Effect of 60 mg twice-daily fexofenadine HCl on quality of life, work and classroom productivity, and regular activity in patients with chronic idiopathic 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.

Impact of Chronic Spontaneous or Inducible Urticaria on Occupational Activity

The impact of chronic urticaria on work has been scarcely reported, whereas its peak incidence is between the ages of 20 and 40. The aim of this study was to assess the occupational impact of chronic urticaria and its treatment, by combining objective and patient-reported data. A monocentric observational study was performed using questionnaires over a 1-year period from 2021 to 2022 in chronic urticaria patients who were in a period of professional activity and agreed to participate. Of the 88 patients included, 55.7% assessed the occupational impact of their chronic urticaria as significant, and even more severe when chronic urticaria was poorly controlled. Some 86% of patients had symptoms at work, in a third of cases aggravated by work. However, occupational physical factors were not associated with an aggravation of inducible chronic urticaria. A total of 20% reported treatment-related adverse effects affecting their work. Despite low absenteeism, presenteeism and reduced productivity were important (> 20%). Six patients (6.8%) had difficulties keeping their work. For 72.7% of the patients, the occupational physician was not informed. The occupational impact of chronic urticaria should be discussed during consultations, particularly when it is insufficiently controlled. The occupational physician should be informed in order to support patients' professional project.

Insights into urticaria in pediatric and adult populations and its management with fexofenadine hydrochloride

OBJECTIVE

The present narrative review provides a comprehensive update of the current knowledge on urticaria, both in adult and pediatric populations, and on the safety and efficacy of fexofenadine hydrochloride (HCl) as a treatment option.

DATA SOURCE

A literature search was conducted on Embase and Medline.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical studies published in English and published between 1999 and 2020 were selected.

RESULTS

Although the exact pathogenesis of urticaria is not fully understood, multiple pathways of mast cell activation are discussed to explain the existence of phenotypically different clinical manifestations of urticaria. An overview of the worldwide prevalence of chronic urticaria, including disease burden and patient's quality of life is provided. The impact of urticaria on patient's life differs on the basis of whether its form is acute or chronic, but pharmacological approaches are most often needed to control the disabling symptoms. A summary of the current management of urticaria recommended by different guidelines across countries (Global; European; American; Australian; Asian; Japanese) is presented. Non-sedating, second-generation H₁-antihistamines are the preferred choice of treatment across several guidelines worldwide. Herein, the efficacy and safety of fexofenadine HCl, a representative second-generation H₁-antihistamine approved for the treatment of urticaria, is discussed. The occurrence of urticaria manifestations in COVID-19 patients is also briefly presented.

CONCLUSION

The burden of acute and chronic urticaria is high for patients. Second generation anti-histamines such as fexofenadine HCl can help managing the symptoms.

Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for patients with chronic urticaria: study protocol of a randomized, sham-controlled pilot trial

Background

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a refractory skin disease with long duration and a high recurrence rate. Acupuncture has been widely used for the treatment of CU in clinical practice in China. However, until now, there has been no appropriately designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) to provide explicit evidence about the effectiveness of acupuncture for the treatment of CU worldwide. Therefore, we plan to conduct a pilot study to explore its effectiveness and safety and determine the feasibility of studying acupuncture in a future, full-scale, RCT of CU.

Methods/design

This randomized, sham-controlled, participant-blinded and assessor-blinded pilot trial is underway in China. A total of 60 participants with CU will be randomly assigned to two groups in a 1:1 ratio: one treated with real acupuncture and the other with sham acupuncture, for 10 sessions over 2 weeks. The experimental group will receive acupuncture on a fixed prescription of acupoints, whereas the control group will receive sham acupuncture, namely minimal acupuncture on non-acupuncture points. The primary outcome will be the urticaria activity score (UAS). The secondary outcomes will include a visual analogue scale (VAS) score for itching intensity, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), the humoral immunity index, serum total IgE, and adverse events. The UAS, VAS for itching and the DLQI will be conducted at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks after randomization. The HAMD, HAMA, humoral immunity index, and serum total IgE will be assessed at baseline and at 2 weeks after randomization. Adverse events will be summarized at 1 week and 2 weeks after randomization.

Discussion

The pilot study mainly aims to investigate trial feasibility, and confirm basic information about its effects and safety. Results of this trial will help clarify whether the acupuncture treatment is beneficial for symptom improvement in patients with CU. The finding of this study will provide preliminary evidence on the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for CU.

Trial registration

Acupuncture-Moxibustion Clinical Trial Registry, AMCTR-ICR-18000190. Registered on 19 June 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3433-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Acupoint catgut embedding for patients with chronic urticaria: A systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupoint catgut embedding in the treatment of chronic urticaria (CU).

METHODS

We will electronically search PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and Wan-Fang Database from their inception to March 2019. In addition, we will manually retrieve other resources including the reference lists of identified publications, conference articles, and gray literature. The clinical randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials related to acupoint catgut embedding for the treatment of CU will be included in the study. The language is limited to Chinese and English. Research selection, data extraction, and research quality assessment will be independently completed by 2 researchers. Data were synthesized by using a fixed effect model or random effect model depend on the heterogeneity test. The total effective rate was the primary outcomes. Skin disease quality of life index scores, adverse events, and recurrence rates will also be assessed as secondary outcomes. RevMan V.5.3 statistical software will be used for meta-analysis. If it is not appropriate for a meta-analysis, then a descriptive analysis will be conducted. Data synthesis will use the risk ratio and the standardized or weighted average difference of continuous data to represent the results.

RESULTS

This study will provide a high-quality synthesis to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupoint catgut embedding for patients with CU.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review will provide evidence to judge whether acupoint catgut embedding is an effective intervention for patients with CU.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019129459.

