The effectiveness of levocetirizine and desloratadine in up to 4 times conventional doses in difficult-to-treat urticaria

Quality of life measurement in assessing treatment effectiveness in urticaria: European experts position statement

In this study, the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and Urticaria and Angioedema has examined the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) measurement in the treatment of urticaria. The Dermatology Life Quality Index was the most frequently used HRQoL instrument in clinical trials on urticaria. Many reports of clinical trials of urticaria gave no exact numeric results related to HRQoL changes, making clear conclusions and comparisons with other studies impossible. The interpretation of HRQoL impairment data is more difficult when assessed by instruments without severity stratification systems. The minimal clinically significant difference (MCID) is a more clinically oriented and relevant parameter than depending on statistically significant changes in HRQoL scores. Therefore, using HRQoL instruments with established MCID data in clinical trials and clinical practice is preferred.

Quality of life measurement in urticaria: Position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and Urticaria and Angioedema

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces on quality of life (QoL) and patient-oriented outcomes and on urticaria and angioedema recommendations for the assessment of Health-related (HR) QoL in all patients with urticaria in research and practice are as follows: to use the DLQI for adults and the CDLQI for children as dermatology-specific and the CU-Q2oL as a disease-specific HRQoL instruments in urticaria; to use generic instruments to provide comparison of data on urticaria with non-dermatologic diseases, or to compare with healthy volunteers or the general population; to select validated HRQoL instruments with appropriate age limits; to present exact numeric data for HRQoL results; correct title of any HRQoL instrument should be used, along with its correct abbreviation and the reference to its original publication, where possible. The EADV TFs discourage the use of non-validated HRQoL instruments and modified HRQoL instruments that have not undergone standard validation.

Immunopathogenesis of urticaria: a clinical perspective on histamine and cytokine involvement

BACKGROUND

Urticaria is a clinical condition characterized by the appearance of wheals (hives), angioedema, or both. Over the last several decades, a better understanding of the mechanisms at play in the immunopathogenesis of urticaria has underscored the existence of numerous urticaria subtypes. Separating the different kinds of urticaria explicitly helps find the best detection method for the management of this skin disorder. Subtypes of urticaria also include both spontaneous and physical types. The conventional ones include spontaneous urticaria, constituting both acute and chronic urticaria. Therefore, a broad and effective therapy is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of urticaria.

METHODS

To understand the immunopathogenesis of urticaria, various databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were used to retrieve original articles and reviews related to urticaria. While information on several clinical trials were obtained from clinicaltrials.gov database.

RESULTS

This article highlights the immunopathogenesis involved in the intricate interaction between cellular infiltration, immune reactions, coagulation cascades, and autoantibodies that underlie urticaria's pathophysiology.

CONCLUSION

The recent progress in understanding urticaria can help to understand the intricate characteristics in the immunopathogenesis of urticaria and could play a beneficial role in the management of urticaria.

Clinical Characteristics, Investigations and Treatment in Children with Chronic Urticaria: An Observational Study

Background and Objectives: The guidelines for chronic urticaria in children contain recommendations that are often based on adult studies. The diagnostic pathway has not been standardized and the effectiveness of anti-H1, omalizumab, montelukast, and systemic glucocorticoids is rarely reported in the pediatric population. There is a wide variation in the rate of remission of chronic urticaria between studies. The aim of this study is to enhance our understanding of pediatric chronic urticaria. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 37 children with chronic urticaria aged from 0 to 18 years. Demographic parameters, medical history, clinical features, laboratory data and treatment information were collected. Children were treated with the recommended dosage of second-generation H1-antihistamines, which was increased by up to twofold. Omalizumab was added for refractory anti-H1 patients. A three-day course with systemic glucocorticoids was administered for severe exacerbations. Montelukast was administered to some children. Results: Wheals without angioedema were common. Chronic urticaria was spontaneous in 32 children (86.48%), inducible in 2 (5.41%), induced by a parasite in 1 and vasculitic in 2. Treatment of the potential causes of chronic urticaria was of no benefit, except for eradication of Dientamoeba fragilis. Chronic urticaria was resolved within three years in 45.9% of cases. Allergic diseases were present in nine children (24.32%) and autoimmune diseases were present in three (8.11%). All children were treated with anti-H1 at the licensed dose or at a higher dose. A partial or complete response to anti-H1 was observed in 29 (78.38%) patients. Montelukast showed no benefit. All children treated with omalizumab responded. Systemic glucocorticoids were successfully used to treat exacerbations. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that laboratory tests should not be routinely performed in children with chronic urticaria without clinical suspicion. However, comorbidities such as thyroid autoimmune disease and coeliac disease are suggested to be monitored over the chronic urticaria course. These clinical conditions could be diagnosed from the diagnostic framework of chronic urticaria. Increasing the dosage of anti-H1 and omalizumab was effective in children resistant to standard treatment but we still need further studies to generate a standard patient-centered treatment.

[Approved therapies and their effects on the main symptoms of urticaria : When symptom control of itchy wheals is not adequate-does updosing help?]

International guidelines for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria support the updosing of second-generation antihistamines to four times of the approved dose when adequate symptom control cannot be achieved with the standard dosage. However, this recommendation is primarily based on expert opinions, and there is a lack of large, well-designed, double-blind clinical trials. Most the existing trials provide insufficient data, and due to the heterogeneity of the conducted trials on antihistamine effects (definition of control, design, quality, lack of an active comparator, no placebo arm, small sample size, outcomes) and their short duration, comparative analysis is challenging. However, it can be concluded that the use of modern second-generation antihistamines is both effective and safe based on the available data and our own long-term experiences in the specialized outpatient clinic of a university dermatology department, even though increased dosages (up to fourfold as per the current international guidelines) may be necessary for symptom control. Another therapeutic option for refractory symptoms in chronic spontaneous urticaria is subcutaneous administration of omalizumab at a dosage of 300 mg at 4‑week intervals as a very safe and effective treatment.

