UCOMB-real life data: treatment strategies for chronic urticaria patients with comorbidities

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of real-life safety data on treatment options for chronic urticaria in the presence of comedication and comorbidities.

METHODS

We present a single-center UCARE pilot study of 212 outpatients with chronic urticaria. Patients were divided into three groups according to different CU therapies according to international guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 212 patients, 108 (mean age 48.9 years, 71.3% female) had 59 comorbidities, including cardiovascular, autoimmune and malignant diseases. Patients were followed for a mean of 24.6 months (SD ± 21.3). Urticaria therapies were divided into three groups: A: 105 (97.2%) with omalizumab and 2nd generation antihistamines), B: 16 patients (14.8%): dual therapy with antihistamines and cyclosporine in 10 (9.3%), montelukast in five (4. 6%), dapsone in four (3.7%), hydroxychloroquine in one patient (0.9%), C: 12 (11.1%) patients received a third drug for 4.9 months (SD ± 3.2) and one quadruple therapy (2.1 months). 10 out of 12 (83.3%) patients received montelukast, two (16.7%) cyclosporine, two (16.7%) dapsone and one (8.3%) hydroxychloroquine as a third drug for chronic urticaria.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining treatment modalities for chronic urticaria and comorbidities are available and feasible with a good safety profile.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of compound glycyrrhizin combined with second-generation non-sedated antihistamine for the treatment of chronic urticaria

BACKGROUND

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a prevalent dermatologic disease that negatively affects life, current therapies remain suboptimal. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify effective and safe treatment.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the efficacy and safety of compound glycyrrhizin (CG) combined with second-generation nonsedated antihistamine for the treatment of CU.

METHODS

Nine databases were queried to screen RCTs related. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane Collaboration. Primary objective was the total efficiency rate, while secondary was rate of recurrence, adverse events, and cure. Statistical analyses using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata17.

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs were identified. Significant differences were noted in rate of total efficiency (n = 2649, RR = 1.36, 95%CI:1.30-1.43, p < 0.00001), cure (n = 2649, RR = 1.54, 95%CI:1.42-1.66, p < 0.00001) and recurrence (n = 446, RR = 0.34, 95%CI:0.20-0.58, p < 0.00001) between the combination of CG with second-generation non-sedated antihistamine and antihistamine monotherapy. Contrastingly, adverse events rate (n = 2317, RR = 0.76, 95% CI:0.59-0.97, p = 0.03) was comparable between the two groups. Our results indicated that CG combined with second-generation non-sedated antihistamine could significantly mitigate the symptoms in CU compared with antihistamine monotherapy. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

CG combined with second-generation nonsedated antihistamine is effective for CU. Nevertheless, higher-quality studies are warranted to validate our results.

Discovery of the novel and potent histamine H1 receptor antagonists for treatment of allergic diseases

Desloratadine, a second-generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist, has established itself as a first-line drug for the treatment of allergic diseases. Despite its effectiveness, desloratadine exhibits an antagonistic effect on muscarinic M3 receptor, which can cause side effects such as dry mouth and urinary retention, ultimately limiting its clinical application. Herein, we describe the discovery of compound Ⅲ-4, a novel H1 receptor antagonist with significant H1 receptor antagonistic activity (IC50 = 24.12 nM) and enhanced selectivity towards peripheral H1 receptor. In particular, Ⅲ-4 exhibits reduced M3 receptor inhibitory potency (IC50 > 10,000 nM) and acceptable hERG inhibitory activity (17.6 ± 2.1 μM) compare with desloratadine. Additionally, Ⅲ-4 exhibits favorable pharmacokinetic properties, as well as in vivo efficacy and safety profiles. All of these reveal that Ⅲ-4 has potential to emerge as a novel H1 receptor antagonist for the treatment of allergic diseases. More importantly, the compound Ⅲ-4 (HY-078020) has recently been granted clinical approval.

Allergic Rhinitis: A Review

Importance

Allergic rhinitis affects an estimated 15% of the US population (approximately 50 million individuals) and is associated with the presence of asthma, eczema, chronic or recurrent sinusitis, cough, and both tension and migraine headaches.

