A Summary of the New International EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO Guidelines in Urticaria

Chronic Urticaria: An Overview of Treatment and Recent Patents

Background:

Up to 1% of the general population in the USA and Europe suffer from chronic urticaria (CU) at some point in their lifetime. CU has an adverse effect on the quality of life.

Objective:

This study aims to provide an update on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical manifesta-tions, diagnosis, aggravating factors, complications, treatment and prognosis of CU.

Methods:

The search strategy included meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, reviews and pertinent references. Patents were searched using the key term “chronic urticaria” at the following links: www.google.com/patents, www.uspto.gov, and www.freepatentsonline.com.

Results:

CU is a clinical diagnosis, based on the episodic appearance of characteristic urticarial lesions that wax and wane rapidly, with or without angioedema, on most days of the week, for a period of six weeks or longer. Triggers such as medications, physical stimuli, and stress can be identified in 10 to 20% of cases. C-reactive protein/erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and complete blood cell count with differential are the screening tests that may be used to rule out an underlying disorder. The mainstay of therapy is reassurance, patient education, avoidance of known triggers, and pharmacotherapy. Second-generation H1 antihistamines are the drugs of choice for initial therapy because of their safety and efficacy profile. If satisfactory improvement does not occur after 2 to 4 weeks or earlier if the symptoms are intolerable, the dose of second-generation H1 antihistamines can be increased up to fourfold the manufacturer’s recom-mended dose (all be it off license). If satisfactory improvement does not occur after 2 to 4 weeks or earlier if the symptoms are intolerable after the fourfold increase in the dosage of second-generation H1 antihis-tamines, omalizumab should be added. If satisfactory improvement does not occur after 6 months or earli-er if the symptoms are intolerable after omalizumab has been added, treatment with cyclosporine and sec-ond-generation H1 antihistamines is recommended. Short-term use of systemic corticosteroids may be considered for acute exacerbation of CU and in refractory cases. Recent patents for the management of chronic urticaria are also discussed. Complications of CU may include skin excoriations, adverse effect on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and considerable humanistic and economic impacts. On average, the duration of CU is around two to five years. Disease severity has an association with disease duration.

Conclusion:

CU is idiopathic in the majority of cases. On average, the duration of CU is around two to five years. Treatment is primarily symptomatic with second generation antihistamines being the first line. Omalizumab has been a remarkable advancement in the management of CU and improves the quality of life beyond symptom control.

Management of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU): a treat to target approach using a patient reported outcome

Background

Treat-to-target therapy approaches are established for chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and more recently rheumatoid arthritis, resulting in improved patient outcomes. These approaches do not use patient reported outcomes (PRO) as targets of therapy. Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), also called chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU), is defined as recurrent urticaria of known and unknown cause, lasting more than 6 weeks. Treatment of CSU can be challenging. However, with the advent of proven therapies and validated instruments for measuring disease activity, the concept of treat-to-target (T2T) can be successfully applied to CSU. Herein, we propose a potential PRO therapeutic target and suggest a T2T approach for the management of patients with CSU.

Methods

Principles and recommendations for a treat-to-target approach in CSU (T2T/CSU) were developed by a Canadian task force, consisting of dermatologists, immunologists, and allergists. The task force formulated recommendations for therapeutic targets in CSU on the basis of a systematic literature review and expert opinion.

Results

The key features of these T2T/CSU recommendations are the use of a PRO as the principal target, with symptom control as measured by Urticaria Activity Score 7 (UAS7 ≤ 6), targeting symptom remission (UAS7 = 0).

Conclusion

Treatment targets such as UAS7 ≤ 6 and UAS7 = 0 provide a benchmark for success in the care of patients with CSU, and will permit the evaluation of a PRO-based T2T approach in the care of these patients and the effect of this approach on improved patient care as seen in other chronic diseases.

Why a registry of Chronic Urticaria (CUR) is needed

Chronic urticaria (CU) has a major effect on patients’ quality of life. While there have been progressive advances regarding its pathogenesis and treatment, much remains to be done.