The Efficacy and Safety of High Dose (10 mg) of Desloratadine (Dazit® 10) in the Treatment of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria in India: A Phase III, Multicentric, Open-Label, Single-Arm Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a debilitating affliction that affects diverse quality of life (QoL) parameters such as sleep, self-esteem, and daily activities. Second-generation antihistamines, such as desloratadine, are more effective and safer in managing CSU. Desloratadine is a nonsedating, potent, and highly selective H1 receptor antagonist. At its daily dose of 5 mg, almost half of CSU patients do not show symptomatic improvement. European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)/Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN)/European Dermatology Forum (EDF) (EuroGuiDerm)/Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (APAAACI) guidelines recommend increasing the dosage to up to four times in such nonresponsive patients. However, there is insufficient clinical evidence in Indian settings.

METHOD

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of 10 mg desloratadine (OD) in 256 nonresponsive patients with moderate to severe CSU. The primary outcome was the change in Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) from baseline to four weeks. Additionally, change in Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life (CU-Q2oL) scores during the course of treatment was also evaluated.

RESULT

The mean UAS7 scores showed a significant reduction from 31.9 ± 4.8 at baseline to 18.2 ± 8.1 at the end of the study (p < 0.0001). The use of a higher dose of desloratadine also decreased the CU-Q2oL scores significantly from 59.8 ± 14.7 at baseline to 35.4 ± 10 at four weeks (p < 0.0001). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) possibly linked to the drug was low (1.6%), and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Results indicated improvements in the disease severity as well as its positive impact on participants' QoL. This study confirms the efficacy and safety of daily use of a twofold dose of desloratadine in nonresponsive moderate to severe CSU patients.

Efficacy and safety of on-demand versus daily rupatadine in chronic spontaneous urticaria: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Non-sedating H1 -antihistamines (nsAH) are the most commonly used treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Many patients use them as on-demand (OD) therapy rather than a maintenance treatment. Here, we compared OD versus daily maintenance treatment with the nsAH rupatadine, assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing, and investigated potential long-term disease-modifying effects.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized study consisted of 2 weeks of screening, 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, and 6 weeks of treatment-free follow-up (OD allowed). Adult patients were randomized to 10 mg rupatadine OD or 10 mg rupatadine daily. At Week 4, if patients did not have a complete response, they switched from 10 to 20 mg rupatadine daily or underwent sham updosing (patients on 10 mg rupatadine OD). The primary aim was to compare CSU disease activity at the end of follow-up between daily versus OD. Additionally, we assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing. Major outcomes were disease activity, CSU-related quality of life (QoL), and disease control.

RESULTS

At Week 4, disease activity and QoL significantly improved in daily versus OD-treated patients. Updosing of rupatadine did not improve the mean disease activity, but the number of complete responders increased during updosing from 5% to 22%. At the end of follow-up, the disease activity of patients treated OD versus daily was not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily rupatadine treatment significantly improved CSU disease activity and QoL during treatment versus OD treatment but not after discontinuation of rupatadine, indicating the benefits of a daily maintenance nsAH schedule.

Efficacy of Second-Line Treatments in Chronic Urticaria Refractory to Standard Dose Antihistamines

PURPOSE

The prevalence of chronic urticaria (CU) is increasing worldwide, and it imposes a major burden on patients. Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of second-line treatments of CU, particularly for patients being considered for costly third-line treatments such as omalizumab. We compared the efficacy and safety of second-line treatments of CU refractory to standard doses of nonsedating H₁-antihistamines (nsAHs).

METHODS

This 4-week, prospective, randomized, open-label trial divided patients into 4 treatment groups: 4-fold updosing of nsAHs, multiple combination of 4 nsAHs, switching to other nsAHs, and adjunctive H₂-receptor antagonist. The clinical outcomes included urticaria control status, symptoms, and rescue medication use.

RESULTS

This study included 109 patients. After 4 weeks of second-line treatment, urticaria was well-controlled, partly controlled, and uncontrolled in 43.1%, 36.7%, and 20.2% of patients, respectively. Complete control of CU was achieved in 20.4% of patients. Among the patients with high-dose nsAHs, the proportion with well-controlled status was higher compared to the patients who received standard doses (51.9% vs. 34.5%, P = 0.031). No significant difference was observed in the proportion of well-controlled cases between the updosing and combination treatment groups (57.7% vs. 46.4%, P = 0.616). However, increasing the dose of nsAHs 4-fold was associated with a higher rate of complete symptom control compared to multiple combination treatment with 4 nsAHs (40.0% vs. 10.7%, P = 0.030). Logistic regression analysis confirmed the higher efficacy of updosing of nsAHs for complete control of CU compared to the other treatment strategies (odds ratio, 0.180; P = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CU refractory to standard doses of nsAHs, both updosing of nsAHs 4-fold and multiple combination treatment with 4 nsAHs increased the rate of well-controlled cases without causing significant adverse effects. Updosing of nsAHs is more effective for complete CU control than combination treatment.

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.