Systematic reviews of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for patients with chronic urticaria: An umbrella systematic review

A wide range of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for chronic urticaria (CU) have been evaluated in systematic reviews (SRs). We conducted an umbrella review of SRs of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for CU, which allow the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted and thereby provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they need.We included SRs evaluating pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for CU. Comprehensive searches were conducted in 7 bibliographic databases, relevant journals up to July 2018. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies' relevance and quality. The assessment of multiple systematic reviews tool and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation method was used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and classify the quality of the outcomes.In total, 41 SRs were included. Thirty-seven reviews performed quantitative research syntheses, and 4 reviews performed qualitative research syntheses. The majority of SRs evaluated interventions based on combination therapies, antihistamines, traditional Chinese medicines, autohemotherapy, omalizumab, acupuncture, cyclosporine, and leukotriene receptor antagonist. Positive intervention outcomes were reported in the majority (75.32%) of the reviews. However, the methodological quality and evidence quality of the reviews were generally poor.There is some evidence to support a variety of interventions for CU. However, there was much heterogeneity in evidence quality among SRs. Many of the SRs had methodological weaknesses that make them vulnerable to bias. Moreover, there remained little information on the relative effectiveness of one intervention compared with another. Therefore, further SRs that adherence to strict scientific methods are necessary, and primary studies make comparisons between the different treatment options directly.

Checklist for a complete chronic urticaria medical history: an easy tool

BACKGROUND

Existing guidelines do not offer a quick, efficient alternative to the patient's recollection of relevant clinical features during anamnesis and physical examination for chronic urticaria (CU). This study aimed to identify specific items reflecting the main characteristics of CU that should be included in a comprehensive medical history for patients with CU. We also aimed to clarify possible eliciting factors for CU to support accurate diagnosis of the disease.

METHODS

A panel of postgraduate dermatologists conducted a literature search for relevant studies on CU using Medline, the Cochrane database, and PubMed.

RESULTS

We identified82 articles from which we drew a collection of items to inform development of an easy-to-use checklist and collection of items that should be included in a correct medical history. The final version of the checklist included42 items across two areas: essential clues for anamnesis and diagnosis of CU; and typical symptoms/parameters or characteristics according to subtype, etiology, and laboratory findings. Items included time of disease onset; duration, shape, size, color, and distribution of wheals; associated angioedema; atopy; and triggering factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our guide provides an easy-to-use tool to support clinicians to focus, orient themselves, and save time in medical consultations for CU, allowing better diagnosis and management of this disease.

An individualized diagnostic approach based on guidelines for chronic urticaria (CU)

Chronic urticaria (CU), defined as the spontaneous or inducible appearance of hives, angioedema or both for 6 weeks or more, presents with a number of subtypes which all substantially impair patients' quality of life (QoL). International urticaria guidelines give clear recommendations on workup and treatment but the occurrence of CU with multiple causes and triggers (sometimes with more than one subtype occurring in a single patient) presents challenges for an individualized assessment by physicians. This review summarizes recent guidance on the classification, diagnosis and assessment of CU subtypes and discusses how currently available patient assessment tools and laboratory tests can be used in clinical practice as part of an individualized patient management plan.

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.

H1-antihistamines for chronic spontaneous urticaria

Background Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterised by the development of crops of red, itchy, raised weals or hives with no identifiable external cause.Objectives To assess the effects of H1-antihistamines for CSU.Search methods We searched the following databases up to June 2014: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE(from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and PsycINFO (from 1806). We searched five trials registers and checked articles for references to relevant randomised controlled trials.Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of H1-antihistamines for CSU. Interventions included single therapy or a combination of H1-antihistamines compared with no treatment (placebo) or another active pharmacological compound at any dose.Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.Our primary outcome measures were proportion of participants with complete suppression of urticaria: 'good or excellent' response,50% or greater improvement in quality of life measures, and adverse events.We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs). Main results We identified 73 studies (9759 participants); 34 studies provided data for 23 comparisons. The duration of the intervention was up to two weeks (short-term) or longer than two weeks and up to three months (intermediate-term).Cetirizine 10mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term led to complete suppression of urticaria by more participants than was seen with placebo (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.91). For this same outcome, comparison of desloratadine versus placebo in the intermediate term (5 mg) (RR 37.00, 95% CI 2.31 to 593.70) and in the short term (20 mg) (RR 15.97, 95% CI 1.04 to 245.04)favoured desloratadine, but no differences were seen between 5 mg and 10 mg for short-term treatment.Levocetirizine 20 mg per day (short-term) was more effective for complete suppression of urticaria compared with placebo (RR 20.87,95% CI 1.37 to 317.60), and at 5 mg was effective in the intermediate term (RR 52.88, 95% CI 3.31 to 843.81) but not in the shortterm, nor was 10 mg effective in the short term.Rupatadine at 10 mg and 20 mg in the intermediate term achieved a 'good or excellent response' compared with placebo (RR 1.35,95% CI 1.03 to 1.77).Loratadine (10 mg) versus placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.79) and loratadine (10 mg) versus cetirizine (10 mg) (RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.43) over short-term and intermediate-term treatment showed no significant difference for 'good or excellent response' or for complete suppression of urticaria, respectively.Loratadine (10 mg) versus desloratadine (5 mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71). For loratadine(10 mg) versus mizolastine (10 mg) (intermediate-term), no statistically significant difference was seen for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42).Loratadine (10mg) versus emedastine (2mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression(RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24); the quality of the evidence was moderate for this comparison.No difference in short-term treatment was noted between loratadine (10mg) and hydroxyzine (25mg) in terms of complete suppression(RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10).When desloratadine (5 to 20 mg) was compared with levocetirizine (5 to 20 mg), levocetirizine appeared to be the more effective (P value < 0.02).In a comparison of fexofenadine versus cetirizine, more participants in the cetirizine group showed complete suppression of urticaria(P value < 0.001).Adverse events leading to withdrawals were not significantly different in the following comparisons: cetirizine versus placebo at 10 mg and 20 mg (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 13.22); desloratadine 5 mg versus placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.10); loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.60); loratadine 10mg versus emedastine 2mg (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.07 to 17.14);cetirizine 10 mg versus hydroxyzine 25 mg (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.45); and hydroxyzine 25 mg versus placebo (RR 3.64, 95%CI 0.77 to 17.23), all intermediate term.No difference was seen between loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg in the proportion of participants with at least 50%improvement in quality of life (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.32 to 32.33).Authors' conclusions Although the results of our review indicate that at standard doses of treatment, several antihistamines are effective when compared with placebo, all results were gathered from a few studies or, in some cases, from single-study estimates. The quality of the evidence was affected by the small number of studies in each comparison and the small sample size for many of the outcomes, prompting us to downgrade the quality of evidence for imprecision (unless stated for each comparison, the quality of the evidence was low).No single H1-antihistamine stands out as most effective. Cetirizine at 10 mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term was found to be effective in completely suppressing urticaria. Evidence is limited for desloratadine given at 5 mg once daily in the intermediate term and at 20 mg in the short term. Levocetirizine at 5 mg in the intermediate but not short term was effective for complete suppression. Levocetirizine 20 mg was effective in the short term, but 10 mg was not. No difference in rates of withdrawal due to adverse events was noted between active and placebo groups. Evidence for improvement in quality of life was insufficient.

