Fexofenadine in higher doses in chronic spontaneous urticaria

Biowaiver Monograph for Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Fexofenadine

In this monograph, the potential use of methods based on the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) framework to evaluate the bioequivalence of solid immediate-release (IR) oral dosage forms containing fexofenadine hydrochloride as a substitute for a pharmacokinetic study in human volunteers is investigated. We assessed the solubility, permeability, dissolution, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, therapeutic index, bioavailability, drug-excipient interaction, and other properties using BCS recommendations from the ICH, FDA and EMA. The findings unequivocally support fexofenadine's classification to BCS Class IV as it is neither highly soluble nor highly permeable. Further impeding the approval of generic equivalents through the BCS-biowaiver pathway is the reference product's inability to release ≥ 85 % of the drug substance within 30 min in pH 1.2 and pH 4.5 media. According to ICH rules, BCS class IV drugs do not qualify for waiving clinical bioequivalence studies based on the BCS, even though fexofenadine has behaved more like a BCS class I/III than a class IV molecule in pharmacokinetic studies to date and has a wide therapeutic index.

Advances in clinical application of H1 antihistamines in the treatment of skin diseases

Histamine receptors are classified into 4 types: H1, H2, H3, and H4, each mediating distinct physiological effects and possessing its corresponding antagonistshat that can be used for the prevention and treatment of various diseases. Among them, H1 antihistamines are the fundamental medications in dermatology and are widely used in many diseases such as urticaria and atopic dermatitis. In recent years, with the emergence of novel antihistamines and the discovery of new potential indications for traditional H1 antihistamines, the clinical application of antihistamines is facing new challenges. Further investigation of the novel mechanism for H1 antihistamines, the use of multiple doses of common drugs and potential indications will furnish vital insights for practical clinical application.

A Comparative, Three-Arm, Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness and Tolerability of Bilastine vs Fexofenadine vs Levocetirizine at the Standard Dose and Bilastine vs Fexofenadine at Higher Than the Standard Dose (Up-Dosing) vs Levocetirizine and Hydroxyzine (in Combination) in Patients with Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria

Introduction

Though second-generation antihistamines (SGAH) are first-line drugs in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), 50% of patients do not respond to them. In such patients, guidelines recommend either up-dosing of SGAH or combination of different antihistamines. However, the studies comparing these treatment regimens are limited.

Methods

In this comparative, three-arm study, CSU patients were randomized to receive standard dose of either bilastine, fexofenadine, or levocetirizine for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks of treatment, non-responders received double dose of either bilastine or fexofenadine, while hydroxyzine 25 mg once daily was added in the levocetirizine group. Patients were primarily evaluated for improvement in CSU, quality of life, and somnolence.

Results

A total of 110 patients with CSU were recruited. At the end of 4 weeks, 33/39, 26/35, and 22/36 patients in the bilastine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine groups showed improvement in urticaria symptoms. At week 2, there was no statistical difference in urticaria activity score (UAS7) improvement between any of the groups; however, at week 4, there was a statistical difference between the bilastine and levocetirizine groups (p<0.05). Somnolence was significantly lower in the bilastine group (p<0.05). Bilastine was statistically significant (p<0.05) in the improvement of quality of life as compared to both groups. No major adverse events were reported during study period; however, bilastine was associated with significantly lower levels of AEs compared to levocetirizine (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Two-fold up-dosing of bilastine improves CSU symptoms without compromising safety as compared to two-fold up-dosing of fexofenadine and combination of first- and second-generation antihistamines.

