The effects of topical corticosteroids on delayed pressure urticaria

Topical corticosteroids for hives and itch (urticaria): Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Topical corticosteroids are widely used as a treatment for itch and wheals (urticaria), but their benefits and harms are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of topical corticosteroids for the treatment of urticaria.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from database inception to March 23, 2024, for randomized trials comparing topical corticosteroids with placebo for patients with urticaria (either chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria or acute urticaria elicited from skin/intradermal allergy testing). Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses addressed urticaria severity, itch severity (numeric rating scale; range 0-10; higher is worse), and adverse events. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023455182.

RESULTS

A total of 19 randomized controlled trials enrolled 379 participants with a median of mean age of 30.1 (range 21.1-44.0) years. Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may reduce wheal size (ratio of means 0.47, 95% CI 0.38-0.59; low certainty) and itch severity (mean difference -1.30, 95% CI -5.07 to 2.46; very low certainty). Topical corticosteroids result in little to no difference in overall adverse events (94 fewer patients per 1000, 95% credible intervals 172 fewer to 12 more; high certainty).

CONCLUSION

Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may result in a reduction of wheal size and little to no difference in overall adverse events. Topical corticosteroids may reduce itch severity, but the evidence is very uncertain. Future large, randomized trials addressing the use of topical corticosteroids would further support optimal urticaria management.

Trends in office visits and treatment for urticaria in children in the United States, 1998-2016

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Urticaria is a common condition with an estimated prevalence of up to 23% in the pediatric population. Studies characterizing visits and treatments for urticaria in the pediatric population are unavailable. Understanding visit and treatment trends for urticaria in the pediatric population may help inform care for patients with urticaria.

METHODS

A total of 108 278 outpatient records from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey representing 3.4 billion visits by patients of age 18 and younger were analyzed. This study included the calendar years 1998 through 2016.

RESULTS

Pediatricians saw the largest proportion of all visits (52.7%). Male and female patients accounted for approximately equal proportions of all visits for urticaria. There was a slight male predominance in visits to pediatricians (53.7%), whereas dermatologists saw female patients more frequently (63.3%). Most visits for urticaria were by non-Hispanic (78.1%) and White (78.2%) patients. H1 antihistamines were the most commonly prescribed treatment (70.3%), whereas topical corticosteroids were prescribed least frequently (4.9%). Topical corticosteroids were most frequently prescribed by dermatologists (7.7%). Non-H1 antihistamine and non-corticosteroid therapy were prescribed in 9.7% of all visits and in 4.5% of visits to pediatricians. Most visits for urticaria were to physicians in metropolitan areas (88.8%). Pediatricians saw the highest number of non-metropolitan area visits (56.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

H1 antihistamines were the most commonly used therapy (70%), consistent with established treatment guidelines. Male and female pediatric patients present equally often for urticaria, but sex differences were seen with visit frequencies to certain specialties.

Delayed Pressure Urticaria: A Systematic Review of Treatment Options

BACKGROUND

Delayed pressure urticaria (DPU) is characterized by recurrent erythematous and often painful swelling after the skin is exposed to sustained pressure. Treatment is challenging. Antihistamines, the first-line and only approved treatment, are often not effective.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the treatment options for DPU.

METHOD

A literature search of electronic databases for all relevant articles published till April 29, 2019, was conducted using the search terms "delayed pressure urticaria" and "pressure urticaria." This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (8 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 10 retrospective cohort studies, and 3 open-label prospective studies) were included. Second-generation H₁ antihistamines (sgAHs) were effective in 3 RCTs. The combination of an sgAH and montelukast (2 RCTs) or an sgAH and theophylline (1 non-RCT) was more effective than the sgAH alone. The disease improved with omalizumab (4 non-RCTs), sulphones (3 non-RCTs), oral prednisolone (1 RCT and 2 non-RCTs), intravenous immunoglobulin (1 non-RCT), and gluten-free diet (1 non-RCT). There are no studies on updosing of antihistamines over standard dosage in DPU.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of studies on DPU is low. Because of the lack of other evidence, antihistamines remain the first-line therapy. Updosing of sgAHs could be considered in patients with uncontrolled symptoms on the basis of the extrapolation of evidence from chronic spontaneous urticaria, even though there is no evidence of its efficacy over standard dosage. Addition of montelukast may be considered. Omalizumab or sulphones may be used in treatment-resistant patients. High-quality DPU studies should be conducted.

Treatment of Refractory Chronic Urticaria

Chronic spontaneous urticaria is a distressing disease encountered frequently in clinical practice. The current mainstay of therapy is the use of second-generation, non-sedating antihistamines. However, in patients who do not respond satisfactorily to these agents, a variety of other drugs are used. This article examines the available literature for frequently used agents including systemic corticosteroids, leukotriene receptor antagonists, dapsone, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, H2 antagonists, methotrexate, cyclosporine A, omalizumab, autologous serum therapy, and mycophenolate mofetil, with an additional focus on publications in Indian literature.