Biowaiver Monograph for Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Levocetirizine Dihydrochloride

Levocetirizine, a histamine H1-receptor antagonist, is prescribed to treat uncomplicated skin rashes associated with chronic idiopathic urticaria as well as the symptoms of both seasonal and continual allergic rhinitis. In this monograph, the practicality of using Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) based methodologies as a substitute for pharmacokinetic studies in human volunteers to appraise the bioequivalence of immediate-release (IR) oral, solid dosage forms containing levocetirizine dihydrochloride was investigated, using data from the literature and in-house testing. Levocetirizine's solubility and permeability properties, as well as its dissolution from commercial products, its therapeutic uses, therapeutic index, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic traits, were reviewed in accordance with the BCS, along with any reports in the literature about failure to meet bioequivalence (BE) requirements, bioavailability issues, drug-excipient interactions as well as other relevant information. The data presented in this monograph unequivocally point to classification of levocetirizine in BCS Class 1. For products that are somewhat supra-equivalent or somewhat sub-equivalent, clinical risks are expected to be insignificant in light of levocetirizine's wide therapeutic index and unlikelihood of severe adverse effects. After careful consideration of all the information available, it was concluded that the BCS-based biowaiver can be implemented for products which contain levocetirizine dihydrochloride, provided (a) the test product comprises excipients that are typically found in IR oral, solid drug products that have been approved by a country belonging to or associated with ICH and are used in quantities that are typical for such products, (b) data supporting the BCS-based biowaiver are gathered using ICH-recommended methods, and (c) all in vitro dissolution requirements specified in the ICH guidance are met by both the test and comparator products (in this case, the comparator is the innovator product).

Chronic Urticaria in Older Adults: Treatment Considerations

Chronic urticaria is characterized by recurrent wheals and/or angioedema lasting for more than 6 weeks. Chronic urticaria is an extremely disabling disease limiting daily activities, compromising patient quality of life, and frequently associated with psychiatric comorbidities (depression and/or anxiety). Unfortunately, there are still gaps in the knowledge regarding treatment in special populations, especially in older patients. Indeed, there are no specific recommendations for the management and treatment of chronic urticaria in older people; therefore, recommendations for the general population are used. However, the utilization of some medications may be complicated by potential concerns of comorbidities or polypharmacy. Currently, the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for chronic urticaria in the older patient are the same as those indicated for other age groups. In particular, there is a limited number of blood chemistry investigations for spontaneous chronic urticaria and specific tests for inducible urticaria. With regard to therapy, second-generation anti-H1 antihistamines are used and, in recalcitrant cases, omalizumab (an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody) and possibly cyclosporine A are additional choices. Nonetheless, it should be underlined that in older patients the differential diagnosis can be more difficult, owing to the lower frequency of chronic urticaria and the likelihood of other pathologies that are peculiar for this age group and that can be included in the chronic urticaria differential diagnosis. As far as therapy is concerned, the physiological characteristics of these patients, the possible comorbidities, and the intake of other medications often require a very attentive drug selection for chronic urticaria compared with other age groups. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an update on the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and management of chronic urticaria in older patients.

S3 Guideline Urticaria. Part 2: Treatment of urticaria - German-language adaptation of the international S3 guideline

This publication is the second part of the German-language S3 guideline on urticaria. It covers the management of urticaria and should be used together with Part 1 of the guideline on classification and diagnosis. This publication was prepared according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system conditions in German-speaking countries. Chronic urticaria has a high impact on the quality of life and daily activities of patients. Therefore, if causal factors cannot be eliminated, effective symptomatic treatment is necessary. The recommended first-line treatment is to administer new generation, non-sedating H1 antihistamines. If the standard dose is not sufficiently effective, the dose should be increased up to fourfold. For patients who do not respond to this treatment, the second-line treatment in addition to antihistamines in the treatment algorithm is omalizumab and, if this treatment fails, ciclosporin. Other low-evidence therapeutic agents should only be used if all treatments in the treatment algorithm agreed upon by the guideline group fail. Both the benefit-risk profile and cost should be considered. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their inevitable severe side effects.

Effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine and Omalizumab in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) not controlled by optimized doses of antihistamines is referred to as refractory CSU. Add-on therapies recommended by guidelines include omalizumab, immunosuppressive, and anti-inflammatory agents.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess the real-world effectiveness of different add-on treatment options for refractory CSU in 2 large clinical practices.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted in 264 patients with refractory CSU not adequately controlled for ≥6 weeks with optimized doses of second-generation histamine-1 blockers. Omalizumab and hydroxychloroquine were the most frequently prescribed add-on therapies, allowing comparisons of clinical outcomes for these 2 agents. Complete response included absent or infrequent urticaria and patient satisfaction with treatment. Partial response was reduced hives, but requiring a second add-on therapy. Sustained response was complete response to an add-on therapy for ≥1 year.

RESULTS

Omalizumab add-on treatment was significantly more likely to be associated with a complete response versus hydroxychloroquine. Complete sustained response at 1 year was observed in 82% (111 of 134) of patients on omalizumab and 66% (73 of 111) on hydroxychloroquine as the first add-on therapy (P < .01). Patients with thyroid disease had a poorer response to add-on treatments (45% responded vs 63%; P = .03). In patients with incomplete responses to first add-on interventions (n = 45), 65% and 62% subsequently had complete responses to omalizumab and hydroxychloroquine, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although omalizumab was superior, hydroxychloroquine achieved a complete response in two-thirds of treated patients. Given a favorable safety profile, hydroxychloroquine should be considered as an add-on treatment for refractory CSU.

An evaluation of remission rates with first and second line treatments and indicators of antihistamine refractoriness in chronic urticaria

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend standard doses of antihistamines as first-line, and updosing of antihistamines as second-line treatment for the management of chronic urticaria (CU). However, remission rates with different types of first- and second-line treatments and indicators of antihistamine response are largely lacking in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

To examine response rates to first- and second-line treatments in CU, and to identify patient characteristics that can predict antihistamine treatment outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed treatment outcomes of 657 CU (556 chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), 101 chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU)) patients who had at least 3-months of follow-up data.

RESULTS

A standard dose of second generation antihistamines (sgAH) was effective in 43.1 % of the patients. An additional 28.8 % of patients were in remission with second-line treatments. Among patients whose disease was in remission with a standard dose of sgAHs, 14.8 % benefited from switching from their current sgAH to another sgAH. Updosing sgAHs, combination of two different sgAHs, sgAH and first generation H1-antihistamine combination, and sgAH and leukotriene receptor antagonist combination provided remission in 38.3 %, 35.8 %, 37.5 % and 25 % of patients who were given these treatments, respectively. Baseline UCT score ≤ 4, emergency referral and family history of CSU were found to be risk factors for antihistamine refractoriness in patients with CSU.

