Towards rationalizing the nomenclature and classification of urticaria: some guidance on guidelines

Chronic urticaria and thyroid autoimmunity: a meta-analysis of case-control studies

PURPOSE

Autoimmunity has been implicated in some patients with idiopathic chronic urticaria (CU). Because of the frequency of autoimmune thyroid diseases, their association with CU deserves special attention. We tested both the existence and the extent of an association between thyroid autoimmunity and CU.

METHODS

A thorough search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed. Studies reporting the positivity rate for anti-thyroperoxidase antibodies (TPOAbs) in people with (cases) and without CU (controls) were included. Quality of the studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed by Cochrane Q and I2 tests, and the odds ratio (OR) for TPOAbs positivity was combined using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies provided information about TPOAbs positivity on 14,351 patients with CU and 12,404 controls. The pooled estimate indicated a more than fivefold increased risk of exhibiting TPOAbs positivity in the group with CU (pooled OR 5.18, 95% CI 3.27, 8.22; P < 0.00001). Correction for publication bias had a negligible effect on the overall estimate (pooled adjusted OR: 4.42, 95% CI 2.84, 6.87, P < 0.0001). Between‑study heterogeneity was established (I2 = 62%, Pfor heterogeneity = 0.0002) and when, according to meta‑regression models, a sensitivity analysis was restricted to the 16 studies with the highest quality scores, the OR for TPOAbs positivity rose to 6.72 (95% CI 4.56, 9.89; P < 0.00001) with no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 31%, Pfor heterogeneity = 0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CU have a five-to-nearly sevenfold higher risk of displaying TPOAbs positivity. All patients with CU may well be offered a screening for thyroid autoimmunity.

Japanese guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of urticaria in comparison with other countries

Several guidelines for urticaria and angioedema have been published in Europe and United States since 1997. General principles for diagnosis and treatments of them are similar. However, each guideline has its own characteristics and shows differences in areas such as the coverage of urticaria subtypes, nomenclatures, and hierarchy of the medications. In Japan, the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA) published its first guideline for urticaria and angioedema in 2005. It established a new classification of urticaria and angioedema together with the definition of each subtype. It emphasized the importance of discriminating idiopathic urticaria, consisting of acute urticaria and chronic urticaria from inducible urticaria, such as allergic urticaria, physical urticaria and cholinergic urticaria. It contains several unique algorithms for diagnosis and treatment of urticaria from a view point of clinical practices, and was further enforced by a style of EBM in 2011. Nevertheless, these guidelines have not been recognized outside of Japan, because of a language barrier. In this article, the outline of the newest guidelines by JDA are introduced and compared with the guidelines in other countries published in English.

Rupatadine in allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria

Histamine is the primary mediator involved the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria, and this explains the prominent role that histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists have in the treatment of these disorders. However, histamine is clearly not the only mediator involved in the inflammatory cascade. There is an emerging view that drugs which can inhibit a broader range of inflammatory processes may prove to be more effective in providing symptomatic relief in both allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. This is an important consideration of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative which provides a scientific basis for defining what are the desirable properties of an 'ideal' antihistamine. In this review of rupatadine, a newer dual inhibitor of histamine H(1)- and PAF-receptors, we evaluate the evidence for a mechanism of action which includes anti-inflammatory effects in addition to a powerful inhibition of H(1)- and PAF-receptors. We assess this in relation to the clinical efficacy (particularly the speed of onset of action) and safety of rupatadine, and importantly its longer term utility in everyday life. In clinical trials, rupatadine has been shown to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). It has a fast onset of action, producing rapid symptomatic relief, and it also has an extended duration of clinical activity which allows once-daily administration. In comparative clinical trials rupatadine was shown to be at least as effective as drugs such as loratadine, cetirizine, desloratadine and ebastine in reducing allergic symptoms in adult/adolescent patients with seasonal, perennial or persistent allergic rhinitis. Importantly, rupatadine demonstrated no adverse cardiovascular effects in preclinical or extensive clinical testing, nor negative significant effects on cognition or psychomotor performance (including a practical driving study). It improved the overall well-being of patients with allergic rhinitis or CIU based on findings from quality of life questionnaires and patient global rating scores in clinical trials. Thus, rupatadine is a recently introduced dual inhibitor of histamine H(1)- and PAF-receptors, which has been shown to be an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. It possesses a broader profile of anti-inflammatory properties inhibiting both inflammatory cells and a range of mediators involved in the early- and late-phase inflammatory response, but the clinical relevance of these effects remain to be clarified.