Urticária de pressão tardia com manifestações sistêmicas: relato de caso

A Urticária de Pressão Tardia é considerada uma doença rara, cujo quadro clínico é diferente da urticária clássica e pode envolver manifestações sistêmicas. Sendo assim,o diagnóstico é pouco frequente, até mesmo pelos especialistas. Neste artigo, apresentamos uma paciente, com história típica de lesões desencadeadas por pressão e que, por apresentar febre e leucocitose, foi internada para investigação de quadro infeccioso.

EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO guideline: management of urticaria

This guideline, together with its sister guideline on the classification of urticaria (Zuberbier T, Asero R, Bindslev-Jensen C, Canonica GW, Church MK, Giménez-Arnau AM et al. EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO Guideline: definition, classification and diagnosis of urticaria. Allergy 2009;64: 1417-1426), is the result of a consensus reached during a panel discussion at the Third International Consensus Meeting on Urticaria, Urticaria 2008, a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-funded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2)LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO). As members of the panel, the authors had prepared their suggestions regarding management of urticaria before the meeting. The draft of the guideline took into account all available evidence in the literature (including Medline and Embase searches and hand searches of abstracts at international allergy congresses in 2004-2008) and was based on the existing consensus reports of the first and the second symposia in 2000 and 2004. These suggestions were then discussed in detail among the panel members and with the over 200 international specialists of the meeting to achieve a consensus using a simple voting system where appropriate. Urticaria has a profound impact on the quality of life and effective treatment is, therefore, required. The recommended first line treatment is new generation, nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines. If standard dosing is not effective, increasing the dosage up to four-fold is recommended. For patients who do not respond to a four-fold increase in dosage of nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines, it is recommended that second-line therapies should be added to the antihistamine treatment. In the choice of second-line treatment, both their costs and risk/benefit profiles are most important to consider. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their unavoidable severe adverse effects. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).

Desloratadine in combination with montelukast suppresses the dermographometer challenge test papule, and is effective in the treatment of delayed pressure urticaria: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Delayed pressure urticaria (DPU) comes under the heading of physical urticaria. Characteristically itchy, tender or painful weals occur at sites of local pressure including the waistband, soles of the feet and palms of the hands. Lesion onset is typically 3-12 h after the application of pressure, and lesions may persist for more than 24 h. The treatment of DPU is often unsatisfactory.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of desloratadine and montelukast in the treatment of DPU.

METHODS

The study was conducted in 36 subjects affected by DPU. A challenge test with a dermographometer was administered to confirm the diagnosis. After diagnosis, patients were randomized to receive the following treatment once daily for 2 weeks: (i) oral desloratadine 5 mg plus oral placebo; (ii) oral desloratadine 5 mg plus montelukast 10 mg; and (iii) oral placebo alone.

RESULTS

At rechallenge, patients from the treatment groups (desloratadine plus montelukast group and desloratadine alone group) demonstrated a significant reduction in mean diameter of papules after 70 s of pressure compared with the placebo group (P < 0.05). Moreover, patients treated with desloratadine plus montelukast showed a significant reduction in mean diameter of papules at 70 s of pressure compared with those treated with desloratadine alone (P < 0.05). In addition, the combination was effective in improving clinical parameters (erythema, oedema and pruritus, and number of separate urticarial episodes).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has demonstrated that both desloratadine alone and desloratadine plus montelukast administered once daily yield improvements with respect to the baseline assessment, regarding the suppression of the dermographometer challenge test papule and clinical improvement of urticaria. However, the combination of desloratadine and montelukast was shown to be more efficacious and may therefore be proposed in patients with DPU, in order to avoid corticosteroid therapy.

EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF guideline: management of urticaria

This guideline is the result of a consensus reached during a panel discussion at the second International Consensus Meeting on Urticara, Urticaria 2004, a joint initiative of the EAACI Dermatology Section and GA2LEN. Urticaria has a profound impact on the quality of life, and effective treatment is therefore required. The recommended first line treatment are nonsedating H1 antihistamines. They have proven to be effective in double-blind controlled studies, but dosages increased up to fourfold over the recommended doses may be necessary. However, for different urticaria subtypes and in view of individual variation in the course of the disease and response to treatment, additional or alternative therapies may be required. Immunosuppressive drugs like cyclosporin A and corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to unavoidable severe adverse effects. This guideline was, in addition, accepted by the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and formally approved by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).

Clobetasol propionate 0·05% in a novel foam formulation is safe and effective in the short-term treatment of patients with delayed pressure urticaria: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Delayed pressure urticaria (DPU) is characterized by the appearance of typical painful skin lesions (weals) after pressure stimulus. Oral corticosteroids are effective treatments but long-term therapy is problematic. A new topical formulation of clobetasol propionate 0.05% in thermophobic foam (CF) (Olux) has recently become available. The foam is easy to apply, with low skin residues.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial the efficacy, tolerability and safety of CF in the topical treatment of DPU.