CONCLUSIONS

A step-wise approach to the management of CU is practical as more patients respond to treatment at each step. The presence of baseline UCT score ≤ 4, emergency referral and family history of CSU might be helpful to determine patients who require third-line treatments in advance.

Factors Associated With Refractoriness to an Up to Fourfold Dosage of Antihistamines in Isolated Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria

BACKGROUND

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common skin disease and has a significant impact on patients' quality of life. The aim of treatment is complete symptom control.

AIM

To identify potential factors associated with antihistamine-refractory isolated CSU and to determine the factors that predict response to second-generation H₁ antihistamines at dosages from one- to fourfold.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study, which included adult patients diagnosed with isolated CSU and had complete symptom control. Clinical and laboratory findings were compared between the patients who were responsive to second-generation H₁ antihistamines (< fourfold) and those who were refractory to a fourfold dose. Clinical and laboratory data were compared by dosage in the antihistamine-responsive group.

RESULTS

There were 182 isolated CSU patients who met the study criteria, of whom 150 (82.4%) were responsive to treatment with up to a fourfold dose of second-generation H₁ antihistamines, while 32 (17.6%) were refractory. In univariate analysis, age at onset, body mass index, baseline Urticaria Activity Score-7 (UAS7), white blood cell count, total neutrophil count, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, platelet count, and new generation antihistamines were significantly higher in the antihistamine-refractory group. According to multivariate analysis, baseline UAS7 was the only independent factor associated with antihistamine-refractory isolated CSU (odds ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28, P = .03). In the antihistamine-responsive group, white blood cell count tended to predict response to antihistamine treatment (P < .001, 0.04, 0.34 between onefold and twofold, twofold and threefold, and threefold and fourfold, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Baseline UAS7 was an independent factor associated with antihistamine-refractory isolated CSU.

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.

The burden of symptomatic patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: a real-world study in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) poses a considerable burden both on the quality of life (QoL) of individual patients and on healthcare systems. Real‑world data evaluating the disease burden of CSU are limited in this country. This study evaluated the disease burden and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) among symptomatic CSU patients.

METHODS

This multicenter, noninterventional, retrospective, and cross-sectional study assessed CSU patients symptomatic for more than 6 months despite step-wise H1-antihistamine medications. Primary outcomes included Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days (UAS7) and Chronic Urticaria QoL scale (CU-QoL). Secondary outcomes included EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), association of disease activity with QoL, medications used for the past 6 months, and HRU.

RESULTS

Five hundred patients with CSU were enrolled. Mean disease duration was 3.7 years. Based on UAS7, 22.2% of patients were in well-controlled status and 31.2%, 28.4%, and 18.2% of them had mild, moderate, and severe disease, respectively. Mean CU-QoL and DLQI scores were 57.5 ± 29.7 and 10.2 ± 7.6, respectively, while the EQ-5D-5L utility score was 0.8 ± 0.2. H1-antihistamines were prescribed to 95% of patients, while omalizumab was prescribed to 33% of patients. Most patients (98%) had outpatient visits in the past 6 months. Negative correlations were noted between UAS7 and CU-QoL, EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale scores, but a positive correlation was noted with DLQI score (p < 0.001 for all). The number of outpatient department visits increased with disease activity (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

CSU affects QoL, leading to increased HRU, particularly in patients with severe disease.

Effectiveness and Safety of Immunosuppressants and Biological Therapy for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Network Meta-Analysis

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is the most common phenotype of chronic urticaria. We compared treatment effects and safety profiles of the medications in patients with CSU. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science for randomized control trials (RCTs), from 1 January 2000 to 31 July 2021, which evaluated omalizumab and immunosuppressants. Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were performed with a frequentist approach. Outcome assessments considered the efficacy (Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and weekly urticaria activity score (UAS7)) and tolerability profiles with evaluations of study quality, inconsistencies, and heterogeneity. We identified 14 studies which we included in our direct and indirect quantitative analyses. Omalizumab demonstrated better efficacy in DLQI and UAS7 outcomes compared to a placebo, and UAS7 assessments also demonstrated better outcomes compared to cyclosporine. Alongside this, omalizumab demonstrated relatively lower incidences of safety concerns compared to the other immunosuppressants. Cyclosporin was also associated with higher odds of adverse events than other treatment options. Our findings indicate that omalizumab resulted in greater improvements in terms of the DLQI and UAS7 with good tolerability in CSU patients compared to the other immunosuppressants.

Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Literature Review

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterized by recurring wheals that last 6 weeks or longer without an identifiable cause. The estimated point prevalence of CSU worldwide is 1%. Furthermore, it has a significant impact on quality of life in both adults and pediatric patients and their families. Although it is most often a self-limited disease, some patients have urticaria refractory to first-line treatment: second-generation H1 antihistamines. In these patients, the use of targeted monoclonal antibodies is necessary. While omalizumab is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved monoclonal antibody for CSU, others, including ligelizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, and several orally administered Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are also promising therapeutics for reducing the morbidity of CSU. Novel therapies, among others discussed here, are rapidly being developed with new trials and therapeutics being released nearly monthly. Thus, we performed a scoping literature review of randomized controlled trials studying targeted therapies for CSU. We also discuss the pathophysiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and future research directions in CSU.

Pediatric chronic spontaneous urticaria: a brief clinician's guide

INTRODUCTION

Chronic urticaria (CU) appears with daily or intermittent/recurrent wheals with/without angioedema for more than six weeks. When no specific eliciting factors are found, chronic urticaria is defined as spontaneous (CSU). Up to 50% of patients with CSU do not respond to therapy, leading to a prolonged disease course and the need for expensive therapies, impacting the quality of life (QoL) and healthcare resources.