Observations

Allergic rhinitis occurs when disruption of the epithelial barrier allows allergens to penetrate the mucosal epithelium of nasal passages, inducing a T-helper type 2 inflammatory response and production of allergen-specific IgE. Allergic rhinitis typically presents with symptoms of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drainage, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. In an international study, the most common symptoms of allergic rhinitis were rhinorrhea (90.38%) and nasal congestion (94.23%). Patients with nonallergic rhinitis present primarily with nasal congestion and postnasal drainage frequently associated with sinus pressure, ear plugging, muffled sounds and pain, and eustachian tube dysfunction that is less responsive to nasal corticosteroids. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis typically have physical examination findings of edematous and pale turbinates. Patients with perennial allergic rhinitis typically have erythematous and inflamed turbinates with serous secretions that appear similar to other forms of chronic rhinitis at physical examination. Patients with nonallergic rhinitis have negative test results for specific IgE aeroallergens. Intermittent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring less than 4 consecutive days/week or less than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Persistent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring more often than 4 consecutive days/week and for more than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Patients with allergic rhinitis should avoid inciting allergens. In addition, first-line treatment for mild intermittent or mild persistent allergic rhinitis may include a second-generation H1 antihistamine (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine) or an intranasal antihistamine (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), whereas patients with persistent moderate to severe allergic rhinitis should be treated initially with an intranasal corticosteroid (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) either alone or in combination with an intranasal antihistamine. In contrast, first-line therapy for patients with nonallergic rhinitis consists of an intranasal antihistamine as monotherapy or in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid.

Conclusions and Relevance

Allergic rhinitis is associated with symptoms of nasal congestion, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. Patients with allergic rhinitis should be instructed to avoid inciting allergens. Therapies include second-generation H1 antihistamines (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine), intranasal antihistamines (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), and intranasal corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) and should be selected based on the severity and frequency of symptoms and patient preference.

Remibrutinib demonstrates favorable safety profile and sustained efficacy in chronic spontaneous urticaria over 52 weeks

BACKGROUND

Remibrutinib (LOU064), an oral, highly selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, offers fast disease control in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who remain symptomatic despite treatment with second-generation H1 antihistamines. It is currently in phase 3 development for CSU.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of remibrutinib in patients with CSU inadequately controlled with H1 antihistamines.

METHODS

In this phase 2b extension study, patients who completed the core study and had a weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) ≥16 at the beginning of the extension study received remibrutinib 100 mg twice daily for 52 weeks. The primary objective was to assess long-term safety and tolerability. Key efficacy end points included change from baseline in UAS7 and proportion of patients with complete response to treatment (UAS7 = 0) and well-controlled disease (UAS7 ≤6) at week 4 and over 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall, 84.3% (194/230) of patients entered the treatment period and received ≥1 doses of remibrutinib. The overall safety profile of remibrutinib was comparable between the extension and core studies. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate and considered unrelated to remibrutinib by investigators. The 3 most common treatment-emergent adverse events by system organ class were infections (30.9%), skin and subcutaneous tissue (26.8%), and gastrointestinal disorders (16.5%). At week 4 and 52, mean ± SD change from baseline in UAS7 was -17.6 ± 13.40 and -21.8 ± 10.70; UAS7 = 0 (as observed) was achieved in 28.2% and 55.8% and UAS7 ≤6 (as observed) was achieved in 52.7% and 68.0% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Remibrutinib demonstrated a consistent favorable safety profile with fast and sustained efficacy for up to 52 weeks in patients with CSU.

Efficacy and safety of ligelizumab in adults and adolescents with chronic spontaneous urticaria: results of two phase 3 randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Many patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) do not achieve complete control of their symptoms with current available treatments. In a dose-finding phase 2b study, ligelizumab improved urticaria symptoms in patients with H1-antihistamine (H1-AH) refractory CSU. Here, we report the efficacy and safety outcomes from two ligelizumab phase 3 studies.

