Differential diagnosis of chronic urticaria

Urticaria: A Narrative Overview of Differential Diagnosis

Urticaria is an inflammatory skin disorder that may occur in isolation or associated with angioedema and/or anaphylaxis. Clinically, it is characterized by the presence of smooth, erythematous or blanching, itchy swelling, called wheals or hives, which greatly vary in size and shape and last less than 24 h before fading to leave normal skin. Urticaria is the consequence of mast-cell degranulation that can be caused by immunological or non-immunological mechanisms. From a clinical point of view, many skin conditions can mimic urticaria and their recognition is mandatory for a correct management and therapeutic approach. We have reviewed all of the main relevant studies which addressed differential diagnosis of urticarial, published until December 2022. The National Library of Medicine PubMed database was used for the electronic research. The present review offers a clinical narrative overview, based on the available literature, of the principal skin disorders that can be misdiagnosed as urticaria (mainly autoinflammatory or autoimmune disorders, drug-induced reactions, and hyperproliferative diseases). The aim of this review is to provide clinicians a useful tool for correctly suspecting and identifying all of these conditions.

A novel histopathological scoring system to distinguish urticarial vasculitis from chronic spontaneous urticaria

Background

Urticarial vasculitis (UV) is defined by long‐lasting urticarial lesions combined with the histopathologic findings of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. As one of the major unmet needs in UV, diagnostic criteria are rather vague and not standardized. Moreover, there seems to be considerable overlap with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), particularly for the normocomplementemic variant of UV. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a diagnostic scoring system that improves the histopathologic discrimination between UV and CSU.

Methods

Lesional skin sections of patients with clinical and histopathologic diagnosis of UV (n = 46) and CSU (n = 51) were analyzed (blinded to the diagnosis) for the following pre‐defined criteria: presence of leukocytoclasia, erythrocyte extravasation, fibrin deposits, endothelial cell swelling, ectatic vessels, blurred vessel borders, dermal edema, intravascular neutrophil, and eosinophil numbers and numbers of dermal neutrophils, macrophages and mast cells.

Results

The greatest differences between UV and CSU samples were observed for leukocytoclasia (present in 76% of UV vs. 3.9% of CSU samples; p < 0.0001), erythrocyte extravasation (present in 41.3% of UV vs. 2.0% of CSU samples; p < 0.0001), and fibrin deposits (present in 27.9% of UV vessels vs. 9.7% of CSU vessels; p < 0.0001). Based on these findings, we developed a diagnostic score, the urticarial vasculitis score (UVS), which correctly assigned 37 of 46 cases of UV and 49 of 51 cases of CSU to the previously established diagnosis.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that the UVS, a combined quantitative assessment of the three criteria leukocytoclasia, fibrin deposits and extravasated erythrocytes, distinguishes UV from CSU in skin histopathology. The UVS, if validated in larger patient samples, may help to improve the diagnostic approach to UV.

The Diagnostic Workup in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria-What to Test and Why

BACKGROUND

In chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), the guidelines recommend very limited diagnostic procedures during the routine workup, although additional investigations might be indicated in some patients with CSU. For physicians treating patients with CSU, it is often difficult to decide which diagnostic tests are useful.

OBJECTIVE

To provide recommendations on what diagnostic tests should be performed on which patients with CSU.

METHODS

We performed an extensive literature search on the respective topics and identified relevant questions that should prompt diagnostic procedures based on the published evidence and expert consensus among all authors.

RESULTS

We provide questions, diagnostic testing, where appropriate, and recommendation that should be included when assessing the history of a patient with CSU, to explore and rule out differential diagnoses, to assess patients for underlying causes and modifying conditions, to explore patients for comorbid diseases and consequences of having CSU, and to assess patients for CSU components that can help to predict their disease course and response to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Here, we provide physicians treating patients with CSU with information about which clues should lead to which tests and why.