AREAS COVERED

: Diagnosis of CSU is made when other potential causes of chronic urticaria are excluded. CSU therapy aims to achieve complete control of symptoms and normalization of QoL. Current treatment options for urticaria aim to target mast cell mediators such as histamine, or activators, such as autoantibodies. Guidelines recommend starting with second generation antihistamines (sgAHs) and adding omalizumab therapy if symptoms are not controlled. This review aims to provide a practical guide for CSU in the pediatric population.

EXPERT OPINION

: Treatment options for pediatric CSU are primarily based on adult data that have been extrapolated for children. Current guidelines should be re-evaluated based on pediatric data, new biological treatments, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research is needed to investigate strategies to personalize current treatments and identify potential predictive biomarkers.

Taiwanese dermatological association consensus for the definition, classification, diagnosis, and management of urticaria: A 2021 update

Urticaria is a prevalent disease with substantial physical, psychological, and economic impacts. With the advent of understandings of the disease and the emerging evidence of treatments, the international guidelines for treating urticaria have been updated in recent years. In order to update the 2014 edition of the Taiwanese Dermatological Association (TDA) consensus of urticaria, a total of 17 dermatologists with extensive experience in urticaria management were invited to and attended the TDA consensus meetings. All the specific aspects of the content were approved by at least 75% of the experts in attendance. Comparing to the former edition, several substantial modifications were made. For diagnosis, D-dimer was added as the recommended routine test in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria. For pharmacological management, treatment suggestions were simplified. The approved-dosed, the up-dosed second-generation antihistamines, omalizumab, and cyclosporine were listed as the first-line to the fourth-line treatment, respectively. In addition, the management for patients of special considerations, such as the elderly, children, and pregnant women, were all discussed and mentioned in the consensus. We hope the updated TDA consensus can serve as a reference for all physicians and can help the physicians providing up-to-dated managements for these patients.

Efficacy and safety of ebastine dose escalation in chronic urticaria: A prospective study

The second-generation antihistamines at licensed doses are first-line treatment in urticaria and up-dosing is recommended as second-line treatment. To assess the efficacy and safety of escalated doses of ebastine in patients with chronic urticaria (CU), we designed this study. Recruited patients with CU were treated with increasing doses of ebstine. Treatment started at the daily dose of 10 mg. The symptom is assessed weekly, and if there is no significant improvement, the dose is increased from 10 mg to 20 mg, and if still no significant improvement, up to 40 mg. Pruritus, number, diameter, duration and frequency of wheals, and adverse reactions were assessed. One hundred and forty (76.50%) patients achieved marked effect with ebastine 10 mg/day, 27 (14.75%) patients with ebastine 20 mg/day and 13 (7.10%) patients with ebastine 40 mg/day, while 3(1.64%) patients did not get marked effect. There was no significant difference of effect between factitious urticaria, CSU, cholinergic urticaria and CSU with factitious urticaria in different dose (all p > 0.05). Common adverse reactions of ebstine treatment, included dry mouth, somnolence, tiredness and headache, were mild or moderate. There was no significant difference between the degree score of dry mouth with different doses of ebastine, and the same to somnolence, tiredness and headache (all p > 0.05). Doses escalation of ebastine should be effective in treatment of factitious urticaria, CSU and cholinergic urticaria with poorly treated by standard of double doses. Increasing ebastine dose did not increase the incidence of adverse reactions.

Population-Based Incidence, Severity, and Risk Factors Associated with Treated Acute-Onset COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Hypersensitivity Reactions

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 mRNA vaccination-associated acute-onset hypersensitivity reactions have caused anxiety and may be contributing to vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence, severity, and risk factors for treated acute-onset COVID-19 mRNA vaccination-associated hypersensitivity reactions in a well-characterized population.

METHODS

All Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) members who received COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations between December 15, 2020, and March 11, 2021, at a KPSC facility were identified and characterized, along with all treated acute-onset vaccination-associated hypersensitivity events.

RESULTS

We identified 391,123 unique vaccine recipients (59.18% female, age 64.19 ± 17.86 years); 215,156 received 2 doses (53.54% Moderna), 157,615 only a first dose (50.13% Moderna) (1961 [1.46%] >2 weeks late getting a second dose), and 18,352 (74.43% Moderna) only a second dose. Only 104 (0.028%) (85.58% female, age 53.18 ± 15.96 years) had treated first dose events, 68 (0.030%) Moderna. Only 32 (0.014%) (93.75% female, age 57.28 ± 17.09 years) had treated second dose events, 21 (0.016%) Moderna. Only 2 (0.00033%) vaccinations resulted in anaphylaxis. Only 27 (20.77%) of those with treated first dose reactions failed to get a second dose. Only 6 of 77 (7.8%) with first dose reactions also had second dose reactions. Individuals with treated events were more likely to be female (P < .0001), younger (P < .0001), and had more pre-existing drug "allergies" (2.11 ± 2.12 vs 1.02 ± 1.41 [P < .0001] for average recipients).

CONCLUSIONS

Treated acute-onset hypersensitivity events were mostly benign, more common with first COVID-19 mRNA vaccine doses, more likely to occur in younger females with typical risk factors associated with multiple drug intolerance syndrome, and very unlikely to be primarily immunologically mediated.

The international EAACI/GA²LEN/EuroGuiDerm/APAAACI guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis, and management of urticaria

This update and revision of the international guideline for urticaria was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN) and its Urticaria and Angioedema Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs and ACAREs), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF; EuroGuiDerm), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology with the participation of 64 delegates of 50 national and international societies and from 31 countries. The consensus conference was held on 3 December 2020. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell-driven disease that presents with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria is disabling, impairs quality of life, and affects performance at work and school. This updated version of the international guideline for urticaria covers the definition and classification of urticaria and outlines expert-guided and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.

