Efficacy and safety of rupatadine in Japanese adult and adolescent patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trial

A single-dose, randomized, open-label, four-period, crossover equivalence trial comparing the clinical similarity of the proposed biosimilar rupatadine fumarate to reference Wystamm® in healthy Chinese subjects

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence of two formulations of rupatadine (10-mg tablets) under fasting and fed conditions in healthy Chinese subjects.

Methods

A total of 72 subjects were randomly assigned to the fasting cohort (n = 36) and fed cohort (n = 36). Each cohort includes four single-dose observation periods and 7-day washout intervals. Blood samples were collected at several timepoints for up to 72 h post-dose. The plasma concentration of rupatadine and the major active metabolites (desloratadine and 3-hydroxydesloratadine) were analyzed by a validated HPLC-MS/MS method. The non-compartmental analysis method was employed to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters. Based on the within-subject standard deviation of the reference formulation, a reference-scaled average bioequivalence or average bioequivalence method was used to evaluate the bioequivalence of the two formulations.

Results

For the fasting status, the reference-scaled average bioequivalence method was used to evaluate the bioequivalence of the maximum observed rupatadine concentration (Cmax; subject standard deviation > 0.294), while the average bioequivalence method was used to evaluate the bioequivalence of the area under the rupatadine concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last detectable concentration (AUC0-t) and from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞). The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the test/reference for Cmax was 95.91%, and the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was 95.91%. For AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ comparisons, the GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were 98.76% (93.88%-103.90%) and 98.71% (93.93%-103.75%), respectively. For the fed status, the subject standard deviation values of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were all <0.294; therefore, the average bioequivalence method was used. The GMR and 90% CI for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were 101.19% (91.64%-111.74%), 98.80% (94.47%-103.33%), and 98.63% (94.42%-103.03%), respectively. The two-sided 90% CI of the GMR for primary pharmacokinetic endpoints of desloratadine and 3-hydroxydesloratadine was also within 80%-125% for each cohort. These results met the bioequivalence criteria for highly variable drugs. All adverse events (AEs) were mild and transient.

Conclusion

The test drug rupatadine fumarate showed a similar safety profile to the reference drug Wystamm® (J. Uriach y Compañía, S.A., Spain), and its pharmacokinetic bioequivalence was confirmed in healthy Chinese subjects based on fasting and postprandial status.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html, identifier CTR20213217.

An update on the use of antihistamines in managing chronic urticaria

INTRODUCTION

Urticaria, a mast cell-mediated skin disease, manifests as acute or chronic, with the latter divided into spontaneous and inducible types and requires individualized management, including identifying triggers and comorbidities. Antihistamines, particularly the second generation group, form the mainstay of primary treatment plans consisting of dosage adjustments and/or in combination with other treatment modalities depending on underlying disease control.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was conducted using 'antihistamines,' 'urticaria,' 'pharmacogenomics,' 'genomics,' 'biomarkers' and 'treatment response' as key words. In this review, we focus on the comprehensive understanding and application of antihistamines in managing adult and adolescent patients with chronic urticaria.

EXPERT OPINION

Using antihistamines to treat urticaria is set to change significantly, focusing more on personalized medicine and identifying key biomarkers to enhance treatment response prediction. These changes aim to make treatments more specific and cost-effective by avoiding unnecessary tests. Applying new approaches in everyday clinical care faces challenges like proving the biomarkers' reliability, updating current guidelines, and incorporating individualized treatments into standard procedures. Efforts should now concentrate on finding easy-to-use biomarkers, improving access to pharmacogenomics, understanding why some patients are resistant to treatment, and creating more specific treatment options based on patient needs.

How to handle off-label prescriptions of rupatadine, a second-generation antihistamine and PAF antagonist: a review

The off-label use of second-generation antihistamines, used outside of the formal indications authorized by regulatory authorities, in different age groups, doses or in special populations, is very common for many allergic, autoimmune and dermatological diseases. The off-label use of rupatadine (a second-generation antihistamine with PAF antagonist activity) in these conditions is reviewed here, including in combination with immunotherapy in the treatment of food allergy or allergic rhinitis, at high doses in chronic urticaria, and with prescriptions of less common but challenging conditions such as skin pruritus or mast cell activation disorders like mastocytosis. Rupatadine use is reviewed herein to confirm if its off-label management is supported by well-designed clinical trials or by published real-world cases. This review will contribute to increasing compliance and achieving better results in clinical practice. Off-label use of rupatadine should be left to the discretion of the prescribing healthcare professional after careful clinical evaluation.

