Treatment of refractory solar urticaria with plasma exchange

Successful serial plasmapheresis for solar urticaria, a case report and literature review

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Amidst the emergence of new therapeutic options, traditional therapeutic plasmapheresis (TPE) used in diseases involving a toxic substance in the plasma, remains a viable alternative for cases of recalcitrant solar urticaria (SU). We emphasize the importance of documenting successful experience with repeated plasmapheresis to increase awareness amongst physicians and dermatologists regarding this effective treatment option.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We reported a case of recalcitrant SU that had not responded to a combination of H1-antihistamines, immunosuppressants, omalizumab and intravenous immunoglobulin. We introduced serial TPE, which involved two consecutive days of procedures for each course was introduced. We detailed the regimen and highlighted the clinical and objective benefits observed with multiple treatments. Additionally, we compared this to other plasmapheresis regimens and their treatment responses previously reported for solar urticaria.

RESULTS

Our patient underwent serial TPE, totaling 42 procedures over five years. Following the last TPE session, phototesting showed a sustained prolongation of minimal urticating doses (MUDS), which exceeded the maximum tested doses across nearly all ultraviolet (UV) and visible light ranges, with the exception of the two short ultraviolet B (UVB) wavelengths. MUDs increased to 25 from 6 mj/cm2 at 307.5± 5nm, and to 500 from 15 mj/cm2 at 320 ± 10nm, before the initial TPE. In our review, we included five articles covering eight SU patients who received TPE. Of these, the five patients with positive intradermal tests responded particularly well immediately after treatment. However, the condition relapsed within two weeks in one patient and within two months in another. In contrast, the other three patients with negative intradermal tests, showed no significant benefits from the treatment. No serious side effects from TPE were reported amongst the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This review underscores the efficacy of serial plasmapheresis procedures in treating refractory cases of SU, high3lighting the robust results observed.

Overexposure to ultraviolet radiation in solar urticaria

A man in his 50s was diagnosed with solar urticaria following monochromated light testing that demonstrated exquisite photosensivity to ultraviolet (UV) A, UV B (UVB) and visible light.Treatment options for this photodermatosis are limited; UVB phototherapy is one modality that can be appropriate in some patients. This is administered at very low doses in a controlled environment to induce skin hardening.1 To self-treat his condition, the patient used a commercial sunbed on two occasions several days apart. He noted an immediate flare of solar urticaria after first use with associated dizziness. Following the second use, he felt generally unwell and was witnessed to lose consciousness and displayed jerky movements of his limbs while a passenger in a car. Investigations including a head MRI and an EEG were normal; an anoxic seizure caused by a flare of solar urticaria was later confirmed.Solar urticaria is a rare photodermatosis that is poorly understood and difficult to treat. The condition has a significant impact on the quality of life of patients. Severe cases can be associated with systemic symptoms that could be life-threatening.

Solar urticaria: clinical characteristics, treatment effectiveness, long-term prognosis, and QOL status in 29 patients

Introduction

Solar urticaria (SU), a relatively rare skin inflammatory and photosensitivity disease, is often resistant to standard urticaria treatment. Quality of life (QOL) among SU patients has not been extensively explored. This study was performed to clarify the clinical features and effectiveness of therapies (e.g., hardening therapy) for SU and to determine QOL among SU patients.

Methods

The authors examined the characteristics, treatments, and QOL statuses of 29 Japanese SU patients using medical records and a questionnaire approach.

Results

Among 29 patients, H1 antihistamine therapy (H1) was effective in 22 (75.8%) patients. H2 antihistamine therapy (H2) was effective in three of seven (42.9%) patients. Ultraviolet radiation A (UVA) hardening therapy was effective in eight of nine (88.9%) patients. Visible light (VL) hardening therapy was ineffective in three of three patients. In one patient who underwent both UVA and VL hardening therapy, only UVA hardening therapy was effective. In the questionnaire, 18 patients (90%) reported some improvement compared with disease onset (four had complete remission, six had completed treatment although mild symptoms persisted, and eight were receiving treatment with moderate symptoms), whereas two patients reported exacerbation. Patients in complete remission had a mean disease duration of 4 years, whereas patients not in remission had a mean disease duration of 8.8 years. The mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score for the current status was 7.4. There was a correlation between DLQI and symptom/treatment status. However, neither DLQI and action spectra nor DLQI and treatments exhibited significant differences.