Methods report on the development of the 2013 revision and update of the EAACI/GA2 LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis, and management of urticaria

This methods report describes the process of guideline development in detail. It is the result of a systematic literature review using the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) methodology and a structured consensus conference held on 28 and 29 November 2012, in Berlin. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-funded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2) LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), and the World Allergy Organization (WAO) with the participation of delegates of 21 national and international societies. This guideline covers the definition and classification of urticaria, taking into account the recent progress in identifying its causes, eliciting factors and pathomechanisms. In addition, it outlines evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) and is published in Allergy 2014; 69:868-887.

Real-life experiences with omalizumab for the treatment of chronic urticaria

BACKGROUND

Evidence has shown that omalizumab, a subcutaneous anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, is highly effective for the treatment of chronic urticaria.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate omalizumab 150 mg/month in severe, difficult-to-treat, chronic urticaria in a real-life setting.

METHODS

This prospective open-label study evaluated of 150 mg of omalizumab in severe urticaria defined by a 7-day urticaria activity score (UAS-7) higher than 30, a history of oral glucocorticoid use, and by suboptimal response to previous treatments. Two subgroups of patients at different centers (Toronto and Quebec City, Canada) were included. The primary efficacy evaluation was a change in UAS-7 from baseline. A quantitative medication score assessed the use of other anti-urticarial medications.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were included: 61 with chronic spontaneous urticaria, 6 with cold urticaria, and 1 with urticarial vasculitis. Patients were followed for up to 25 months. In Toronto, mean UAS-7 decreased from 32.2 at baseline to 5.7 after the last omalizumab treatment. Seventy-nine percent achieved complete remission during omalizumab therapy (UAS-7 0) and 6 (18%) showed improvement but never achieved complete remission. The most common maintenance dosing intervals were 1 to 3 months. In Quebec City, from baseline to 18 months, mean UAS-7 decreased from 24.4 to 2.2 and the quantitative medication score decreased from 13.3 to 3.0. All 6 patients with cold urticaria became symptom free, with a significant decrease of their cold stimulation tolerance test.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab 150 mg was effective in difficult to treat patients with severe, chronic urticaria refractory to recommended treatments who usually required prednisone. Omalizumab induced a long-lasting positive response and was well tolerated without side effects.

Impact of disease severity on work productivity and activity impairment in Japanese patients with atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin disease that is characterized by chronic and persisting pruritic and eczematous lesions. There has been no study of work productivity and activity in AD patients in relation to disease severity. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of disease severity on work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) in adult AD patients using the Japanese version of the questionnaire. Data were collected from 112 AD patients who visited the Jikei University Hospital. Outcomes as measured by the questionnaire included employment status, total work productivity impairment (TWPI) and total activity impairment (TAI). We investigated the correlation between TWPI or TAI scores and severity scoring of AD (SCORAD) for disease severity and dermatology life quality index (DLQI) for quality of life impairment. Both TWPI and TAI scores were significantly correlated with the SCORAD and DLQI scores (P < 0.001), indicating disease severity is significantly associated with WPAI in Japanese adult AD patients. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the effects of treatments on WPAI for severe AD patients.

Diagnosis and treatment of urticaria and angioedema: a worldwide perspective

: Urticaria and angioedema are common clinical conditions representing a major concern for physicians and patients alike. The World Allergy Organization (WAO), recognizing the importance of these diseases, has contributed to previous guidelines for the diagnosis and management of urticaria. The Scientific and Clinical Issues Council of WAO proposed the development of this global Position Paper to further enhance the clinical management of these disorders through the participation of renowned experts from all WAO regions of the world. Sections on definition and classification, prevalence, etiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis are based on the best scientific evidence presently available. Additional sections devoted to urticaria and angioedema in children and pregnant women, quality of life and patient-reported outcomes, and physical urticarias have been incorporated into this document. It is expected that this article will supplement recent international guidelines with the contribution of an expert panel designated by the WAO, increasing awareness of the importance of urticaria and angioedema in medical practice and will become a useful source of information for optimum patient management worldwide.

