Ebastine in chronic spontaneous urticaria in higher doses

[Approved therapies and their effects on the main symptoms of urticaria : When symptom control of itchy wheals is not adequate-does updosing help?]

International guidelines for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria support the updosing of second-generation antihistamines to four times of the approved dose when adequate symptom control cannot be achieved with the standard dosage. However, this recommendation is primarily based on expert opinions, and there is a lack of large, well-designed, double-blind clinical trials. Most the existing trials provide insufficient data, and due to the heterogeneity of the conducted trials on antihistamine effects (definition of control, design, quality, lack of an active comparator, no placebo arm, small sample size, outcomes) and their short duration, comparative analysis is challenging. However, it can be concluded that the use of modern second-generation antihistamines is both effective and safe based on the available data and our own long-term experiences in the specialized outpatient clinic of a university dermatology department, even though increased dosages (up to fourfold as per the current international guidelines) may be necessary for symptom control. Another therapeutic option for refractory symptoms in chronic spontaneous urticaria is subcutaneous administration of omalizumab at a dosage of 300 mg at 4‑week intervals as a very safe and effective treatment.

Efficacy and safety of ebastine dose escalation in chronic urticaria: A prospective study

The second-generation antihistamines at licensed doses are first-line treatment in urticaria and up-dosing is recommended as second-line treatment. To assess the efficacy and safety of escalated doses of ebastine in patients with chronic urticaria (CU), we designed this study. Recruited patients with CU were treated with increasing doses of ebstine. Treatment started at the daily dose of 10 mg. The symptom is assessed weekly, and if there is no significant improvement, the dose is increased from 10 mg to 20 mg, and if still no significant improvement, up to 40 mg. Pruritus, number, diameter, duration and frequency of wheals, and adverse reactions were assessed. One hundred and forty (76.50%) patients achieved marked effect with ebastine 10 mg/day, 27 (14.75%) patients with ebastine 20 mg/day and 13 (7.10%) patients with ebastine 40 mg/day, while 3(1.64%) patients did not get marked effect. There was no significant difference of effect between factitious urticaria, CSU, cholinergic urticaria and CSU with factitious urticaria in different dose (all p > 0.05). Common adverse reactions of ebstine treatment, included dry mouth, somnolence, tiredness and headache, were mild or moderate. There was no significant difference between the degree score of dry mouth with different doses of ebastine, and the same to somnolence, tiredness and headache (all p > 0.05). Doses escalation of ebastine should be effective in treatment of factitious urticaria, CSU and cholinergic urticaria with poorly treated by standard of double doses. Increasing ebastine dose did not increase the incidence of adverse reactions.

Current approaches used in treating COVID-19 from a molecular mechanisms and immune response perspective

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 targets the respiratory system, resulting in symptoms such as fever, headache, dry cough, dyspnea, and dizziness. These symptoms vary from person to person, ranging from mild to hypoxia with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and sometimes death. Although not confirmed, phylogenetic analysis suggests that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated from bats; the intermediary facilitating its transfer from bats to humans is unknown. Owing to the rapid spread of infection and high number of deaths caused by SARS-CoV-2, most countries have enacted strict curfews and the practice of social distancing while awaiting the availability of effective U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications and/or vaccines. This review offers an overview of the various types of coronaviruses (CoVs), their targeted hosts and cellular receptors, a timeline of their emergence, and the roles of key elements of the immune system in fighting pathogen attacks, while focusing on SARS-CoV-2 and its genomic structure and pathogenesis. Furthermore, we review drugs targeting COVID-19 that are under investigation and in clinical trials, in addition to progress using mesenchymal stem cells to treat COVID-19. We conclude by reviewing the latest updates on COVID-19 vaccine development. Understanding the molecular mechanisms of how SARS-CoV-2 interacts with host cells and stimulates the immune response is extremely important, especially as scientists look for new strategies to guide their development of specific COVID-19 therapies and vaccines.

Treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria: Immunomodulatory approaches

This paper summarizes and reviews the mechanisms of action and data concerning efficacy of recommended treatments as well as other treatments that have been tested, independently of the outcomes, in the management of chronic spontaneous urticaria. Due to the central role of mast cells, basophils and histamine in the pathophysiology of this disease, H₁-antihistamines remain the first-line treatment. However, current knowledge about this complex disease, also recognizes an important role for T lymphocytes, B lymphocytes, and autoantibodies. Implications of these others mediators thus provide further targets for treatment. Indeed, agents previously used to treat other autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, have demonstrated efficacy in chronic spontaneous urticaria and are therefore potential therapeutic alternatives for antihistamine unresponsive patients.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ebastine 20 mg, Ebastine 10 mg and Levocetirizine 5 mg in Acute Urticaria

INTRODUCTION

Acute and chronic urticaria can result in severely impaired quality of life from pruritus and associated sleep lessness, as well as anxiety and depression. Various treatment modalities are available out of which second generation non sedating H1 antihistamines e.g., fexofenadine, loratidine, desloratadine, cetirizine, levocetirizine, ebastine etc., are used as the first line treatment.

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of ebastine 20 mg, ebastine 10 mg and levocetirizine 5 mg in the patients of urticaria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A longitudinal study was conducted in dermatology Outpatient Department (OPD) of Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Bathinda, India. A total of 150 patients between the age group 10-70 years, both men and women having urticaria were enrolled and divided into three groups of 50 each. Group A was given ebastine 20 mg OD, Group B was given ebastine 10 mg OD and Group C was given levocetirizine 5 mg OD. The patients were asked to scale their severity of disease over a period of follow up based on Urticarial Activity Score 7 (UAS7).

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 32.82 years. The mean UAS 7 score at the end of 4th week was 1.08 with ebastine 20 mg, 1.98 with levocetirizine 5 mg and 3.98 with ebastine 10 mg. In group A, 40 out of 50 patients (i.e., 80%), in Group B 25 out of 50 (i.e., 50%) get UAS7=0 and in Group C, 35 (i.e., 70%) patients who got relieved of symptoms at the end of treatment. When the scores were redefined and categorized under relieved and not relieved, and comparison done between all three groups, then there was a significant difference in the number of patients getting relieved, with p<0.001 (highly significant). Levocetirizine 5 mg had shown more side effects like dryness of mouth and sedation as compare to ebastine irrespective of dosage. The comparison made between the number of patients developing side effects among the groups was highly significant (p<0.001) for all the side effects.

CONCLUSION

Ebastine 20 mg is found to have superior efficacy for treatment of Urticaria as compared to ebastine 10 mg but with levocetirizine 5 mg the results were almost similar. Tolerability of ebastine 20 mg is similar to ebastine 10 mg but with levocetirizine 5 mg there were more side effects and less tolerability.

Management of chronic inducible urticaria according to the guidelines: A prospective controlled study

BACKGROUND

The recommended treatment approach in chronic inducible urticarias (CIndU) is the same as that for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). But there is a lack of controlled trials assessing efficacy of available treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of treatment algorithm recommended by the guidelines and comparison of treatment responses in CIndU vs CSU.

METHODS

This prospective parallel group controlled study included 70 CIndU and 66 CSU patients. The same treatment algorithm recommended by the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology/Global Allergy and Asthma European Network/European Dermatology Forum/World Allergy Organization (EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO) was implemented to both CSU and CIndU patients. Treatment responses of the groups were evaluated with urticaria control test (UCT) and dermatology life quality questionnaire (DLQI) scores at the 0, 4, 8, 12 and 24th weeks for CIndU and 0, 4, 12 and 24 weeks for CSU.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients (20,9%) with CIndU and 25 (37,9%) with CSU responded to standard doses of H1-AHs which was significantly higher in the CSU group (p=0,031, p<0,05). Patients with CIndU and CSU showed statistically similar responses to 2nd line treatments (combining or updosing AHs) (p=0,979; p>0,05). Twenty-seven (40,3%) of CIndU patients and 21 (31,8%) of CSU patients were diagnosed as AH-resistant urticaria. Omalizumab was administered to 15 CSU patients and 17 CIndU patients. Response rates to omalizumab were similar in both groups. Total response rates increased from 37,9% (n:25) to 68,2% (n:45) with the 2nd line treatments in CSU group while it increased from 20,9% (n:14) to 59,7% (n:40) in CIndU group. When omalizumab was introduced to AH-refractory cases as a 3rd line treatment, total response rates evaluated at the 12th week were 76,1% (n:51) in patients with CIndU and 83,3% (n:55) in CSU. Continuing omalizumab treatment for 24 weeks increased response rates in patients who were unresponsive at week 12.

CONCLUSION

CIndU seem to be more resistant to standard doses of AHs and higher doses of AHs are required for the control of symptoms. The same guidelines for CSU may be implemented to patients with CIndU.