A Comparative, Three-Arm, Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness and Tolerability of Bilastine vs Fexofenadine vs Levocetirizine at the Standard Dose and Bilastine vs Fexofenadine at Higher Than the Standard Dose (Up-Dosing) vs Levocetirizine and Hydroxyzine (in Combination) in Patients with Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria

Introduction

Though second-generation antihistamines (SGAH) are first-line drugs in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), 50% of patients do not respond to them. In such patients, guidelines recommend either up-dosing of SGAH or combination of different antihistamines. However, the studies comparing these treatment regimens are limited.

Methods

In this comparative, three-arm study, CSU patients were randomized to receive standard dose of either bilastine, fexofenadine, or levocetirizine for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks of treatment, non-responders received double dose of either bilastine or fexofenadine, while hydroxyzine 25 mg once daily was added in the levocetirizine group. Patients were primarily evaluated for improvement in CSU, quality of life, and somnolence.

Results

A total of 110 patients with CSU were recruited. At the end of 4 weeks, 33/39, 26/35, and 22/36 patients in the bilastine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine groups showed improvement in urticaria symptoms. At week 2, there was no statistical difference in urticaria activity score (UAS7) improvement between any of the groups; however, at week 4, there was a statistical difference between the bilastine and levocetirizine groups (p<0.05). Somnolence was significantly lower in the bilastine group (p<0.05). Bilastine was statistically significant (p<0.05) in the improvement of quality of life as compared to both groups. No major adverse events were reported during study period; however, bilastine was associated with significantly lower levels of AEs compared to levocetirizine (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Two-fold up-dosing of bilastine improves CSU symptoms without compromising safety as compared to two-fold up-dosing of fexofenadine and combination of first- and second-generation antihistamines.

Evaluation of Pharmacologic Treatments for H1 Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Importance

The comparative benefits and harms of all available treatments for H1 antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) have not been established.

Objective

To evaluate different treatment effects of pharmacologic treatments among patients with H1 antihistamine-refractory CSU.

Data Sources

Searches were conducted of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL from inception to April 19, 2021, with no language restrictions. Gray literature from Google Scholar, ongoing trial registers, and preprint reports was added to the searches of electronic databases.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials using validated measurement tools that investigated the benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments among adolescent or adult patients with CSU who had an inadequate response to H1 antihistamines were screened for inclusion independently by 2 investigators.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two investigators independently extracted study data according to the predefined list of interests. A random-effects model was used to calculate the network estimates reported as standardized mean differences and odds ratios with corresponding 95% CIs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes that reflect the patient's perspective included changes in urticaria symptoms from baseline and unacceptability of treatment (all-cause dropouts).

Results

Twenty-three randomized clinical trials with 2480 participants that compared 18 different interventions or dosages and placebo were included. The standardized mean differences for change in urticaria symptoms were -1.05 (95% CI, -1.37 to -0.73) for ligelizumab, 72 mg; -1.07 (95% CI, -1.39 to -0.75) for ligelizumab, 240 mg; -0.77 (95% CI, -0.91 to -0.63) for omalizumab, 300 mg; and -0.59 (95% CI, -1.10 to -0.08) for omalizumab, 600 mg. No significant differences in treatment unacceptability were observed. With respect to benefits and harms, the network estimates illustrated that the most efficacious treatments were achieved with ligelizumab, 72 or 240 mg (large beneficial effect) and omalizumab, 300 or 600 mg (moderate beneficial effect).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings in this meta-analysis suggest that the biologic agents ligelizumab, 72 or 240 mg, and omalizumab, 300 or 600 mg, can be recommended as effective treatments for patients with CSU who have had an inadequate response to H1 antihistamines. Head-to-head trials with high methodologic quality and harmonized design and outcome definitions are needed to help inform subsequent international guidelines for the management of CSU.

The Classification, Pathogenesis, Diagnostic Workup, and Management of Urticaria: An Update

Wheals and angioedema are the signature signs of urticaria, and itch is the key symptom. Urticaria, in most patients, is acute and resolves within days (acute urticaria, AU). Chronic urticaria (CU) can be of long duration and results not only in severely impaired quality of life but also has a socioeconomic impact due to work productivity impairment. In some patients with CU, the wheals and angioedema are induced exclusively by defined and definite triggers (chronic inducible urticaria, CIndU). In most patients with CU, wheals and angioedema develop unprompted, spontaneously (chronic spontaneous urticaria, CSU). The management of CU aims for the complete control and absence of its signs and symptoms. This is achieved, in most patients, by prophylactic treatment until spontaneous remission occurs. Modern, second-generation H1-antihistamines are the first-line therapy, with the option of updosing to fourfold, and omalizumab is used when this fails.

Approach to Children with Hives

Urticaria (or hives) is a pruritic and erythematous skin rash. Angioedema commonly occurs with urticaria. The term "chronic urticaria" is used when hives are present for more than 6 weeks. Acute urticaria is common in children, whereas chronic urticaria is rare. Causes of urticaria can be identified in many cases of acute urticaria with a thorough medical history. Laboratory evaluation may be needed to confirm the etiology of acute urticaria. Chronic urticaria is often idiopathic. Clinicians should avoid universal allergy testing for food allergens or aeroallergens in chronic urticaria as it usually does not help in identifying the cause, can lead to false-positive results, and unnecessary avoidance of allergens or foods. Urticarial vasculitis should be considered for lesions that are painful, present for more than 48 hours, leave scars/hyperpigmentation, or present with systemic symptoms such as fever, weight loss, and arthritis. Skin biopsy should be considered for suspected urticarial vasculitis. [Pediatr Ann. 2021(5):e191-e197.].