Fexofenadine: review of safety, efficacy and unmet needs in children with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common undiagnosed chronic condition in children. Moderate/severe AR symptoms significantly impair quality of life, and cause sleep disruption, absenteeism and decreased productivity. Additionally, untreated AR predisposes children to asthma and other chronic conditions. Although intranasal corticosteroids are the most effective pharmacologic treatment for AR, oral antihistamines are often preferred. First-generation antihistamines may be chosen to relieve AR symptoms as they are inexpensive and widely available; however, they cause sedative and cardiovascular negative effects due to poor receptor selectivity. Therefore, second-generation antihistamines were developed to reduce adverse effects while retaining efficacy. There are fewer clinical trials in children than adults, therefore, efficacy and safety data is limited, particularly in children under 6 years, highlighting the need to generate these data in young children with AR. Fexofenadine, a highly selective second-generation antihistamine, effectively alleviates symptoms of AR, is non-sedating due to decreased blood-brain barrier permeability, and is devoid of cardiovascular side effects. Importantly, fexofenadine relieves the ocular symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, which occur concomitantly with AR, improving quality of life. Overall, fexofenadine displays a favorable safety profile and results in greater treatment satisfaction in children compared with other second-generation antihistamines. This review aimed to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of fexofenadine with other available first- and second-generation antihistamines in children with AR.

Clinical characteristics of patients with chronic urticaria and adherence to management guidelines by postgraduate students in dermatology: A retrospective single center study

Background:

Chronic urticaria is a heterogenous skin disorder representing one of the important reasons for consultation with a dermatologist. Dermatology post-graduate students play an importanrt role in the treatment of patients with chronic urticaria.

Objective:

The objective of the study was to describe clinical characteristics of patients with chronic urticaria and assess adherence to the guidelines by postgraduate students in the department of dermatology of a tertiary care center.

Materials and Methods:

In this retrospective study, prescriptions of patients with chronic urticaria and/or angioedema presenting to the outpatient department for 5 months were analyzed. Percentage of prescriptions adhering to international urticaria management guidelines was calculated. Urticaria Activity Score, percentage of patients receiving second-generation antihistamines, first-generation antihistamines, and other drugs was recorded. Comorbidities in patients with chronic urticaria were also noted.

Results:

A total of 60 patients (mean age 32.1 years; 58.3% male) were included in. Mean (SD) duration of urticaria at the time of study was 4.7 (2.7) months. Demographism and history of allergy to drugs was present in 45 (75%) and 4 (6.7%) patients. Mean (SD) Urticaria Activity Score was 12.5 (6.5). A total of 12 (20%) patients had comorbidities. Mean number of drugs received per patient was 1.7 (0.5). A total of 47 (78.3%) patients received second-generation antihistamines, whereas 11 (18.3%) received first-generation antihistamines. Two (3.3%) patients received combination of first-generation and second-generation antihistamines. Fexofenadine, levocetirizine, bilastine, and cetirizine was prescribed to 24 (40%), 26 (43.3%), 18 (30%), and 14 (23.3%) patients. There was no significant difference in male and female patients receiving fexofenadine (P = 0.59) or levocetirizine (P = 0.13).

Conclusion:

Adherence to urticaria management guidelines by resident doctors in dermatology department in our institute was satisfactory.

High-dose antihistamines for chronic spontaneous urticaria in adults

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common skin disease characterised by intermittent weals (hives), angioedema or both lasting for at least 6 weeks.1-3 Second-generation antihistamines are widely used to manage symptoms but are not completely effective in many patients at licensed doses.4 Some guidelines recommend off-label use of high-dose antihistamines as the next therapeutic step.2,3 Here, we review the evidence supporting this recommendation.

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.