Urticaria and its subtypes: the role of second-generation antihistamines

Urticaria is a heterogeneous group of debilitating skin disorders characterized by wheals, pruritus, and frequently angioedema. The various forms of urticaria are often chronic and can exact a toll on quality of life. New diagnostic criteria and management guidelines are available to assist primary care physicians in the identification and proper treatment of different subtypes of urticaria. Second-generation antihistamines are recommended as first-line therapy because of their high degree of efficacy and safety. It is important to note, however, that European indications for most agents in this class are limited to specific forms of urticaria. The exception is desloratadine, the only second-generation antihistamine approved for the treatment of all urticaria subtypes in the European Union. Guidelines and best practice suggest that doses of antihistamines up to 4 times higher than those normally recommended for urticaria may benefit patients who do not respond to standard doses of antihistamines. Adjunctive therapy with leukotriene receptor antagonists may be advantageous in certain subgroups of patients who have suboptimal responses to antihistamine monotherapy. In all cases, physicians should work closely with patients to ensure proper adherence to prescribed regimens-a component that is often lacking but holds the key to successful outcomes.

Chronic urticaria: a comparison of management guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Chronic urticaria is characterized by recurring episodes of spontaneous transient dermal wheals and pruritus, with or without angioedema, which can persist for ≥ 6 weeks. Chronic urticaria impairs quality of life, emphasizing the need for effective treatments. Professional societies and clinical experts have issued evidence-based recommendations for the management of chronic urticaria, including recommending the use of second-generation antihistamines as a first-line therapy.

AREAS COVERED

A Medline search was conducted from 2000 to 2011 using the following terms, alone or in combination: 'chronic urticaria', 'management guidelines', 'consensus guidelines' and 'expert opinions'. Ten management guidelines/expert opinions met the inclusion criteria.

EXPERT OPINION

There was a universal agreement among the articles reviewed, that low-sedating, second-generation antihistamines should be prescribed as a first-line treatment of chronic urticaria. For refractory urticaria, however, recommendations varied and included dose escalation of second-generation antihistamines and adjunctive treatments with other agents of the same class, such as sedating antihistamines or leukotriene receptor antagonists. More research into effective second-line treatments and consistent implementation of current guidelines is needed, to ensure that treatment is based on clinical evidence.

Estudo da qualidade de vida nos pacientes com urticária crônica

FUNDAMENTOS: A urticária crônica compromete o doente por interferir nas atividades diárias, prejudicar a autoestima e as relações interpessoais. Os profissionais de saúde subestimam seu impacto na qualidade de vida dos doentes. OBJETIVOS: Avaliar a qualidade de vida com questionário específico e genérico. Compará-la entre os tipos clínicos de urticária crônica e avaliar se o angioedema piora a qualidade de vida. MÉTODOS: Participaram 62 doentes com urticária crônica, com sinais e sintomas da doença até 7 dias da consulta, que foram divididos em urticária crônica comum, urticária crônica física e urticária crônica mista. RESULTADOS: Observou-se predominância de mulheres (72,6%), idade média de 39,8 anos, angioedema associado em 75,8% dos doentes. Apresentaram mais angioedema doentes com urticária crônica comum (p=0,011) e mulheres (p=0,024). Quanto aos tipos clínicos, 32,3% apresentaram urticária crônica comum, 27,4% urticária crônica física e 40,3% urticária crônica mista. O escore médio total do questionário específico foi 10,4. No questionário específico, os domínios mais comprometidos foram "Sintomas e sentimentos" e "Atividades diárias", e, no SF-36, "Aspectos físicos" e "Vitalidade". Houve comprometimento da qualidade de vida nas mulheres, nos doentes com até 30 anos, em primeira consulta, nos mais escolarizados, naqueles com até 1 ano de doença e naqueles com angioedema. CONCLUSÃO: A urticária crônica compromete a qualidade de vida medida pelos questionários específico e genérico. Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante na qualidade de vida entre os tipos clínicos. A presença do angioedema conferiu pior qualidade de vida aos doentes. Houve correlação estatisticamente significante entre os escores do questionário específico e do questionário genérico.

Impact of sedative and non-sedative antihistamines on the impaired productivity and quality of life in patients with pruritic skin diseases

BACKGROUND

The impairment that pruritic skin diseases have on patient productivity at work, in the classroom, and in daily activities is substantial and needs to be characterized. The objective of this study was to determine how pruritic skin diseases impact patient productivity and quality of life (QOL), in order to improve the measurement of these endpoints to allow the influence of treatment options including sedative and non-sedative antihistamines to be analyzed.

METHODS

The impact of pruritic skin diseases and the effect of antihistamine therapy on work, classroom, and daily productivity were evaluated using the Work Productivity Assessment Index-Allergy Specific Questionnaire. The intensity of itch and patient QOL were assessed using a visual analogue scale and Skindex-16, respectively.

RESULTS

Pruritic skin diseases resulted in significant impairment of work, classroom, and daily productivity. The severity of overall work impairment in atopic dermatitis (AD), urticaria, and prurigo was higher than for other diseases analyzed. However, classroom activity was more adversely affected in patients with urticaria relative to other diseases. All pruritic diseases in this study negatively impacted daily activity to a similar degree. Impaired productivity was significantly improved in patients taking non-sedative antihistamines for 1 month, and the improvements correlated with the alleviation of itch and improved QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that pruritic skin diseases reduce patient productivity at work, in the classroom, and during daily activities, and that non-sedative antihistamines may offer an advantage over sedative antihistamines for alleviating certain negative consequences of these skin diseases.

Chronic urticaria: assessment of current treatment

Chronic urticaria is heterogenous, long-persisting and has a severe impact on quality of life and daily work. Effective treatment is essential but remains a confounding problem. This review summarizes available treatment strategies for chronic urticaria and their strength of evidence. Besides treatment of identified triggering factors such as chronic persistent bacterial infections (e.g., with Helicobacter pylori, streptococci, staphylococci or yersinia), standard treatment consists of nonsedating H1-antihistamines. Most patients require increasing (off-label) dosages that should be taken daily and regularly, however, this still fails in a third of cases. Reliable alternatives in the world literature are rare and the level of evidence is low. Certain subgroups may display benefit from additional treatment with cyclosporine A, cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonists, chloroquine, dapsone or other alternatives. A practicable step-wise treatment approach is given to optimize and individualize the treatment of patients with chronic urticaria.