Managing Chronic Urticaria and Recurrent Angioedema Differently with Advancing Age

Angioedema and urticaria affect people of all ages. Accurate diagnosis and optimum management is essential for healthy aging. Older people continue to experience mast cell-mediated urticaria and angioedema, with a higher prevalence of autoimmune and a lower prevalence of autoallergic disease. Bradykinin-mediated angioedemas are more common in the elderly because of their association with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) treatment. Acquired C1-inhibitor deficiency, another bradykinin-mediated angioedema, occurs predominantly in older people, whereas hereditary angioedema due to C1-inhibitor deficiency continues to cause symptoms, even in old age. Drug-induced angioedemas disproportionately affect older people, the most frequent users of ACEIs, aspirin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Accurate diagnosis and targeted treatment prevent unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Second-generation antihistamines with omalizumab if required are effective and well tolerated in older people with mast cell-mediated urticaria. For bradykinin-mediated angioedemas, these drugs are ineffective. C1-inhibitor replacement or blockade of kallikrein or the bradykinin B2 receptor of the contact pathway is required to treat hereditary angioedema and may be considered in other bradykinin-mediated angioedemas, if supportive treatment is insufficient. For aspirin-related angioedema and urticaria, alternative medications or, exceptionally, desensitization may be required.

Efficacy and tolerability of the updosing of second-generation non-sedating H1 antihistamines in children with chronic spontaneous urticaria

BACKGROUND

Chronic urticaria (CU), daily wheals or angioedema that lasts more than 6 weeks, is a common skin disease; CU is classified as spontaneous (no specific eliciting factor involved) or inducible (specific eliciting factor involved). Recent EAACI guidelines for management of CSU recommend second-generation non-sedating H1 antihistamines (sgAH₁ s) as initial treatment in children (weight-adjusted) as in adults, followed by increased doses (up to 4 times) if the standard dose is not effective. The efficacy and tolerability of fourfold updosing in adults are known, but there is little documentation regarding updosing in the pediatric population. This retrospective study evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of the updosing of sgAH₁ s in children with CSU in a tertiary care pediatric hospital.

METHODS

The electronic charts of patients diagnosed with CSU and referred to the Allergy Unit of Meyer Children's University hospital were reviewed during a period of 4 years. For each patient, an examination of demographic characteristics, diagnostic workup, efficacy, and tolerability of the treatment was performed. Disease activity was monitored using UAS7.

RESULTS

Sixty-six cases of CSU were identified, and all of them were treated initially with a standard dose of sgAH₁ s, followed by increased doses up to fourfold when standard dosing was not effective. 44/66 patients (66.7%) treated with sgAH₁ s responded: 25 with a standard dose, 16 with a double, 2 with threefold dose, and 1 with fourfold dose. 12/66 (18.2%) patients began a therapy with omalizumab. As for the remaining patients, 10/66 (15.1%), they are still undergoing therapy with sgAH₁ s because of the relapse of the symptoms after the stepped-down dosage. Regarding tolerability, 9/66 (13.6%) patients treated with sgAH₁ s experienced side effects: three that required treatment change and six that did not.

CONCLUSION

Our data were consistent with the tolerability of updosing of sgAH₁ s in children with CSU, although the efficacy appears to be limited to double the standard dose.

Multi-center study for acupuncture combined with Chinese medicine in the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria based on the theory of taking shu-stream points when the disease is aggravated

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common dermatologic disease that seriously affects patient quality of life. The choice of therapy to control the disease and prevent its recurrence has always presented a difficult clinical issue. Previous studies have shown that traditional Chinese medicine is a safe and effective treatment for CSU. Recently, the temporal rhythms of CSU, a disease characterized by intermittent flares of active disease and periods of little or no disease, have attracted the attention of traditional Chinese medicine researchers. We designed a multicenter, randomized, controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining a Chinese herbal formulation with acupuncture using shu-stream acupoints applied on the corresponding time meridians during disease exacerbations. We plan to recruit 111 outpatients with CSU aged 18 to 65 years. Participants will be randomized to 1 of the 3 groups: group A, which will be given basic acupuncture and the herbal formulation dangui yinzi; group B, which will be given danggui yinzi and shu-stream acupuncture; and a control group, which will be given danggui yinzi alone. Patients will be treated for 4 weeks and followed for 8 additional weeks. Investigators will evaluate the following parameters: the symptoms and side effects of treatment, quality of life (using the chronic urticaria quality of life questionnaire), and overall patient condition. Each week, patients will also complete the measurement of 7-day urticarial activity score. This is the first use of a combination of shu-stream acupoints and Chinese herbal medicine in the treatment of CSU. If successful, it will prove to be a simple, inexpensive, treatment strategy for solving a difficult clinical problem.

Second generation antihistamines: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article presents an update on the clinical pharmacology, mechanisms of action, and safety of second generation antihistamines (SGAHs).

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research has shown the efficacy and good tolerance of SGAHs supporting its indication as first line medications for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria.

SUMMARY

The information contained in this review is relevant for the correct utilization of SGAHs by practicing physicians who take care of these highly prevalent clinical disorders.

Treatment of urticaria: a clinical and mechanistic approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This manuscript describes the recommended therapy of chronic spontaneous urticaria based on our understanding of the pathogenesis of hive formation. Thus, the mechanism of action of each medication is elaborated in addition to a discussion of clinical utility.

RECENT FINDINGS

The main drugs are antihistamines, omalizumab, and cyclosporine with a success rate of 40-55, 65-80, and 70-80%, respectively. Used in sequence, over 90% of patients can be successfully treated. The addition of omalizumab represents a major advance because of its efficacy, easy utility, and favorable side-effect profile. The interaction with IgE eliminates any reaction with antigens to which it might be directed, down regulates IgE receptors on mast cells and basophils, and leads to down-regulation of mast cell functions with amelioration of hives.

