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

Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: An Update on the Evaluation and Management

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) affects 0.5% to 1% of the general population and is often managed by allergy and immunology specialists. Guidelines have evolved over the past several decades with an emphasis on decreasing extensive screening laboratory testing as they are of low-yield and cost-ineffective. The utility of biomarkers remains under investigation but total immunoglobulin E may be helpful in determining specific endotypes and response to omalizumab. Antihistamines and omalizumab remain the primary therapeutic options for CSU, but an expanding body of evidence supports the use of immunosuppressants and anti-inflammatory medications in refractory cases.

Evaluation of Pharmacological Treatments for Acute Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of pharmacological treatments for acute urticaria remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for acute urticaria in emergency department (ED) and non-ED settings.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases and gray literature up to July 8, 2023, without language restrictions. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) relating to pharmacological interventions in patients with acute urticaria, regardless of age, were eligible for inclusion. The relevant outcomes of interest were the treatment efficacy and safety profiles. The results are presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

We identified 8 RCTs comprising 680 patients. Regarding the ED setting (2 trials, n = 118), intramuscular first-generation H1-antihistamine (fgAH) was more efficacious in decreasing pruritus symptoms (SMD, -0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.75 to -0.02) but had higher sedative effects than H2-blockers. With comparable pruritus symptom improvement (2 trials, n = 295), intravenous second-generation H1-antihistamine (sgAH) had favorable clinical outcomes compared with intravenous fgAH in the ED setting with a lower risk of return to any ED/clinic (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.83) and lower risk of any adverse event (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.63). The efficacy of adjunctive therapy with a short course of systemic glucocorticosteroids in ED and non-ED settings remains unclear. No serious concerns regarding the safety profiles were observed in any of the treatment comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

H1-antihistamine is a crucial and effective component of acute urticaria treatment, and intravenous sgAH is preferred as an initial treatment option.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on body composition and anthropometric indices: A protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To date, no studies have addressed the comparative efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) therapy on body composition and anthropometric indices among adult overweight or obese patients with or without type 2 diabetes. To provide evidence-based recommendations, we will conduct a traditional pairwise and network meta-analysis of all available randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effects of GLP1-RAs interventions for adult overweight or obese patients with or without type 2 diabetes.

METHODS AND DESIGN

Electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Scopus, and CINAHL, will be searched from inception without language restriction. Grey literature will be searched, including Google Scholar, ongoing clinical trial registries, and preprint reports. Reference lists of included trials, relevant major endocrinology scientific meetings, and manual hand searches from key general medicine and obesity and endocrinology journals will also be browsed. Two authors will screen, select, extract, appraise the risk of bias, and rate the evidence findings. Any disagreement will be resolved through team discussion. Based on a random-effects model, we will employ a two-step approach of traditional pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. The pooled effect estimates using a frequentist approach with 95% confidence intervals for continuous endpoints will be expressed as the standardized mean difference, whereas odds ratios will be used for categorical endpoints. The quality of included trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias version 2 assessment tool. Certainty of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the modified confidence in network meta-analysis approach and the Grading of Recommended Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The magnitude of the effect size, prediction intervals, surface under the cumulative ranking curve values, and certainty of evidence will be incorporated to draw evidence-based conclusions.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis will summarize the comparative efficacy of GLP1-RAs therapy on body composition and anthropometric indices. Evidence identified from this review will promote the rational use of interventions for adult overweight or obese patients with or without type 2 diabetes and will serve as an important step for evidence-based practice within this area.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023458228.