Controversies and challenges in the management of chronic urticaria

Differences in chronic spontaneous urticaria between Europe and Central/South America: results of the multi-center real world AWARE study

Background

Global chronic urticaria (CU) disease experience and management is not well documented. This study descriptively compares these aspects among CU patients residing in Europe (EU) and Central and South America (C/SA).

Methods

AWARE (A World-wide Antihistamine-Refractory chronic urticaria patient Evaluation) is a global prospective, non-interventional study of CU in the real-world setting. Patients were ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of H1-antihistamine-refractory CU for > 2 months. Differences between the EU and C/SA regions in demographic and clinical characteristics, quality of life (QoL), work and activity impairment, pharmacological treatment, and healthcare resource use were examined.

Results

In total, 4224 patients were included in the analysis (C/SA 492; EU 3732). Rates of untreated patients were greater in the C/SA region (45.1% vs. 31.9%; P < 0.005) and escalation to third-line therapy was rare in both regions. Differences in disease experience emerged, with C/SA patients more commonly experiencing angioedema (C/SA 50.8% vs. EU 46.1%; P = 0.03) or comorbid chronic inducible urticaria (C/SA 30% vs. EU 22%; P < 0.001). Correspondingly, rates of uncontrolled urticaria were higher among C/SA patients (82.8% vs. 77.5%; P = 0.017) and patients in the C/SA region showed significantly greater work and activity impairment (absenteeism: 10.4 ± 19.7 vs. 6.7 ± 19.0, P = 0.004; presenteeism: 30.3 ± 31.9 vs. 24.4 ± 25.8, P = 0.001; work productivity loss: 33.9 ± 33.9 vs. 26.5 ± 27.5, P < 0.001; activity impairment: 37.7 ± 34.7 vs. 32.7 ± 30.1, P = 0.001). However, QoL impairment was greater in the EU region (Dermatology Life Quality Index: C/SA 6.5 ± 5.9 vs. EU 8.3 ± 7.0; P < 0.001). There was a significant difference in use of healthcare resources, including emergency services (39.6% vs. 29.3%; P < 0.001), hospitalization (7.7% vs 21.9%; P < 0.001) general practitioners (31.7% vs 57.3%; P < 0.001), and additional allergists or dermatologists (50.6% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.001), among patients in the C/SA and EU region, respectively. In both regions, patients with a primary diagnosis of CU with angioedema had significantly greater impairment in work and non-work activities and healthcare resource utilization compared to those without angioedema.

Conclusions

This study revealed that CU is a heterogeneous condition with differences in healthcare utilization and outcomes between EU and C/SA. However, overall there is a high unmet need of H1-antihistamine-refractory CU patients, which is associated with high use of healthcare resources, and has a large negative effect on QoL and work productivity.

Critical appraisal of the unmet needs in the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria with omalizumab: an Italian perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The humanized anti-IgE antibody omalizumab has been available for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in Italy since 2015. This review summarizes the unresolved issues and unmet therapeutic needs associated with omalizumab and discusses practical recommendations for its use in the management of CSU.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although modern second-generation H1-antihistamines are the standard of care for patients with CSU, adjunctive treatments (including omalizumab) may be required for effective control of symptoms in many patients. Evidence from clinical trials and experience from daily clinical practice suggest that the use of omalizumab in patients with CSU who have inadequate response to H1-antihistamines remains challenging.

SUMMARY

Based on current international guidelines, omalizumab labelling information and our experience in clinical practice, we provide treatment recommendations regarding the use of omalizumab in patients with CSU. These include: optimal treatment duration, the use of concomitant antihistamine therapy, the definition and management of disease relapse after treatment, and the management of patients with late or no response to treatment.

Suppression of wheal and flare in histamine test by the main H1 antihistamines commercialized in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Several dermatoses are mediated by histamine, such as urticaria, angioedema, and papular urticaria. There are no Brazilian studies comparing the potency of antihistamines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of the main commercial brand and generic H1 antihistamines, regarding the suppression of the wheal and flare to the histamine test.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental, open study with 10 healthy adults submitted to the histamine test on the ventral aspect of the forearms. After 20 minutes, wheal and flares were measured. The tests were performed after two hours of intake of dexchlorpheniramine, hydroxyzine, levocetirizine, fexofenadine, cetirizine, loratadine, ebastine, desloratadine, epinastine and rupatadine, as well as generics of loratadine, cetirizine and fexofenadine.

RESULTS

All antihistamines presented a reduction in the wheal compared to the control (p <0.02), as well as in the flare, except for rupatadine (p = 0.70). In the internal comparison, cetirizine, fexofenadine, epinastine, levocetirizine, dexchlorpheniramine and hydroxyzine were the most potent, with no difference between them (p > 0.1). As for halo, cetirizine, epinastine, hydroxyzine and fexofenadine were the most potent, with no difference between them (p > 0.1). The most common adverse effect was drowsiness, which was more prevalent among first-generation drugs (p < 0.01). Generic loratadine, fexofenadine and cetirizine halos were higher than their controls (p <0.03)..

STUDY LIMITATIONS

A single-center study evaluating only aspects related to histamine.

CONCLUSIONS

Brazilian commercial antihistamines presented different profiles of inhibition of wheal and flares in the histamine test, as well as adverse effects. Generic loratadine, fexofenadine and cetirizine presented larger flares than brand drugs.