METHODS

PEARL-1 and PEARL-2 were identically designed randomised, double-blind, active-controlled and placebo-controlled parallel-group studies. Patients aged 12 years or older with moderate-to-severe H1-AH refractory CSU were recruited from 347 sites in 46 countries and randomly allocated in a 3:3:3:1 ratio via Interactive Response Technology to 72 mg ligelizumab, 120 mg ligelizumab, 300 mg omalizumab, or placebo, dosed every 4 weeks, for 52 weeks. Patients allocated to placebo received 120 mg ligelizumab from week 24. The primary endpoint was change-from-baseline (CFB) in weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) at week 12, and was analysed in all eligible adult patients according to the treatment assigned at random allocation. Safety was assessed throughout the study in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03580369 (PEARL-1) and NCT03580356 (PEARL-2). Both trials are now complete.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 17, 2018, and Oct 26, 2021, 2057 adult patients were randomly allocated across both studies (72 mg ligelizumab n=614; 120 mg ligelizumab n=616; 300 mg omalizumab n=618, and placebo n=209). A total of 1480 (72%) of 2057 were female, and 577 (28%) of 2057 were male. Mean UAS7 at baseline across study groups ranged from 29·37 to 31·10. At week 12, estimated treatment differences in mean CFB-UAS7 were as follows: for 72 mg ligelizumab versus placebo, -8·0 (95% CI -10·6 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -10·0 (-12·6 to -7·4; PEARL-2); 72 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·2 to 2·5; PEARL-1), 0·4 (-1·4 to 2·2; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus placebo -8·0 (-10·5 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -11·1 (-13·7 to -8·5; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·1 to 2·5; PEARL-1), -0·7 (-2·5 to 1·1; PEARL-2). Both doses of ligelizumab were superior to placebo (p<0·0001), but not to omalizumab, in both studies. No new safety signals were identified for ligelizumab or omalizumab.

INTERPRETATION

In the phase 3 PEARL studies, ligelizumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo but not versus omalizumab. The safety profile of ligelizumab was consistent with previous studies.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma.

Fundamental Aspects and Relevance of Components in Antihistamine Eye Drops

Ocular allergy covers a series of immune-allergic inflammatory diseases of the ocular surface, with different degrees of involvement and severity. These pathologies are caused by a variety of IgE- and non-IgE-mediated immune mechanisms and may involve all parts of the external eye, including the conjunctiva, cornea, eyelids, tear film, and commensal flora. The most frequent is allergic conjunctivitis, a condition with different clinical forms that are classified according to the degree of involvement and the presence or absence of proliferative changes in the palpebral conjunctiva, associated atopic dermatitis, and mechanical stimuli by foreign bodies, including contact lenses. Treatment guidelines for allergic conjunctivitis propose a stepwise approach that includes medications for both ophthalmic and oral administration depending on symptom severity, allergic comorbidities, and degree of control. In the case of antihistamines, eye drops are the most prescribed ophthalmic formulations. To avoid disrupting the delicate balance of the ocular surface, topical ophthalmic medications must be well tolerated. The primary aim of this article is to review the physicochemical characteristics and other features of excipients (preservative agents, buffers, pH adjusters, viscosity enhancers, wetting agents or cosolvents, antioxidants, tonicity adjusters, and osmo-protectants) and active compounds (ocular antihistamines) that must be considered when developing formulations for ophthalmic administration of antihistamines. We also provide a brief overview of antihistamine eye drops that could be of interest to professionals treating ocular allergy and encourage the use of preservative-free formulations when possible.

The Added-on of Ziziphus jujube Syrup in the Treatment of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria Resistant to Standard-Dose of Secondary-generation H1 Antihistamine: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Although antihistamines are the first-line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), 50% of patients don't respond to standard doses. In this study, the effectiveness of Ziziphus jujube fruit syrup in combination with antihistamines was assessed in patients with CSU.

Methods

This double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in Shiraz between December 2019 and December 2020. 64 patients with CSU who had experienced hives for at least six weeks and did not respond to the usual treatments were enrolled in the study. They were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups using permuted block random allocation. For four weeks, the intervention group received 7.5 mL Ziziphus jujube syrup twice a day, while the control group received 7.5 mL simple jujube syrup twice a day. Both groups received cetirizine 10 mg every night. Urticaria activity score (UAS) and CU-Q2oL questionnaires were used to assess urticaria state and sleep quality before and after each week for four consecutive weeks. Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 18, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Before the intervention, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups' mean of UAS (P=0.490) and sleep quality (P=0.423). During the follow-up, UAS in the intervention group was significantly lower (P=0.001). Moreover, this difference was significant on the day 28 (P=0.046). During the follow-up, the quality of sleep in both groups improved significantly, and this improvement was more significant in the intervention group.

Conclusion

Ziziphus jujube syrup could be an effective adjuvant treatment for CSU.Trial Registration Number: IRCT20190304042916N1.