Clinical Conditions that Masquerade as Urticaria

Chronic urticaria is one of the most commonly diagnosed dermatoses. Following diagnosis, correct identification and proper treatment significantly reduces disease activity, thereby improving the patient’s quality of life. However, there is an extensive differential diagnosis for chronic urticaria that, if missed, can lead to life-threatening sequelae. Many of the diseases that masquerade as urticaria are rare and often have a significant delay in diagnosis. This paper aims to fill the gap in the literature by clearly characterising the cutaneous eruptions and atypical findings in many of the most common mimickers of chronic urticaria. Conditions such as erythema marginatum seen in conjunction with hereditary angioedema, urticaria vasculitis, autoinflammatory cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes, adult-onset Still’s disease and systemic onset juvenile arthritis, Schnitzler syndrome, erythema multiforme, and cutaneous mastocytosis will be discussed.

A Case of Schnitzler's Syndrome without Monoclonal Gammopathy-Associated Chronic Urticaria Treated with Anakinra

Chronic urticaria may often be associated with interleukin (IL)-1-mediated autoinflammatory disease, which should be suspected if systemic inflammation signs are present. Here, we report a case of Schnitzler's syndrome without monoclonal gammopathy treated successfully with the IL-1 receptor antagonist anakinra. A 69-year-old man suffered from a pruritic urticarial rash for 12 years. It became aggravated episodically and was accompanied by high fever, arthralgia, leukocytosis, and an elevated C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. The episodes each lasted for over one week. Neutrophilic and eosinophilic inflammation was found on skin biopsy. However, serum and urine electrophoresis showed no evidence of monoclonal gammopathy. The cutaneous lesions were unresponsive to various kinds of anti-histamines, systemic glucocorticoids, colchicine, cyclosporine, dapsone, and methotrexate, which were administered over a span of 3 years immediately preceding successful treatment. A dramatic response, however, was observed after a daily administration of anakinra. This observation suggests that the correct diagnosis of this case is Schnitzler's syndrome without monoclonal gammopathy. For an adult patient with refractory chronic urticaria and systemic inflammation, Schnitzler's syndrome could be considered as a possible differential diagnosis. Although the typical form of Schnitzler's syndrome exhibits the presence of monoclonal gammopathy as a diagnostic criterion, monoclonal gammopathy may be absent in an atypical form. In such a situation, an IL-1 antagonist should be effective for the management of chronic urticaria.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ebastine 20 mg, Ebastine 10 mg and Levocetirizine 5 mg in Acute Urticaria

INTRODUCTION

Acute and chronic urticaria can result in severely impaired quality of life from pruritus and associated sleep lessness, as well as anxiety and depression. Various treatment modalities are available out of which second generation non sedating H1 antihistamines e.g., fexofenadine, loratidine, desloratadine, cetirizine, levocetirizine, ebastine etc., are used as the first line treatment.

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of ebastine 20 mg, ebastine 10 mg and levocetirizine 5 mg in the patients of urticaria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A longitudinal study was conducted in dermatology Outpatient Department (OPD) of Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Bathinda, India. A total of 150 patients between the age group 10-70 years, both men and women having urticaria were enrolled and divided into three groups of 50 each. Group A was given ebastine 20 mg OD, Group B was given ebastine 10 mg OD and Group C was given levocetirizine 5 mg OD. The patients were asked to scale their severity of disease over a period of follow up based on Urticarial Activity Score 7 (UAS7).

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 32.82 years. The mean UAS 7 score at the end of 4th week was 1.08 with ebastine 20 mg, 1.98 with levocetirizine 5 mg and 3.98 with ebastine 10 mg. In group A, 40 out of 50 patients (i.e., 80%), in Group B 25 out of 50 (i.e., 50%) get UAS7=0 and in Group C, 35 (i.e., 70%) patients who got relieved of symptoms at the end of treatment. When the scores were redefined and categorized under relieved and not relieved, and comparison done between all three groups, then there was a significant difference in the number of patients getting relieved, with p<0.001 (highly significant). Levocetirizine 5 mg had shown more side effects like dryness of mouth and sedation as compare to ebastine irrespective of dosage. The comparison made between the number of patients developing side effects among the groups was highly significant (p<0.001) for all the side effects.

CONCLUSION

Ebastine 20 mg is found to have superior efficacy for treatment of Urticaria as compared to ebastine 10 mg but with levocetirizine 5 mg the results were almost similar. Tolerability of ebastine 20 mg is similar to ebastine 10 mg but with levocetirizine 5 mg there were more side effects and less tolerability.

Resource use and costs in an insured population of patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria

Background

Chronic idiopathic or spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU) impairs patients’ quality of life, and updated information on disease prevalence, treatment patterns, and disease burden is lacking.