Registries of other chronic non-communicable diseases have shown many benefits, such as additional basic knowledge and management approaches to diabetes mellitus. Standards of care as well as diagnostic approaches can be elaborated and compared from different sites, using validated instruments. Registries in allergic diseases are also becoming well recognized, and the first registry on CU, accessible from SLaai’s webpage, includes parameters for identification, evaluation and management. In our vision, informatics strategies have the potential to improve care for chronic illnesses such as CU. The registry represents a valid instrument from which to obtain a sufficient sample size for epidemiological studies and/or clinical research planning, including feasibility and potential enrollment. It can also provide invaluable data for adapting guidelines to local populations, as well as diagnostic approaches and cost-effective interventions in the context of organizational efforts to improve patient care.

Helicobacter pylori and allergy: Update of research

Recently a lot of literature has been published about the possible preventive action of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) against allergy. The present review summarizes research data about the association between H. pylori and allergic diseases, as well as discusses possible hypotheses about the preventive action of H. pylori against atopy. There is evidence from observational studies to support a weak inverse association between prevalence of H. pylori infection and allergy. However, confounders like some unidentified socioeconomic factors, antibiotic use and others could bias the association. Although data from cohort studies point to a possible association of H. pylori with some of the allergic diseases, no definite proof for causal relationship has been clearly demonstrated yet. A biological mechanism proposed to explain the preventive action of H. pylori to allergy is reduced exposure to a major stimulus for the generation of Treg cells in individuals without H. pylori infection. In addition, H. pylori could be an indicator for changes in gut microbiome, reflecting the complex interaction between microbes and immune system.

Treating chronic spontaneous urticaria using a brief 'whole person' treatment approach: a proof-of-concept study

BACKGROUND

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) poses problems with respect to high prevalence, reduced quality of life, lack of long term efficacy, and expense of current treatments for severe intractable symptoms. There have been many reports suggesting 'stress' factors may be implicated, but there are no studies that explore the efficacy of treatments including a psychological perspective. A whole person treatment approach (WPTA), which addresses psychological factors has been used, with effect, for 6 years in the Auckland City Hospital Immunology Department.

FINDINGS

In a pilot study to demonstrate feasibility of recruitment and treatment of CSU patients in a time-limited, whole person treatment approach, within a conventional immunology department, four patients (three CSU and one idiopathic angioedema) were recruited into a brief WPTA course based in non-dualistic concepts of mind and body connectedness, and utilising psychotherapy-derived listening skills for up to 10 h long sessions, once per week. Treatment efficacy rating, using Urticaria Activity Score and the Urticaria Severity Score, and reduction of drug usage, showed patients experienced long term resolution of urticaria and cessation of hospitalisation for angioedema and came off regular antihistamine medication.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinician treating chronic spontaneous urticaria in an Immunology department, using a whole person treatment paradigm, can safely explore unique meanings and emotional states, in a process acceptable to patients, resulting in a significant clinical benefit for symptoms. A much larger study comparing the outcome of WPTA versus standard treatment alone is warranted.

Differential Diagnosis and Management Issues of Idiopathic Angiooedema and their Resolution

Angiooedema is a local and self-limiting swelling of the subcutaneous and sub mucosal tissues, produced by vasoactive peptides that temporary increase the vascular permeability. It is recognized that recurrent angiooedema exposes patients to the risk of fatalities and reduced quality of life, being in some circumstances associated with a critical condition. Angiooedema can occur with or without wheals. The first symptom is urticaria, the second is a distinct nosologic entity. In absence of an identifiable cause, recurrent angiooedema without wheals can be defined as idiopathic and marked"idiopathic histaminergic angiooedema" when it is responsive to anti histamine treatment, and "idiopathic non-histaminergic angiooedema" when it is not. Furthermore, idiopathic non-histaminergic angiooedema can be diagnosed as hereditary or sporadic by family history. In this review, we summarize the approaches to diagnose and treat different forms of idiopathic angiooedema.

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.