Exploring the interactions of antihistamine with retinoic acid receptor beta (RARB) by molecular dynamics simulations and genome-wide meta-analysis

Kaposi sarcoma (KS) is one of the most common AIDS-related malignant neoplasms, which can leave lesions on the skin among HIV patients. These lesions can be treated with 9-cis-retinoic acid (9-cis-RA), an endogenous ligand of retinoic acid receptors that has been FDA-approved for treatment of KS. However, topical application of 9-cis-RA can induce several unpleasant side effects, like headache, hyperlipidemia, and nausea. Hence, alternative therapeutics with less side effects are desirable. There are case reports associating over-the-counter antihistamine usage with regression of KS. Antihistamines competitively bind to H1 receptor and block the action of histamine, best known for being released in response to allergens. Furthermore, there are already dozens of antihistamines that are FDA-approved with less side effects than 9-cis-RA. This led our team to conduct a series of in-silico assays to determine whether antihistamines can activate retinoic acid receptors. First, we utilized high-throughput virtual screening and molecular dynamics simulations to model high-affinity interactions between antihistamines and retinoic acid receptor beta (RARβ). We then performed systems genetics analysis to identify a genetic association between H1 receptor itself and molecular pathways involved in KS. Together, these findings advocate for exploration of antihistamines against KS, starting with our two promising hit compounds, bepotastine and hydroxyzine, for experimental validation study in the future.

Interleukin-33, endothelin-1, and inflammatory parameters in chronic spontaneous urticaria

Background: Endothelin-1 (ET-1) and interleukin-33 (IL-33) can modulate the activation of mast cells and basophils in the pathophysiology of allergic diseases, interplaying with other mediators of "low-grade inflammation." Objective: To compare ET-1, IL-33, the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), eosinophil-lymphocyte ratio (ELR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), eosinophil-basophil ratio (EBR), systemic immune inflammation index (SII), and system inflammation response index (SIRI) in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and are antihistamine sensitive (AHS), antihistamine resistant (AHR), omalizumab sensitive (OmS), and omalizumab resistant (OmR). Methods: A prospective observational study enrolled 68 consecutive patients with CSU diagnosed and managed according to the dermatology section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the European Union funded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), and the World Allergy Organization guidelines. Patients with a urticaria control test score of >12 are considered treatment sensitive, and ≤ 12 are considered resistant. The control group consisted of 20 sex-matched subjects without urticarial diseases. Total immunoglobulin E (IgE), antinuclear antibodies (ANA), thyroid stimulating hormone, antithyroid peroxidase, mean platelet volume (MPV), NLR, ELR, PLR, EBR, SII, SIRI, ET-1, and IL-33 were measured at the study entry and compared between the study groups. Results: Thirty AHS group, 38 AHR group, and 20 control group patients were included. The AHS, AHR, and control groups did not differ in demographic parameters, but the CSU groups were characterized by higher indicators of inflammation. In comparison with the AHS group, the AHR group was characterized by higher levels of IL-33 (p = 0.007), ET-1 (p = 0.032), C-reactive protein (p = 0.016), MPV (p = 0.002), and higher rates of positive ANA (p = 0.019). Of the 38 patients from the AHR group, 30 (79%) were included in the OmS group and 8 (21%) were included in the OmR group. The OmR group was characterized by higher levels of C-reactive protein (p = 0.022), EBR (p < 0.001), higher rates of ANA (p = 0.004), and lower levels of ET-1 (p = 0.025) than the OmS group. Conclusion: Our study did not confirm NRL, PRL, SII, and SIRI, PLR as the biomarkers of treatment response to antihistamines and/or omalizumab in CSU. Higher blood levels of IL-33 and ET-1 characterize AHR CSU.

Comparing four immunosuppressive agents for chronic spontaneous urticaria-A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppression is an integral part of treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), but there is no literature to evaluate the efficacy of multiple immunosuppressive agents.

OBJECTIVE

The comparison of the efficacy, safety, and incidence of adverse effects of four immunosuppressive medicines (tripterygium glycosides, methotrexate, cyclosporine A, and azathioprine) in combination with antihistamines in treating CSU provides a clinical reference and evidence-based medicine for treating CSU.

METHODS

PUBMED, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, WANFANG, CNKI, CBM, and clinical trial registration platform were searched to collect relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies of four immunosuppressive medicines combined with antihistamines for treating CSU. The primary outcomes were the efficacy of weekly urticaria activity score 7 (UAS7) and adverse effects.

RESULTS

This study pooled data from seven randomized clinical trials with 410 participants. The standardized mean differences for change in UAS7 were 0.10 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.01 to 0.68) for cyclosporine A plus antihistamine; 0.03 (95% CI, 0.00 to 0.23) for azathioprine plus antihistamine; 0.52 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.85) for tripterygium glycosides plus antihistamine; and 1.54 (95% CI, 0.64 to 3.67) for methotrexate plus antihistamine. There were no significant differences in side effects between these medicines in the limited number of trials and clinical samples.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that cyclosporine A combined with antihistamine resulted in greater improvements regarding the UAS7 in CSU patients and that tripterygium glycosides are also effective in treating CSU.