Discussion

The questionnaire revealed current QOL status and long-term prognosis in SU patients. Compared with disease onset, most patients showed improvement when assessed for this study. Both H1 and H2 should be attempted for all SU patients. UVA hardening therapy may be an option for SU patients with an action spectrum that includes UVA.

Potential Therapeutic Approaches for Chronic Urticaria: Beyond H1-Antihistamines and Biologics

Chronic urticaria is a disease that can significantly impact a patient's quality of life and ability to function. There are effective treatment options, such as nonsedating antihistamines or biologics, but some patients do not respond to these therapies, or the therapies are not available or affordable to all patients. This review aims to summarize potential treatment strategies for patients (1) who do not respond to antihistamines and (2) cannot readily access or do not respond to biologics. The review emphasizes the importance of sound clinical practice, including correct diagnosis of chronic urticaria phenotypes, treatment of associated comorbidities, and consideration of add-on pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches. Although some treatments may lack high-quality evidence, they may still be justifiable in certain cases, provided that there is shared decision-making, regular reassessment, and early recognition of adverse events.

Plasmapheresis: Is it a potential alternative treatment for chronic urticaria?

Background

Chronic urticaria is a common disease. Plasmapheresis is an alternative treatment that can be appropriate for patients who are resistant to treatment with 2nd generation antihistamines or for whom treatment with omalizumab is unsuitable.

Objective

To investigate the effect of plasmapheresis treatment in chronic urticaria.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed based on the data of 98 patients suffering from refractory chronic urticaria who received plasmapheresis as an alternative treatment in Vilnius University’s Hospital Santaros Clinics from 2000 to 2020. The efficiency of the treatment was evaluated by clinical judgment.

Results

58.2% of the patients exhibited a complete or significant response; of these, 37.8% had temporary relief of symptoms and 20.4% achieved disease remission; 41.8% showed no response to the plasmapheresis. Men (34.8%) had a tendency to achieve disease remission more often than women (16%) (p < 0.05). One patient did not finish the plasmapheresis treatment due to the symptoms’ exacerbation and treatment with omalizumab was initiated.

Conclusion

Plasmapheresis is a safe and effective alternative treatment when traditional treatment is unavailable or does not relieve symptoms completely. Our data showed that plasmapheresis was effective in more than half of our patients.

Lichturtikaria: Klinik, Diagnostik, Verlauf und Therapiemanagement bei 27 Patienten

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Solar urticaria is a rare photodermatosis, yet lacking standardization in diagnosis and therapy. The aim of this research was to use innovative radiation sources for diagnostics with defines and reproducible emission spectrum and doses. A uniform therapy step scheme was to be created.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a longitudinal study, 27 patients were examined with solar urticaria over 13 years. With a characteristic anamnesis, the diagnosis was confirmed with phototesting from various radiation sources (UVB, UVB311nm, UVA, UVA1, green light, red light) and a therapy step scheme consisting of light protection, antihistamines, rush hardening with UVA-1 and the treatment with omalizumab.

RESULTS

Action spectrum: UVB 44 %, UVA 70 %, UVA1 89 %, green light 37 % and red light 22 %. Rush hardening was performed on 20 patients, 17 of whom were adequately protected. In three further patients, omalizumab was additionally treated in off-label use.

CONCLUSIONS

Photoprovocation with UVB, UVB311nm, UVA, UVA-1 and visible light with innovative radiation sources is uniformly possible in every major skin clinic. With the help of the therapy step scheme the patients can be adjusted well, a Rush Hardening with UVA-1 is a safe method to help the patients during the sunny season. Omalizumab as the last therapy option is effective, but currently only possible in off-label use.

Solar urticaria: Clinic, diagnostic, course and therapy management in 27 patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Solar urticaria is a rare photodermatosis, the diagnosis and therapy of which have not yet been standardized. The aim of this research was to use innovative radiation sources for diagnostics with defined and reproducible emission spectra and doses. A uniform therapy step scheme was to be created.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a longitudinal study, 27 patients with solar urticaria were examined over 13 years. With a characteristic anamnesis, the diagnosis was confirmed with phototesting (photoprovocation) from various radiation sources (UVB, UVB311nm, UVA, UVA-1, green light, red light) and a therapy step scheme was designed consisting of light protection, antihistamines, rush hardening with UVA-1, and administration of omalizumab.