METHODS

Twenty-six subjects with a positive history of DPU (13 men, mean age 44 years) were enrolled in a 4-week trial. CF or the corresponding placebo were applied twice daily. Drug application was performed in the most affected areas and in a target area where a standardized pressure challenge test was performed at baseline and at week 4. Efficacy was evaluated by scoring skin lesions regarding erythema, oedema and itching (0, no sign; 4, severe signs) and by calculating the area of the pressure challenge-induced lesion. Safety was evaluated by measuring plasma levels of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and cortisol.

RESULTS

CF significantly (P = 0.0001) reduced lesion area by 84% in comparison with baseline values and by 97% in comparison with the placebo group values. Lesion area in the CF group was reduced from 144 cm(2) to 21 cm(2) at the end of the study. No significant differences in lesion area and clinical lesion scores were observed in the placebo group (lesion area 201 cm(2) at baseline; 216 cm(2) after 4 weeks). A significant clinical improvement was observed in all treated skin areas in the CF group. Mean +/- SD erythema score was reduced by CF from 1.8 +/- 0.6 at baseline to 0.6 +/- 0.5 at the end of the treatment (P = 0.001). Similar modifications were observed also for oedema (from 1.6 +/- 0.6 to 0.2 +/- 0.5) and itching score. Nonsignificant modifications of plasma levels of ACTH, cortisol and glucose were observed in both study groups, in comparison with baseline values. No adverse events were recorded during the trial in either treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

CF is effective, safe, convenient and well tolerated in the short-term treatment of DPU.

Bullous delayed pressure urticaria: pathogenic role for eosinophilic granulocytes?

Bullous delayed pressure urticaria (DPU) is a rare variant of DPU. Treatment of DPU is difficult and the underlying pathogenic mechanism of DPU remains elusive. We report a 72-year-old man with DPU and associated chronic urticaria as well as delayed urticarial dermographism. Pressure challenge gave rise to a deep weal covered by multiple vesicles and bullae after 24 h. Histological examination of a skin biopsy specimen obtained 24 h after pressure challenge demonstrated intraepidermal bullae filled with eosinophils accompanied by a dense, predominantly eosinophilic infiltrate in the dermis. Whereas the numbers and morphology of mast cells were unaltered, the extracellular deposition of eosinophil cationic protein revealed evidence for eosinophil activation. Concomitantly, both CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes were present in the infiltrate and expressed interleukin 5. As bullous DPU may represent the maximal variant of DPU, the investigation of the cellular infiltrate and the chemokines/cytokines released may reveal potential pathogenic mechanisms. A possible effector role of eosinophilic granulocytes, T-cell subsets and mast cells is discussed.

Effect of high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin in delayed pressure urticaria

BACKGROUND

Delayed pressure urticaria (DPU) is difficult to treat. High-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has been found to be effective in treating patients with autoimmune chronic urticaria.

OBJECTIVES

To report the effect of IVIG on eight patients with severe unremitting DPU.

METHODS

IVIG was administered at a dose of 2 g kg-1 over 2-3 days on an in-patient basis. The response to treatment was assessed subjectively and recorded as remission, improved or unchanged. An autologous serum skin test (ASST) was performed in seven patients.

RESULTS

Three of eight patients achieved remission; two after one infusion and one after three infusions. Two patients improved. Three patients remained unchanged; of these, two declined further treatment after two infusions, and one failed to improve after six infusions at monthly intervals. Four of seven patients had positive ASST; three responded to IVIG. Two developed delayed positive ASST; both responded to IVIG. Of three patients with negative ASST, two responded.

CONCLUSIONS

IVIG induced remission or improved symptoms in five of eight patients with DPU with severe unremitting disease who had failed to respond to other therapies or were controlled only with systemic corticosteroids. Those who responded did so with three or fewer infusions. ASST is not a reliable predictor of response to IVIG.

Delayed pressure urticaria

Delayed pressure urticaria is a physical urticaria where erythematous, often painful swellings occur at sites of sustained pressure on the skin, after a delay of several hours. If sought, it is present in up to 40% of patients with ordinary chronic "idiopathic urticaria" to a varying degree. Compared with other urticarias, the pressure-induced lesions impair the quality of life of patients most severely. The pathogenesis is not well characterized, but whealing is dependent on mast cell activation, with the histology of lesions also showing a deep dermal inflammatory infiltrate of neutrophils and eosinophils, without vasculitis. Treatment of delayed pressure is generally unsatisfactory, and is often resistant to antihistamine and a range of anti-inflammatory medication. Oral steroids, although the most effective therapy, are unsuitable for long-term use. Delayed pressure urticaria may persist for many years, and improved or novel methods of management are under investigation.