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.

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

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

Emedastine difumarate: a review of its potential ameliorating effect for tissue remodeling in allergic diseases

BACKGROUND

Emedastine difumarate, a selective histamine-H1 receptor antagonist and effective antiallergic agent, inhibits various clinical symptoms of allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, urticaria, allergic dermatitis, pruritus cutaneous, and prurigo. In addition to greater efficacy than other antihistamines, emedastine difumarate produces no adverse cardiovascular effects and exhibits minimal anticholinergic activity. Moreover, a recent study revealed that the effect of emedastine difumarate on inhibition of histamine-induced collagen synthesis in vitro was greater in dermal fibroblasts than in nasal mucosa fibroblasts. This result indicates that there are tissue-specific effects of emedastine difumarate and that it may be more effective for treating fibrosis in skin than in nasal mucosa. However, the mechanism and role of tissue remodeling is less well established for allergic skin diseases and allergic conjunctivitis, in comparison to respiratory allergic diseases.

OBJECTIVE

This review outlines the involvement of histamine in the pathogenesis of tissue remodeling in a variety of organs, and presents the evidence for the effect of antihistamines on this process. Furthermore, this review also discusses antihistamines as an intervention strategy in tissue remodeling.

METHODS

The scientific literature, published abstracts, and selected textbooks were reviewed.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

Although additional evidence is required, emerging evidence suggests that emedastine difumarate may be of value in the prevention of excess tissue remodeling in allergic skin inflammation.

The Urticaria Severity Score: a sensitive questionnaire/index for monitoring response to therapy in patients with chronic urticaria

BACKGROUND

Despite the existence of numerous dermatology-specific quality-of-life questionnaires, there exists a need for a well-validated instrument to evaluate and monitor patients with chronic urticaria.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a novel chronic urticaria-specific questionnaire, the Urticaria Severity Score (USS).

METHODS

The USS was developed with 12 questions and 7 response options per question included in the final questionnaire. The USS was pilot tested on 28 patients with symptomatic chronic urticaria, and a modified version was tested in 80 patients. In this latter group, the USS was compared with the previously validated Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Patients completed both questionnaires at baseline and at follow-up (median, 2 weeks). Spearman rank correlation tests were used to compare the USS with the DLQI. At a subsequent visit, 9 additional patients completed the USS to evaluate test-retest reliability.

RESULTS

There was a positive correlation between the USS and DLQI at baseline (r = 0.64) and follow-up (r = 0.69). The test-retest reliability correlation for the USS was adequate (r = 0.96) (P = .001). The USS was more sensitive in detecting symptom improvement than the DLQI. The mean (SD) "raw score" change from baseline to follow-up for the USS was 9.95 (12.80), whereas the mean (SD) change from baseline to follow-up for the DLQI was 2.25 (4.87).

CONCLUSIONS

The USS is a valid and reliable instrument for monitoring urticaria severity. The USS is more sensitive than the DLQI for quantifying urticaria severity and may be moreapplicable in the evaluation of urticaria-specific treatment efficacy.

The psychometric validation of the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in patients with bipolar disorder

Bipolar disorder (BD) adversely affects daily activities/functioning. The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) assesses disability in work/school activities, family relationships, and social functioning, and it evaluates the functional impact of psychiatric disorders. BD outpatients from 21 U.S. sites completed a battery of validated instruments (including the SDS) three times over 8-12 weeks. Instrument reliability (internal consistency, test-retest), validity (construct, convergent validity, known groups) and responsiveness were measured. There were missing data for the SDS in 2% of the 225 subjects with BD. One factor explained 82% of the variance. All SDS items had rotated factor loadings on the first factor >0.90, confirming the appropriateness of the SDS total score. Item-scale correlations surpassed 0.40. There was excellent internal consistency reliability for the SDS total score (Cronbach's alpha=0.89). Test-retest reliability was acceptable for the SDS total score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.73). Correlations with other instruments demonstrate convergent and divergent validity. The SDS total and item scores significantly discriminated between (self-rated) overall health status, clinician-rated functional status, and clinician-rated depression, evidencing known group validity. The SDS demonstrated ability to detect change over time. The SDS is a valid, reliable measure of disability and is responsive to change over time when used in subjects with BD.

The Dermatology Life Quality Index 1994-2007: a comprehensive review of validation data and clinical results

BACKGROUND

The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is one of the most widely used dermatology-specific quality of life instruments. Over the last 5 years there has been great interest in its use.

OBJECTIVES

To collect and present all information regarding the technical properties and the clinical use of the DLQI from the date it was published to the end of 2007 for use as a single source of reference.

METHODS

A detailed literature search was conducted using electronic reference databases and the DLQI library in the Department of Dermatology, Cardiff University. All publications mentioning any aspect of the DLQI, from the time of its development to the end of 2007, were identified and the data concerning the DLQI in terms of its psychometric analysis, and use in clinical trials, epidemiological studies and health services research, were extracted and tabulated with all the relevant references.

RESULTS

In total, 272 full articles which have included the DLQI were reviewed. Studies described in these articles were divided into five main categories: psychometric studies, descriptive/epidemiological studies, drug (topical and systemic) trials, clinical practice research, and therapeutic interventions. The DLQI has been used in 33 different skin conditions in 32 countries and is available in 55 languages. Psychometric aspects of the DLQI such as validity, reliability, responsiveness to change, factor structure, and minimal important difference were described in 115 studies. The DLQI has been used in 33 studies assessing the effectiveness of 14 different types of therapeutic interventions and in 37 studies evaluating nine types of clinical practice research. Sixty studies have used it alone or in parallel with other instruments as an outcome measure in clinical trials of 18 systemic drugs while 22 studies have used it in 14 different topical drug trials. The DLQI has also been used in 27 multinational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

During the last 14 years there has been a gradual increase in the international use of the DLQI. The brevity and simplicity of use of the DLQI has resulted in its popularity both in clinical practice and in research. However, there are various issues in particular regarding its unidimensionality, differential item functioning, and minimal clinically important difference, which require further research. This article should facilitate the work of potential users of the DLQI by providing a readily available source of references for different aspects of the DLQI.