Evidence-based use of antihistamines for treatment of allergic conditions

Available since the 1940s, H1 antihistamines are mainstay treatments for allergic conditions such as allergic rhinitis and urticaria. They function as inverse agonists that bind to the H1 receptor to inhibit histamine-induced inflammation. The older, first-generation drugs are no longer recommended for patient use because of their well-documented negative adverse effect profile. Evidence has been accumulating to support a newer generation of H1 antihistamines in oral and intranasal formulations, including in combination with intranasal corticosteroids. The literature is replete with large meta-analyses and systematic reviews establishing the safety and efficacy of second-generation H1 antihistamines in adult and pediatric allergic rhinitis populations, including combination nasal spray agents (eg, MP29-02 or MP-AzeFlu). Although intraclass differences do exist, patient preference, access, and costs should be the priority. Robust data on the regular, not as needed use of H1 antihistamines for urticaria have been published, including in the management of children and pregnant or lactating women. In addition, H1 antihistamines can be used in other related allergic conditions, such as the secondary symptoms of anaphylaxis, to provide patients with greater comfort, including in allergic asthma, depending on the individual.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of drug therapy for chronic urticaria: a network meta-analysis and risk-benefit assessment

BACKGROUND

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a prevalent chronic skin condition characterized by recurrent wheals. Clinical guidelines recommend multiple drugs for CU treatment. Our study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of drug therapy for CU.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies (RWSs) in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to assess the response rate, decline in Urticaria Activity Score over 7 Days (UAS7), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and adverse event rates of standard-dose and high-dose H1 antihistamine (H1AH), omalizumab (OMA) 75, 150, and 300 mg, cyclosporine and placebo. The risk-benefit assessment was conducted by probabilistic simulation and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA).

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies were identified, including 37 RCTs and 2 RWSs. OMA 300 mg and 150 mg both had significantly higher response rate than standard-dose H1AH (p < 0.05, respectively). OMA 300 mg and 150 mg both consistently led to a huge drop in UAS7 and DLQI compared to standard-dose H1AH and high-dose H1AH (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Regarding risk-benefit assessment, OMA 300 mg emerges as the optimal pharmacological intervention for CU, while OMA 150 mg stands as a secondary alternative compared to H1 antihistamines and cyclosporine.

Comparative Safety Profiles of Individual Second-Generation H1-Antihistamines for the Treatment of Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The comparative safety and/or dosing regimens of individual second-generation H1-antihistamines (sgAHs) in patients with chronic urticaria (CU) remain poorly elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety profiles of individual sgAHs and/or dosing regimens in adolescents or adult patients with CU using a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all available evidence.

METHODS

With limited English publications, electronic databases and gray literature were searched for randomized clinical trials from inception, with searches last updated on January 20, 2023. Relevant safety outcomes included treatment unacceptability (all-cause discontinuation), tolerability (discontinuation due to any adverse events), adverse events, serious adverse events, central nervous system (CNS) side effects, and anticholinergic side effects. Regarding the network estimates, the probability of being associated with the highest adverse outcome risk was estimated for each treatment comparison.

RESULTS

Fifty-one randomized clinical trials with 14 individual sgAHs and different dosing regimens, involving 7502 participants, were included. On the basis of the findings from network meta-analyses, variations in sgAH treatment comparisons were observed regarding the unacceptability of treatment, tolerability, adverse events, and CNS side effects. There were no statistically significant differences between the results of sgAH treatment for serious adverse events and those for anticholinergic side effects. On the basis of the ranking of safety profiles, emedastine 4 mg, mizolastine 10 mg, and cetirizine 10 mg were the top 3 ranked treatments with unfavorable safety profiles associated with CNS side effects and any adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest evidence of variations in safety profiles among sgAHs for CU treatment, particularly in terms of adverse events and CNS side effects.

The efficacy and safety of high-dose nonsedating antihistamines in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Standard doses of second-generation H₁-antihistamines (sgAHs) as first-line treatment are not always effective in treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and hence an increase in the dose of sgAHs is recommended. However, literature evaluating the efficacy and safety of this treatment remains inconclusive, highlighting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-dose sgAHs compared with standard-dose sgAHs in treating CSU.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCT) utilizing multiple doses of sgAHs was performed by searching the electronic databases Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane databases, and Web of Science. Bibliographies were also manually searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for assessing risk of bias was used to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias independently. The response rate, the number of adverse events, somnolence, and withdrawal due to adverse events were extracted from each article. The data were combined and analyzed to quantify the safety and efficacy of the treatment. RevMan (V5.3) software was used for data synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies were identified, seven of which met the eligibility criteria for the meta-analysis. Our pooled meta-analyses showed that high-dose sgAHs was associated with a significantly higher response rate than standard-dose (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26; P = 0.02). Conversely, high doses of sgAHs were associated with significantly higher somnolence rates than standard dose (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events between standard- and high-dose treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses showed that a high dose of sgAHs (up to two times the standard dose) might be more effective than a standard dose in CSU treatment. High-dose and standard-dose sgAHs showed similar adverse events, except for somnolence, where incidence was found to be dose-dependent in some studies. However, given the limited number of studies, our meta-analysis results should be interpreted with caution.

Loratadine vs Rupatadine: Unearthing the Capital Choice in Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria (CIU) - A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background:

Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria (CIU) is a debilitating disease characterised by almost daily presence of urticarial symptoms like short-lived wheals, itching, and erythema for at least 6 weeks without an identifiable cause there by leading to impairment of quality of life of the patient.