RESULTS

Action spectrum: UVB 44 %, UVA 70 %, UVA-1 89 %, green light 37 % and red light 22 %. Rush hardening with subsequent maintenance therapy was performed on 20 patients, 17 of whom were hereby adequately protected. In three further patients, omalizumab was additionally administered.

CONCLUSIONS

Phototesting with UVB, UVB311nm, UVA, UVA-1, and visible light with innovative radiation sources is uniformly possible in every major skin clinic. With the help of the therapy step scheme the patients can be adjusted well. Rush hardening with UVA-1 is a safe method to help the patients during the sunny season. Omalizumab as the last therapy option is effective, but currently only possible in off-label use.

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).

Urticaria solar. Estudio de 20 casos

INTRODUCTION

Solar urticaria is an infrequent disorder, but is probably underdiagnosed. It is characterized by the sudden appearance of weals in areas that are not usually photoexposed after exposure to the sun or to artificial sources of visible or ultraviolet light. Few cases have been published in literature, so the information available about this disorder and its natural evolution is limited.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We have compiled data from 20 patients diagnosed with solar urticaria in our department in the last 12 years (1990-2002) in order to try to obtain information about the characteristics of this condition.

RESULTS

As the most relevant characteristics of our series, we can mention the fact that 60 % of the patients were women, and the average duration of the condition before consulting a dermatologist was 3 years. In 55 % of the patients, areas that are usually photoexposed, such as the face and hands, were less severely affected (due to acclimatization or hardening). The spectra responsible for the SU were visible light, UVA and UVB, in that order. With regard to treatment, we obtained a partial response with antihistamines and photoprotectors, and good results using progressive desensitization with UVA/sunlight.

CONCLUSION

Solar urticaria is probably an underdiagnosed condition in our milieu. There are few series in literature that provide any information about the most significant characteristics of this disorder. We have compiled the most relevant data from our patients and we have compared it with the other published series in an attempt to learn more about this photodermatosis.

Urticaire solaire traitée par l’association immunoglobulines polyvalentes et PUVAthérapie

BACKGROUND

Solar urticaria is a rare form of urticaria occurring a few minutes after solar exposure. It is particularly incapaciting because it limits outdoor activities. Antihistamine and phototherapy are sometimes disappointing.

CASE REPORT

A 32 Year-old woman had been suffering from severe solar urticaria since November 2000, which was confirmed by photobiological data. High-dose antihistamine treatment (fexofenadine 180 mg twice a day) was inefficient. Despite a first UVA desensitization, PUVAtherapy produced only a partial improvement and short lasting for protection, with an important handicap in daily life. In March 2002, among the others treatments, we chose intravenous immunoglobulins: 0.5 g/kg the first day then 1 g/kg the second and the third days. The minimal urticaria dose was raised from 1 J/cm2 in UVA before perfusion up to 15.6 J/cm2 48 hours later and in UVB from 100 mJ/cm2 up to 2,200 mJ/cm2. Clinically the improvement was significant but partial in daily activities. It was possible to reintroduce PUVAtherapy without UVA-desensitization and, for the first time, to obtain complete remission for more than 2 Months with an association of intravenous immunoglobulins, PUVAtherapy and antihistamine treatment. In July 2002, treatment was successfully repeated.

DISCUSSION

First intention treatments (antihistamine and PUVAtherapy) are sometimes inefficient. Others treatments (plasmapheresis, ciclosporin, doxepin, cimetidine) are restrictive, not always efficient and can induce severe side-effects. We report the second case of solar urticaria improved by intravenous immunoglobulins. In spite of the cost, intravenous immunoglobulins seem to be an interesting treatment, at least by avoiding UVA-desensitization in severe cases of solar urticaria.

Diagnosis and treatment of solar urticaria

Solar urticaria is one of the most annoying of the photodermatoses. It can be difficult to diagnosis because of phototesting problems, and it is not easy to treat. The different treatment modalities available all have their practical problems, so it is difficult to provide the patient with adequate protection. In many patients, however, treatment can reduce the symptoms and allow regular exposure of the skin to natural sunlight as the skin becomes more tolerant to the provoking wavelengths, the result being more complete protection.