Impact of Desloratadine on Symptoms and Quality of Life in Subjects with Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria: A Multicenter, Practice-based Study

Background

Controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of antihistamines in the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria. Second-generation antihistamines are recommended as first-line therapy for chronic idiopathic urticaria. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of desloratadine, a newer, nonsedating, second-generation antihistamine, on symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria, disease severity, and quality of life (QoL).

Methods

In an open-label, observational, multicenter study, 348 subjects with chronic idiopathic urticaria were given 5 mg of desloratadine once daily for 2 weeks. Outcome measures included change from baseline at Day 14 using the Aerius Quality of Life Questionnaire (AEQLQ); change from baseline in pruritus score, number and maximum size of hives, sleep quality, and activity impairment; and subjects' response to therapy.

Results

Desloratadine significantly decreased subjects' overall condition and symptom scores from baseline to Day 14 (2.19 ± [SD] 0.66 and 1.14 ± 0.89, respectively; P < 0.0001). Desloratadine treatment significantly improved all 10 AEQLQ domain scores from baseline to Day 7 and Day 14 (P < 0.0001). Sleep disturbance scores decreased 40% from baseline to Day 7 (1.42 ± 1.03 to 0.85 ± 0.89, respectively), and interference with daily outdoor activity scores showed a 41% decrease from baseline to Day 7 (1.11 ± 0.98 to 0.66 ± 0.90) (P < 0.0001 for both). There were significant reductions in itching, size of hives, and hive score at both Days 7 and 14. Treatment resulted in moderate, marked, or complete relief of symptoms in 76.2% of subjects. Desloratadine was well tolerated, with no adverse events reported.

Conclusion

In an open-label, observational study, desloratadine 5 mg once daily significantly decreased symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria and improved subject QoL.

Non-sedating antihistamines in the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria using patient-reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

Chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) greatly impairs quality of life (QoL). Thus, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, using validated scoring instruments, are probably the most accurate tools available for assessing the efficacy of medications that treat CIU, such as second-generation antihistamines.

RESEARCH METHODS

A structured search of the MEDLINE database was conducted to identify English-language papers published between 1 January 1991 and 30 September 2007 on the treatment of CIU with the second-generation antihistamines cetirizine, desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine, and their effects on patient-reported QoL. We used the following search terms alone or in combination: 'chronic idiopathic urticaria'; 'pruritus'; 'wheals'; 'hives'; 'second-generation antihistamines'; 'cetirizine'; 'desloratadine'; 'fexofenadine'; 'levocetirizine'; and 'quality of life'.

SCOPE

We evaluated the effects of second-generation antihistamines on the QoL of subjects with CIU using desloratadine as a treatment model. Desloratadine was selected because it is the most frequently assessed non-sedating second-generation antihistamine in QoL studies in patients with CIU.

FINDINGS

Desloratadine 5 mg QD improved QoL in numerous PRO studies. Treatment with desloratadine significantly (p < 0.05) lowered (better) scores in three studies (n = 364) that used validated dermatology-specific scoring instruments. Three 6-week double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (n = 553) found that desloratadine significantly (p < 0.05) improved patient-reported pruritus, sleep disruption, and interference with daily activities. Desloratadine was associated with a low incidence of adverse events and an overall tolerability profile similar to placebo.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations in this review include divergence in search practices that may lead to omission of relevant research, unintentional error in data transfer, inconsistency in quality of selected papers, and potential publication bias against papers that report results from small studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The favorable impact of second-generation antihistamines on the QoL of patients with CIU was demonstrated using desloratadine, the most frequently investigated drug in this field, as a treatment model.

Levocetirizine is an effective treatment in patients suffering from chronic idiopathic urticaria: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) is defined by the almost daily presence of urticaria for at least 6 weeks without an identifiable cause. Symptoms include short-lived wheals, itching, and erythema. CIU impedes significantly a patient's quality of life (QoL). Levocetirizine is an antihistamine from the latest generation approved for CIU.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy of levocetirizine, 5 mg, and placebo for the symptoms and signs of CIU, as well as for the QoL and productivity.

METHODS

The primary criteria of evaluation were the pruritus severity scores over 1 week of treatment and over 4 weeks. The QoL was assessed via the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).

RESULTS

Baseline pruritus severity scores were comparable in the two treatment groups (2.06+/-0.58). After 1 week, levocetirizine was superior to placebo and demonstrated a considerable efficacy (difference=0.78, P<0.001). This efficacy was maintained over the entire study period (4 weeks, P<0.001). The number and size of wheals were considerably reduced compared with placebo over 1 week and over the total treatment period (P <or= 0.001). This was paralleled by an improvement in the QoL (DLQI: 7.3 units in the levocetirizine group and 2.4 units in the placebo group) and a higher productivity at work in the levocetirizine group (3.0 workdays lost per patient per month in the placebo group, 0.3 in the levocetirizine group). No unexpected adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Levocetirizine, 5 mg once daily, is an effective treatment for CIU, characterized not only by a rapid and sustained response, but also by an important improvement in QoL.

Cyclosporine in chronic idiopathic urticaria: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment of severe recalcitrant chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) is difficult.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of oral cyclosporin A (CsA) in CIU.

METHODS

The response to CsA was evaluated in 99 CIU patients with a double-blind, randomized, three-armed study: 16-week CsA, 8-week CsA +8-week placebo, and 16-week placebo. All patients received cetirizine throughout the study period and were followed-up after 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Fewer therapeutic failures occurred with 16-week CsA (n = 3) than with placebo (n = 11) and 8-week CsA (n = 8). After 8 and 16 weeks, symptom scores significantly improved in both CsA groups over with placebo. Two patients discontinued because of hypertension.