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.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria - a management pathway for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common and challenging disease, especially with respect to healthcare provision in the context of the German statutory health insurance system. If treatment with second-generation antihistamines is unsuccessful, current guidelines recommend further therapeutic options. However, most of these are off-label. This discrepancy between treatment according to guidelines and the ability to prescribe drugs at the expense of the statutory health insurance (reimbursability) often leads to uncertainties in everyday clinical practice. In addition, physicians prescribing certain drugs are faced with the difficulty of measuring and documenting therapeutic success/outcome. Respective outcome measurement methods have not yet been established in daily practice. Using a consensus process, a working group composed of dermatologists in private practice and specialized urticaria centers has defined a practical pathway for the implementation of current treatment recommendations based on the 2013 S3 guidelines for urticaria. Here, we present a diagnostic and therapeutic management pathway for CSU. Further, we discuss prescription issues in daily practice, including updosing of antihistamines, with regard to cost-effectiveness and drug approval on the basis of published studies and current legislation. Constituting the highest treatment level, the use of cyclosporine A, montelukast, and omalizumab, which has recently become available as therapeutic option, is reviewed. The urticaria control test (UCT) is presented as a valid outcome measure in routine practice. Our objective was to provide physicians in private practice with a practical guideline-based therapeutic decision tool, taking into account the requirements imposed by the statutory health insurance system. It is not meant to replace individualized history taking or treatment of this heterogeneous disease. Rather, we would like to suggest reference points for clinical diagnosis and treatment of CSU.

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.

The Management and Treatment of Chronic Urticaria

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a challenging and frequently encountered diagnosis characterized by the presence of evanescent wheals that persist for greater than 6 weeks. It is estimated that 15% to 25% of the US population are affected at some time in their lives with urticaria and that 33% of all urticaria cases are considered to be chronic. Although acute urticaria is generally benign and self-limiting, serious medical illness may occur with CU. The incidence of CU is estimated to be as high as 5% in the general population and greater than 10% when surveying allergy and dermatology patients. CU is an episodic, pruritic disorder in which 45% to 90% of patients will not have an identifiable cause and occurs 4 times more often in females than males. The average disease duration of CU is between 2 and 5 years, and its typical onset is in the third to fourth decade of life. CU is thought to have the most impact on quality of life than any other allergic disease. This article will provide a clinical update and review on the management and treatment of CU.

Consensus statement on the management of urticaria

This consensus statement was developed by Special Interest Group – Urticaria (IADVL). Urticaria, a heterogeneous group of diseases, often cannot be recognized by its morphology. Due to non-specific and non-affordable diagnosis, management of urticaria, especially chronic urticaria, is very challenging. This guideline includes definition, causes, classification and management of urticaria. Urticaria has a profound impact on the quality of life and causes immense distress to patients, necessitating effective treatment. One approach to manage urticaria is identification and elimination of the underlying cause(s) and/or eliciting trigger(s), while the second one is treatment aimed at providing symptomatic relief. This guideline recommends use of second-generation non-sedating H1 antihistamines as the first-line treatment. The dose can be increased up to four times to meet the expected results. In case patients still do not respond, appropriate treatment options can be selected depending on the cost.

H1-antihistamine up-dosing in chronic spontaneous urticaria: patients' perspective of effectiveness and side effects--a retrospective survey study

BACKGROUND

The guidelines recommend that first line treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria should be second generation non-sedating H(1)-antihistamines with a positive recommendation against the use of old sedating first generation antihistamines. If standard dosing is not effective, increasing the dosage up to four-fold is recommended. The objective of this study was to obtain the chronic spontaneous urticaria-patient perspective on the effectiveness and unwanted effects of H(1)-antihistamines in standard and higher doses.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

This was a questionnaire based survey, initially completed by 368 individuals. 319 (248 female, 71 male, median age 42 years) had a physician-confirmed diagnosis of chronic spontaneous urticaria and were included in the results. Participants believed standard doses (manufacturers recommended dose) of second generation antihistamines to be significantly (P<0.005) more effective than first generation drugs. Furthermore, they believed that second generation drugs caused significantly (P<0.001) fewer unwanted effects and caused significantly (P<0.001) less sedation than first generation antihistamines. Three-quarters of the patients stated that they had up-dosed with antihistamines with 40%, 42% and 54% reporting significant added benefit from taking 2, 3 or 4 tablets daily respectively. The number of reports of unwanted effects and sedation following up-dosing were not significantly different from those reported for standard doses.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey supports the urticaria guidelines recommendations that the first line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria should be second generation rather than first generation H(1)-antihistamines and that, if standard dosing is not effective, the dosage should be increased up to four-fold.