Aim:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of loratadine and rupatadine in chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Methods:

This is a prospective, randomized, single-blind, parallel arm study conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of loratadine and rupatadine in patients with CIU. The study was registered prospectively with Clinical Trial registry of India (CTRI/2017/05/008624). Institutional Ethics Committee clearance was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants before enrolment into the trial. The study was conducted in the outpatient department of Dermatology, SRM Medical College, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, India, during the period from June 2017 to August 2018. Patients with CIU enrolled into the study based on inclusion-exclusion criteria were given the intervention drugs; Loratadine 10 mg once daily or rupatadine10 mg once daily orally for 6 weeks.

Results:

Rupatadine is more efficacious than loratadine in the reduction of Total Leucocyte Count, Differential Count and Absolute Eosinophil Count, the key determinants of allergy. Rupatadine also produced better improvement in Total symptom Score, Dermatology Life Quality Index in patients with CIU.

Conclusion:

Analysis of all the parameters of efficacy and safety establishes the probable superiority of rupatadine over loratadine for the treatment of urticaria.

Management of Pediatric Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Review of Current Evidence and Guidelines

Chronic urticaria (CU) is associated with debilitating symptoms such as pruritic wheals and/or angioedema, which can significantly affect patients’ sleep, productivity and quality of life. Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is defined in cases in which no triggering factor is identified. Various guidelines directing the optimal management of CU in the adult population were published and updated over the recent years with the most accepted and widely used being the EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO 2017 guidelines. Meanwhile, guidelines specific to the pediatric population are scarce, mainly due to the fact that high quality evidence is lacking for many treatment options in this age group. The objective of this article is to review and synthesize the existing literature regarding the management of pediatric CSU. Our review highlights evidence supporting the EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO 2017 treatment guidelines with non-sedating second-generation antihistamines (sgAHs) as the mainstay of treatment for pediatric CSU, considering their demonstrated efficacy and reassuring safety profile. Additionally, the use of omalizumab in adolescents is well supported by the current literature. There is limited data available regarding the updosing of sgAHs, omalizumab in children with CSU under 12 years of age and the treatment with cyclosporine and leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) in pediatric patients of all ages. However, the results from currently available case series and case reports are promising for omalizumab and cyclosporine use in children with CSU, although large and well-designed randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing these treatment options are needed in order to formulate strong recommendations for their use. First-generation antihistamines (fgAHs) remain commonly used in pediatric CSU treatment despite a lack of studies assessing their efficacy and safety in the pediatric population and their widely known inferior safety profile compared to sgAHs.

Long-term safety and efficacy of rupatadine in Japanese patients with itching due to chronic spontaneous urticaria, dermatitis, or pruritus: A 12-month, multicenter, open-label clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Rupatadine is a novel H1 antihistamine with platelet-activating factor antagonist activity. Its efficacy and safety on pruritic skin diseases have been demonstrated by 10mg/day rupatadine in a two weeks clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of rupatadine in the management of pruritus, and the clinical effect of updosing to 20mg in Japanese adult and adolescent patients.

METHODS

In this 52-week, multicenter, open-label clinical trial (JapicCTI-152787), 206 patients (132, eczema or dermatitis; 58, pruritus; and 16, chronic spontaneous urticaria) received the study medication. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in the total pruritus score to Week 2 by treatment with rupatadine 10mg once daily. From Week 3 to Week 52, rupatadine updosing to 20mg was allowed.

RESULTS

The mean [95% CI] change from baseline to Week 2 in the total pruritus score was -1.241 [-1.450, -1.033] (paired t test, P< 0.001). The therapeutic effect persisted up to Week 52 (paired t test, P< 0.001). Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported at an overall incidence of 18.0% (45 events in 37 patients). No serious or clinically significant ADRs were reported. Somnolence was the most common ADR (14.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical trial demonstrated the short- and long-term benefits of rupatadine in the management of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, dermatitis, and pruritus. Rupatadine 10 and 20mg doses are effective for the treatment of itch in adults and adolescents, and can be used safely on a long-term basis.

Characterization of chronic urticaria and associated conditions in a large population of adolescents

BACKGROUND

Although chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) affects all age groups, data regarding CSU in adolescents is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the epidemiology, demographics, and comorbidities associated with CSU in a large, cross-sectional nationwide population of adolescents.

METHODS

Medical records of 16-year-old candidate conscripts to the Israeli Defense Forces were reviewed. Data were collected on the prevalence and severity of CSU, as well as the demographics, medical comorbidities, medication use, and blood test results of affected individuals.

RESULTS

Medical records of 1,108,833 consecutive 16-year-old adolescents were reviewed. A total of 6617 (0.6%) adolescents received CSU diagnoses. CSU was increased in female conscripts (odds ratio [OR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.19, P < .001) and adolescents with higher socioeconomic scores (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.56-2.32, P < .001). Individuals with CSU were significantly more likely to have allergic diseases, including food allergy (OR 7.31, 95% CI 6.13-8.72), allergic rhinitis (OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.71-3.11), atopic dermatitis (OR 2.35, 95% CI 2.03-2.72), and asthma (OR 1.46, CI 1.35-1.57).

CONCLUSION

Our work provides an account of CSU in a large cohort of adolescents. We found a strong link between CSU and atopic diseases. Further investigation is needed to decipher the mechanism underlying this observed association.