Objectives

We aimed to estimate these figures in a large US real-world claims database via a validated algorithm.

Methods

In this retrospective cross-sectional cohort study, we identified patients with CIU/CSU, estimated disease prevalence, comorbidities, and healthcare use (medications, office visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations) and costs (urticaria related and all cause).

Results

We identified 6350 CIU/CSU patients in a population of just over 5.8 million: 0.11 % prevalence. Women accounted for the majority of sufferers (68.3 %) and had a greater burden of illness than men. Patients had relatively few comorbidities (mean 3.3, standard deviation 2.2). Primary care physicians and allergists were the most common providers of CIU/CSU-related care. Oral corticosteroids were the most commonly prescribed medication, used in 54.7 % of patients. Patients accumulated a mean of 15.1 office visits per year (standard deviation 12.6). The mean all-cause healthcare cost totaled over US$9000 per year.

Conclusions

Although the disease affects a relatively young population, CIU/CSU carries a substantial cost. Frequent oral corticosteroid use in CIU/CSU patients is a concern because of adverse events associated with the drug.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40257-015-0134-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Management of urticaria: not too complicated, not too simple

In spite of being an old disease and apparently easy to diagnose, chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is still perceived as an uncontrollable and difficult to manage disease. The perception of the patient is that his/her condition is not well understood and that is suffering from a disorder with hidden causes that doctors are not able to tackle. Sometimes patients go through a number of clinicians until they found some CSU expert who is familiar with the disease. It is surprising that myths and believes with no scientific support still persist. Guidelines are not widely implemented, and recent tools to assess severity are infrequently used. European and American recent guidelines do not agree in several key points related to diagnosis and treatment, which further contributes to confusion. With the aim to clarify some aspects of the CSU picture, a group of allergists and dermatologists from the Spanish Dermatology and Allergy societies developed a Frequent Asked Questions leaflet that could facilitate physicians work in daily practice and contribute to a better knowledge of common clinical scenarios related to patients with CSU.

The role of focal infections in the pathogenesis of psoriasis and chronic urticaria

INTRODUCTION

The Focal Infection Theory, originally presented at the beginning of the 20(th) century, postulates that systemic diseases can be caused by microorganisms that arise from the focus of infection. Foci of infections have been described as sinuses, adenoids, tonsils, teeth, genitourinary tract, gall bladder and kidneys. A focus of infection is defined as the area that can occur in any part of the body, contains a pathogen (microorganism) and is usually asymptomatic. There are discordant opinions about the role of focal infections in the pathogenesis of psoriasis and urticaria.

AIM

To establish whether there is a higher incidence of focal infections in patients with chronic urticaria and psoriasis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 129 patients with a history of psoriasis and chronic urticaria: 58 women and 71 men treated in the Department of Dermatology of the Jagiellonian University Medical College in Krakow.

RESULTS

In the analyzed group, 11 patients had a dental consultation, 58 - laryngological consultation and 29 women had a gynecological consultation. The most common examples of focal infection were tonsillitis, upper respiratory tract infections, sinusitis, dental caries and genitourinary tract infections. Aggravating factors were similar to previously described.

CONCLUSIONS

A high incidence of focal infections in patients with psoriasis and urticaria suggests that infections may play a significant role in the pathogenesis of these skin disorders. Treatment of infection foci may play the key role in the remission of skin changes.

Urticaria and angioedema

Urticaria and angioedema are common disorders that can severely impair the quality of a patient's life and can be extremely difficult to treat. Symptoms can persist for years to decades. The causes of urticaria and angioedema are varied and may be immunologic, nonimmunologic, or idiopathic. This article reviews the literature and provides primary care physicians with up-to-date information of the epidemiology, basic pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of this common and often debilitating condition. Additionally, clinical manifestations of acute and chronic urticaria, hereditary and acquired angioedema, as well as the physical urticarias will be discussed.