Effectiveness and safety of antihistamines up to fourfold or higher in treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria

Background

Treatment with second-generation antihistamines is recommended in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Some patients remain unresponsive even after up-dosing up to fourfold. Many third line treatment options have limited availability and/or give rise to significant side effects. We investigated effectiveness and safety of antihistamine treatment with dosages up to fourfold and higher.

Methods

This retrospective analysis of patients’ records was performed in adult CSU patients suffering wheals and/or angioedema (AE). Demographic, clinical, and therapeutic data was extracted from their medical records. We recorded the type, maximum prescribed dosage, effectiveness, and reported side effects of antihistamine treatment.

Results

Of 200 screened patients, 178 were included. Treatment was commenced with a once daily dose of antihistamines. Persisting symptoms meant that up-dosing up to fourfold occurred in 138 (78%) of patients, yielding sufficient response in 41 (23%). Up-dosing antihistamines was necessary in 110 (80%) patient with weals alone or weals with angioedema and 28 (64%) with AE only (p = 0.039). Of the remaining 97 patients with insufficient response, 59 were treated with dosages higher than fourfold (median dosage 8, range 5–12). This was sufficient in 29 patients (49%). Side effects were reported in 36 patients (20%), whereof 30 (17%) experienced somnolence. Side effects after up-dosing higher than fourfold were reported in six out of 59 patients (10%).

Conclusion

Up-dosing antihistamines higher than fourfold dosage seems a feasible therapeutic option with regards to effectiveness and safety. The need for third line therapies could be decreased by 49%, with a very limited increase of reported side effects.

Updosing nonsedating antihistamines in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

There is a lack of large, randomized, double-blind studies that address antihistamine updosing for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). The objective of this systematic review is to explore and analyse available data to provide clinical evidence for the efficacy of antihistamine updosing. We searched the literature in Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases using the keywords 'chronic, urticaria, antihistamines' to identify studies published between January 1990 and November 2014. We assessed quality using the Jadad score that evaluates quality of randomization, double-blinding and losses to follow-up. We identified 1042 articles and 15 articles were included in the final evaluation. We performed two meta-analyses, one that included studies that analysed treatment response among groups receiving different antihistamine dosages vs. placebo, and another that analysed antihistamine updosing in those patients who did not respond to standard dosages. Only five articles obtained a high quality level score. We did not find significant differences in response rates or number of weals in those patients who received a standard dosage vs. a high dosage. We found a significant improvement only in the pruritus variable of the Urticaria Activity Score scale. The estimated relative risk for improvement by increasing the antihistamine dosage was 2·27 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1·68-3·06]; however, there was significant heterogeneity. The proportion of nonrespondent patients with CSU who responded to antihistamine updosing was 63·2% (95% CI 57-69·6). We found that updosing antihistamines significantly improved control of pruritus but not weal number. However, the relative weakness of the studies and the significant heterogeneity among them made it difficult to reach a final conclusion.

Updosing of Nonsedating Anti-histamines in Recalcitrant Chronic Urticaria

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a persistent, debiliating condition that causes severe impairment on the quality of life (QoL) of patient by interrupting work productivity. Current guidelines recommend second-generation (nonsedating) anti-histamines for the treatment for all forms of urticaria. In patients who do not respond adequately to conventional doses of anti-histamines, it is recommended to increase the dose to up to four times to obtain control. But there are only few controlled studies that have assessed the efficacy and safety of nonsedating anti-histamines. Though sedating histamines are frequently used as an add-on therapy in severe cases, they have a negative impact on QoL by compromising sleep and performance. The use of other suggested therapeutic options (omalizumab, cyclosporine A, montelukast and dapsone) is also limited by paucity of data on their efficacy and adverse effect profile. Second-generation anti-histamines which are relatively safer require more proven data to support their judicious use to improve disease in patients with CU.

Up-dosing of non-sedating antihistamines in chronic urticaria: Need for well-designed clinical trials in India

Urticaria is a heterogeneous group of diseases. Chronic urticaria significantly impacts quality-of-life of patients. Second generation, non-sedating antihistamines are recommended as first line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria. In patients with inadequate control of symptoms, increase in dosage of non-sedating antihistamines up to four fold has been recommended. This recommendation is based on low cost, good safety and good evidence of efficacy of non-sedating, second generation antihistamines. This article reviewed Indian data on up-dosing of antihistamines in chronic urticaria. There is a need for well-designed clinical trials with -up-dosing of individual antihistamines in Indian patients.