SUMMARY

The use of antihistamines in high dosage (at least four times a day) is effective in close to half the patients with CSU. For antihistamine resistance, the use of omalizumab has revolutionized therapy of antihistamine-resistant cases because of its efficacy and excellent side-effect profile. If the response is insufficient, cyclosporine is the next choice. Patients should be monitored regarding any adverse effects on blood pressure or renal function. All these are far safer than extended use of corticosteroid.

Urticaria: recommendations from the Italian Society of Allergology, Asthma and Clinical Immunology and the Italian Society of Allergological, Occupational and Environmental Dermatology

BACKGROUND

Urticaria is a disorder affecting skin and mucosal tissues characterized by the occurrence of wheals, angioedema or both, the latter defining the urticaria-angioedema syndrome. It is estimated that 12-22% of the general population has suffered at least one subtype of urticaria during life, but only a small percentage (estimated at 7.6-16%) has acute urticaria, because it is usually self-limited and resolves spontaneously without requiring medical attention. This makes likely that its incidence is underestimated. The epidemiological data currently available on chronic urticaria in many cases are deeply discordant and not univocal, but a recent Italian study, based on the consultation of a national registry, reports a prevalence of chronic spontaneous urticaria of 0.02% to 0.4% and an incidence of 0.1-1.5 cases/1000 inhabitants/year.

METHODS

We reviewed the recent international guidelines about urticaria and we described a methodologic approach based on classification, pathophysiology, impact on quality of life, diagnosis and prognosis, differential diagnosis and management of all the types of urticaria.

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of the present document from the Italian Society of Allergology, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC) and the Italian Society of Allergological, Occupational and Environmental Dermatology (SIDAPA) is to provide updated information to all physicians involved in diagnosis and management of urticaria and angioedema.

Idiopathic Angioedema: Current Challenges

The etiological diagnosis of isolated recurrent angioedema poses problems because it must often be done urgently. Angioedema secondary to nonspecific mast cell activation (MC-AE) is the most frequent form and is usually mild. Bradykinin mediated angioedema (BK-AE) is rarer but potentially fatal in the absence of the correct treatment. Few biological markers exist. The C1-inhibitor (C1-inh) functional assay can exclude AE due to C1-inh deficiency. Genetic diagnoses of hereditary AE due to abnormal C1-inh AE have progressed with four currently known mutations. However, determining the physiopathological mechanism leading to some isolated AE cases is sometimes very difficult. In such cases, therapeutic tests are then the only solution: antihistamines at high doses and omalizumab for suspected MC-AE, icatibant for suspected AE-BK. Identifying new markers would be a great help.

Efficacy of switching to bilastine, a histamine H1 receptor antagonist, in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (H1-SWITCH): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterized by the spontaneous appearance of wheals, angioedema, or both for > 6 weeks. Continuous treatment with H1-antihistamines is used as a first-line treatment for CSU. However, H1-antihistamine treatment leads to absence of symptoms in less than 50% of patients with CSU. Although Japanese guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of urticaria recommend an increase in the H1-antihistamine dose or a switch to other H1-antihistamines, there is no evidence supporting a switch to other H1-antihistamines in patients with refractory CSU who are unresponsive to H1-antihistamines at the licensed dose.

METHODS

We will conduct a multicenter, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized, parallel, comparison study to determine if the efficacy of bilastine 20 mg is not inferior to that of a twofold H1-antihistamine dose increase in patients with refractory CSU who are unresponsive to H1-antihistamines at the licensed dose. This study will be performed at 15 academic hospitals in Japan, and the administration period (increasing the H1-antihistamine dose twofold vs. switching to bilastine 20 mg) will be 7 days. Participants (n = 150) will be randomized to either an increased H1-antihistamine dose or a switch to bilastine 20 mg at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint, mean of the total symptom score of 5-7 days after the intervention, will be evaluated. The secondary objective is to determine if the safety of bilastine 20 mg regarding somnolence is superior to that of a twofold dose increase of H1-antihistamines. This will be measured by a change in the Japanese version of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale from baseline to 7 days after starting the intervention.

DISCUSSION

This multicenter, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized, parallel, comparison study will be, to our knowledge, the first well-designed clinical study to evaluate the efficacy of a switch to other H1-antihistamines in patients with refractory CSU who are unresponsive to H1-antihistamines at the licensed doses. This trial will provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of bilastine when treatment is switched in patients with refractory CSU who are unresponsive to H1-antihistamines at the licensed dose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT), jRCTs051180105. Registered on 8 March 2019.

The KAAACI/KDA Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria in Korean Adults and Children: Part 2. Management of H1-Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Urticaria

Quite a few patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) are refractory to H₁-antihistamines, even though the dose of H₁-antihistamines is increased up to 4-fold. CSU that is not controlled with H₁-antihistamines results in increased disease burden. Several immunomodulators have been used to manage these patients. The guidelines reported herein are connected to Part 1 of the KAAACI/KDA Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria in Korean Adults and Children, and aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of H₁-antihistamine-refractory CSU. Part 2 focuses on the more commonly used additional treatment options for refractory CSU, including omalizumab, cyclosporine, leukotriene receptor antagonist, dapsone, methotrexate, and phototherapy. The evidence to support their efficacy, dosing, safety, and selection of these agents is systematically reviewed. To date, for patients with refractory CSU, the methodologically sound data to evaluate the use of omalizumab has been growing; however, the evidence of other immunomodulators and phototherapy is still insufficient. Therefore, an individualized stepwise approach with a goal of achieving complete symptom control and minimizing side effects can be recommended. Larger controlled studies are needed to elevate the level of evidence to select a rational therapeutic agent for patients with refractory CSU.