Clinical evaluation and treatment of chronic urticaria

Chronic urticaria is a common disease characterized by recurrent pruritic wheals with surrounding erythema for >6 weeks. It is associated with a significant health care burden and affects patient quality of life. The etiology of chronic urticaria is often difficult to elucidate; however, known etiologies include autoimmune urticaria, physical urticarias (eg, cold, cholinergic, and delayed pressure urticaria), and idiopathic urticaria. The etiology is unknown in many patients, leading to a diagnosis of chronic idiopathic urticaria. The diagnosis of chronic idiopathic urticaria can be challenging for the primary care physician because of the disease's chronic symptoms. Diagnosis requires a detailed patient history and comprehensive physical examination, with additional testing tailored to the patient's history. Effective treatments include antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists in combination with antihistamines, and oral immunomodulatory drugs, including corticosteroids, cyclosporine, dapsone, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine. Newer experimental therapies include intravenous immunoglobulin and omalizumab. This article reviews the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic urticaria.

Levocetirizine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Levocetirizine (LCZ) is a second-generation antihistamine that was approved in January 2008 for the relief of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR), and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) in adults and children aged > or = 6 years.

OBJECTIVES

This article reviews the available literature on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, clinical efficacy and tolerability, and effect on quality of life (QoL) of LCZ.

METHODS

A search of the English-language literature was performed using the following databases: MEDLINE (1966-February 2009), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (19 70-February 2009), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE Drugs & Pharmacology (1991-February 2009), Blackwell Synergy, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, and Wiley Interscience. The search terms were levocetirizine, allergic rhinitis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, antihistamine, pharmacokinetics, quality of life, drug interactions, case reports, and cost. Publications describing studies of > or = 2 weeks' duration that concerned the efficacy, tolerability, pharmacoeconomics, and/or QoL effects of LCZ were included in the review.

RESULTS

In 4 studies in adult patients with moderate to severe PAR, LCZ 5 mg/d was associated with significant improvements in symptom scores for sneezing, rhinorrhea, and ocular/nasal pruritus at 4 to 6 weeks compared with placebo (P < or = 0.05). In 3 studies, nasal congestion scores were significantly improved within 4 to 6 weeks compared with placebo (P < 0.001). LCZ 5 mg/d was associated with improvements compared with placebo in scores for the ability to do housework, complete work activities, and engage in outdoor activities at 6 months (P < or = 0.011). In a 6-week study in children with moderate to severe SAR, LCZ 5 mg/d was associated with significant improvements compared with placebo in sneezing, rhin-orrhea, and itchy nose (P < 0.004); significant improvements in symptoms from baseline were also seen in a 4-week study in adults with SAR (P < 0.001). One study in patients with SAR reported no significant difference between LCZ and fluticasone compared with fluticasone monotherapy in terms of improvement in QoL, nasal airflow obstruction, sneezing, or pruritus. In a 6-week study in patients with moderate to severe CIU, LCZ 5 mg/d was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing overall CIU symptoms (P < 0.05). In two 4-week studies, one comparing LCZ 5 mg/d with placebo and the other comparing it with desloratadine (DSL), LCZ was significantly more effective than either comparator in terms of improvement in scores for pruritus severity (P < or = 0.001 vs placebo; P < 0.004 vs DSL) and duration (P < or = 0.001 vs placebo; P = 0.009 vs DSL). LCZ was significantly more effective than placebo (but not DSL) in reducing the number and size of wheals (both, P = 0.001). In a 12-week, open-label, crossover study, patients reported significantly longer symptom relief with cetirizine than LCZ (P < 0.005). The most commonly reported adverse events in two 6-month studies in adults with PAR treated with LCZ 5 mg/d included headache (23.8%), pharyngitis (19.4%), influenza (14.6%), fatigue (8.3%), and somnolence (8.3%). There is serious concern about the possibility of febrile seizures in infants treated with LCZ. Three pharmacoeconomic studies of LCZ 5 mg/d were identified, one comparing it with placebo in patients with PAR, one comparing it with placebo in patients with CIU, and another comparing it with second-generation antihistamines and montelukast in patients with PAR. Because of design limitations and differences in comparators in these studies, it was not possible to determine the cost-effectiveness of LCZ in the treatment of PAR or CIU.

CONCLUSIONS

In the studies reviewed, LCZ 5 mg/d was effective in reducing symptoms of PAR, SAR, and CIU and improving QoL, with an acceptable tolerabili-ty profile. There is a need for studies of longer durations, head-to-head comparisons against other anti-histamines, drug-interaction studies, safety studies in infants, and cost-effectiveness analyses.