LIMITATIONS

During the study period, CsA was not administered at a constant dose; from day 28 the daily dose was 3 mg/kg, which is likely to be less effective and better tolerated than higher dosages.

CONCLUSION

CsA in addition to background therapy with cetirizine may be useful in the treatment of CIU.

Efficacy of fexofenadine in the prophylactic control of cat allergen-induced allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

To date, it is unknown whether fexofenadine mitigates the worsening of symptoms induced by the cat allergen Felis domesticus allergen 1.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of a single dose of fexofenadine hydrochloride, 180 mg, in preventing and controlling cat allergen-induced allergic rhinitis symptoms using the cat room challenge model.

METHODS

This single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover study consisted of a screening visit, 1 or 2 qualifying visits, and 2 treatment periods separated by a mean +/- SD washout period of 14 +/- 3 days. Patients were randomized to treatment sequence 1 (placebo followed by fexofenadine) or sequence 2 (fexofenadine followed by placebo). Baseline end points were obtained before study drug administration, and allergen challenges were initiated 1 1/2 hours after dosing. The primary end point was the change from predose baseline in the total symptom score (sum of rhinorrhea, itchy nose/palate/ throat, sneezing, and itchy/watery/red eyes) after 30 minutes of allergen exposure compared with placebo.

RESULTS

Of 211 patients screened, 66 were randomized and 63 completed the study. Mean change in the total symptom score from predose baseline was significantly less with fexofenadine compared with placebo 30 minutes after initiation of the cat allergen challenge (2 hours after dosing) (P = .03). The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was low and comparable for both groups.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic treatment with a single dose of fexofenadine hydrochloride, 180 mg, significantly mitigated the worsening of allergic rhinitis symptoms induced by exposure to cat allergen compared with placebo use.

Desloratadine 5 mg once daily improves the quality of life of patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria

BACKGROUND

Chronic urticaria is known to debilitate a person's quality of life via sleep disruption, itching lesions, fatigue, social isolation, energy loss and emotional/sexual difficulties. Once-daily desloratadine significantly improved the signs and symptoms of CIU.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the effect of desloratadine 5 mg once daily on the quality of life of patients suffering of chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). Study population One-hundred twenty-one consecutive patients with CIU present for at least 6 weeks prior to inclusion and with a current flare of at least 3 weeks, were included in the study in 24 Belgian centres.

RESULTS

The mean dermatology life quality index (DLQI) significantly decreased from baseline to day 7 and further to day 42. Sixty per cent and 77% of patients had a clinically significant change (i.e. a decrease of at least 2 points) at day 7 or day 42, respectively, as compared with that of day 0. Change in pruritus and size of the hives significantly correlated with the change in the score of the quality of life. One-third of patients experienced complete relief whereas in 1 of 10 patients no effect was experienced.

CONCLUSIONS

Desloratadine significantly improves the quality of life of patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria as reflected by the dermatology life quality index (DLQI).

EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF guideline: management of urticaria

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

Urticaria and angioedema

Urticaria and angioedema are commonly encountered complaints in children. Although the diagnosis is clear, establishing an etiology, especially with respect to chronic urticaria, can be challenging. A significant proportion of chronic urticarial cases are now considered to have an autoimmune etiology. This article reviews progress in the field of urticaria and angioedema including developments in pathogenesis, description of laboratory testing, and review of medications. Urticaria and angioedema can usually be controlled by avoidance of triggers, a variety of supportive medications, and reassurance.

Antihistamines in Dermatology

Along with antibiotics, antihistamines are the most widely used systemic drugs in dermatology. This is attributable to the major role played by histamine in common diseases such as urticaria and atopic eczema. Of the currently recognised four subtypes of G protein-coupled histamine receptors, only the H1 and H2 subtypes have been positively identified in human skin. Traditionally believed to be competitive antagonists of histamine, H1 and H2 antihistamines are now considered to behave as inverse agonists. By consensus, H1 antihistamines are classified as 'first generation' (associated with troublesome side-effects including somnolence, anti-adrenergic and atropine-like actions) and 'second-generation' compounds (in which these side-effects are reduced or absent). The main indications for H1 antihistamines in skin are suppression of pruritus in urticaria and atopic eczema, both of which are associated with increased mast cell numbers and tissue histamine levels. However the evidence basis for use in atopic eczema is ambiguous and controversial, even though these drugs are widely used in practice. Currently, significant side-effects are mainly confined to the first-generation compounds and are especially troublesome in the elderly. Psychomotor impairment may persist throughout the day following administration. Anti-cholinergic and anti-alpha-adrenergic blockade and cardiotoxicity (torsade de pointes) may also occur with first-generation antihistamines. Two early low-sedation second-generation antihistamines caused arrhythmias in a small number of patients but these compounds have now been withdrawn. Generally, the second-generation H1 antihistamines are well tolerated.

Les anti-H1 en pratique dermatologique

INTRODUCTION

Histamine is an inflammation mediator that is fundamental for the development of some allergic reactions and is also implied in several common dermatological affections. Anti-H1s are molecules capable of couteracting the effect of histamine on its specific receptors. There are two types: first generation anti-H1 and second generation anti-H1.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of anti-H1 in the treatment of skin diseases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A reference search was made using the Pubmed data bank. Critical analysis was made of the articles selected based on their evidence.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Demonstration of the efficacy of anti-H1 was only confirmed in a few dermatitis. Urticaria is the indication of choice. The symptomatic use of anti-H1 may be justified within the context of other dermatitis. The second rather than the first generation molecules should be preferred because of the lesser side effects and improved pharmacokinetic profile.

Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Using Homeopathic Preparation of Common Allergens in the Southwest Region of the US: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND:

Studies using homeopathy have reported beneficial effects from treating allergy-related conditions.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the effects of a homeopathic drug prepared from common allergens (tree, grass, weed species) specific to the Southwest region of the US.

METHODS:

A 4-week, double-blind clinical trial comparing homeopathic preparations with placebo was conducted in the Phoenix metropolitan area during the regional allergy season from February to May. Participants included 40 men and women, 26–63 years of age, diagnosed with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms. Study outcomes included allergy-specific symptoms using the rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaire (RQLQ), functional quality of life using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (MOS SF-36), and the work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) questionnaire.

RESULTS:

Scales from the RQLQ, MOS SF-36, and WPAI questionnaire showed significant positive changes from baseline to 4 weeks in the homeopathic group compared with the placebo group (p < 0.05). Subjects reported no adverse effects during the intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS:

These preliminary findings indicate potential benefits of the homeopathic intervention in reducing symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis in the Southwestern US.

Fexofenadine Improves the Quality of Life and Work Productivity in Japanese Patients with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis during the Peak Cedar Pollinosis Season

BACKGROUND

Although currently in its infancy, quality of life (QOL) research in Japan is rapidly expanding and is expected to become a standard outcome measure in clinical trials. In Japan, QOL has not previously been assessed in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR); we report the first clinical study applying the recently validated Japanese translations of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Allergy Specific (WPAI-AS) Questionnaire to assess the effects of the oral antihistamine, fexofenadine, on QOL and work productivity due to cedar pollinosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-site study was conducted during the peak cedar pollinosis season in Japan. After a 7-day run-in period, subjects were randomized to receive fexofenadine HCl 60 mg twice daily (bid) or placebo for 2 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall, 206 Japanese subjects with AR were included in the intention-to- treat population (fexofenadine, n = 104, and placebo, n = 102). Fexofenadine statistically significantly improved overall QOL compared with placebo (p = 0.005) and improvements were reported in the RQLQ domains: activities (p = 0.047), practical problems (p = 0.003), nasal symptoms (p = 0.003) and eye symptoms (p </= 0.001). Clinically significant improvements in practical problems, eye symptoms and activity limitations, exceeding the 0.05 level, were observed with fexofenadine. These improvements in QOL were associated with significant symptom relief (p < 0.001 vs. placebo). Improvements in impairment at work were also reported with fexofenadine.

CONCLUSION

In Japan, this is the first clinical study to show that fexofenadine HCl (60 mg b.i.d.) improves overall QOL and work productivity in patients with seasonal AR using validated Japanese instruments.

Second-Generation Antihistamines

Antihistamines are useful medications for the treatment of a variety of allergic disorders. Second-generation antihistamines avidly and selectively bind to peripheral histamine H1 receptors and, consequently, provide gratifying relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a majority of atopic patients. This tight receptor specificity additionally leads to few effects on other neuronal or hormonal systems, with the result that adverse effects associated with these medications, with the exception of noticeable sedation in about 10% of cetirizine-treated patients, resemble those of placebo overall. Similarly, serious adverse drug reactions and interactions are uncommon with these medicines. Therapeutic interchange to one of the available second-generation antihistamines is a reasonable approach to limiting an institutional formulary, and adoption of such a policy has proven capable of creating substantial cost savings. Differences in overall efficacy and safety between available second-generation antihistamines, when administered in equivalent dosages, are not large. However, among the antihistamines presently available, fexofenadine may offer the best overall balance of effectiveness and safety, and this agent is an appropriate selection for initial or switch therapy for most patients with mild or moderate allergic symptoms. Cetirizine is the most potent antihistamine available and has been subjected to more clinical study than any other. This agent is appropriate for patients proven unresponsive to other antihistamines and for those with the most severe symptoms who might benefit from antihistamine treatment of the highest potency that can be dose-titrated up to maximal intensity.

Efficacy and safety profile of fexofenadine HCl: a unique therapeutic option in H1-receptor antagonist treatment

Results of head-to-head comparative trials suggest that fexo-fenadine might offer distinct advantages compared with other antihistamines. Fexofenadine is highly selective for peripheral H(1)-receptors and does not cross the blood-brain barrier, as shown by positron emission tomography. These data support findings that fexofenadine is nonsedating and does not impair performance or driving ability, even at very high doses. In addition, fexofenadine does not interact with muscarinic receptors, which might offer a potential advantage compared with desloratadine, the recently approved active metabolite of loratadine. Fexofenadine is devoid of adverse cardiac effects, and changes in electrocardiogram parameters are not significantly different from those observed with placebo. Fexofenadine has also been shown to have a favorable effect on nasal congestion. This therapeutic advantage might be related to its significant antiallergic properties, ie, the demonstrated ability of fexofenadine to blunt the inflammatory effects of preformed and de novo synthesized mediators at clinically relevant doses in vivo and in vitro. Cumulatively, these benefits distinguish fexofenadine from other antihistamines and make it an optimum therapeutic option for treating allergy-mediated respiratory and dermatologic diseases.

Validation of the Health-Related Productivity Questionnaire Diary (HRPQ-D) on a sample of patients with infectious mononucleosis: results from a phase 1 multicenter clinical trial

The objective of this work was to assess the performance of the newly developed Health-Related Productivity Questionniare-Diary (HRPQ-D). Patients completed the HRPQ-D daily for 1-week periods during weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8 of a clinical trial for infectious mononucleosis. Productivity data were collected on a daily basis in terms of absenteeism, presenteeism, and combined lost productivity for three work venues (work outside home, housework, and classes/homework). These were then correlated with patient symptom scores. Symptom scores were positively correlated with lost work hours because of absenteeism and combined lost productivity scores. However, negative correlations were observed between symptom scores and the lost work hours due to presenteeism. The HRPQ-D demonstrated good construct validity, making it a useful tool for determining productivity levels across different work venues within clinical trial or survey research applications.