe treatment option for CSU patients who do not respond to standard-dosed antihistamines.