Highlights of the treatment of allergic rhinitis according to Chinese guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aimed to introduce the pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis according to the 2022 updated Chinese guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite recent advances in basic and clinical research worldwide, pharmacotherapy remains a mainstream in allergic rhinitis treatment. Usually, the first-line drugs, involving intranasal corticosteroids, second-generation oral and intranasal H1-antihistamines, or leukotriene receptor antagonists, can achieve acceptable outcomes in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The second-line drugs, such as oral corticosteroids, intranasal decongestants and intranasal anticholinergics, can assist in controlling severe symptoms, like nasal congestion/blockage and watery rhinorrhea. For those with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis, evidence-based stepwise strategies are suitable, in which the types and dosages of drugs are de-escalated or upgraded according to their therapeutic efficacy. Meanwhile, omalizumab, a novel biological agent, has burgeoned to satisfy the need of patients.

SUMMARY

This review highlights the staples in Chinese guidelines about the pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis to better understand the guidelines and promote the clinical practice.

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.

Efficacy of different oral H1 antihistamine treatments on allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Oral H1 antihistamines are the first-line treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis, while it is uncertain which kind and dosage of the antihistamines are more effective in improving symptoms of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of different oral H1 antihistamine treatments on patients with allergic rhinitis by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

The search was executed in PubMed, Embase, OVID, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant studies. The network meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 16.0, and the outcome measures of the analysis were symptom score reductions of patients. Relative risks with 95% Confidence Intervals were used in the network meta-analysis to compare the clinical effect of treatments involved, and Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curves (SUCRAs) were also calculated to rank the treatments' efficacy.

RESULTS

18 eligible randomized controlled studies, involving a total of 9419 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. All the antihistamine treatments outperformed placebo in total symptom score reduction and each individual symptom score reduction. According to the results of SUCRA, rupatadine 20 mg and rupatadine 10 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of total symptom score (SUCRA: 99.7%, 76.3%), nasal congestion score (SUCRA: 96.4%, 76.4%), rhinorrhea score (SUCRA: 96.6%, 74.6%) and ocular symptom score (SUCRA: 97.2%, 88.8%); rupatadine 20 mg and levocetirizine 5 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of nasal itching score (SUCRA: 84.8%, 83.4%) and sneezing score (SUCRA: 87.3%, 95.4%); loratadine 10 mg was ranked the lowest in each symptom score reduction besides placebo.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that rupatadine is the most effective in alleviating symptoms of patients with allergic rhinitis among different oral H1 antihistamine treatments involved, and rupatadine 20 mg performs better than rupatadine 10 mg. While loratadine 10 mg has inferior efficacy for patients to the other antihistamine treatments.

Urticaria and Angioedema

Urticaria and angioedema are caused by immunoglobulin E- and non-immunoglobulin E-mediated release of histamine and other inflammatory mediators from mast cells and basophils. Diagnosis is made clinically, and anaphylaxis must be ruled out if urticaria or angioedema is present. A limited nonspecific laboratory workup should be considered unless elements of the history or physical examination suggest specific underlying conditions. The mainstay of treatment is avoidance of triggers when and if triggers are identified. The first-line pharmacotherapy is second-generation H1 antihistamines, which can be titrated to greater than standard doses.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with chronic urticaria during pregnancy: Results of PREG-CU, a UCARE study

BACKGROUND

Although chronic urticaria (CU) is a common and primarily affects females, there is little data on how pregnancy interacts with the disease.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the treatment use by CU patients before, during and after pregnancy as well as outcomes of pregnancy.

METHODS

PREG-CU is an international, multicentre study of the Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence network. Data were collected via a 47-item-questionnaire completed by CU patients who became pregnant during their disease course.

RESULTS

Questionnaires from 288 CU patients from 13 countries were analysed. During pregnancy, most patients (60%) used urticaria medication including standard-dose second generation H1-antihistamines (35.1%), first generation H1-antihistamines (7.6%), high-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (5.6%) and omalizumab (5.6%). The preterm birth rate was 10.2%; rates were similar between patients who did and did not receive treatment during pregnancy (11.6% vs. 8.7%, respectively). Emergency referrals for CU and twin birth were risk factors for preterm birth. The caesarean delivery rate was 51.3%. More than 90% of new-borns were healthy at birth. There was no link between any patient or disease characteristics or treatments and medical problems at birth.

CONCLUSION

Most CU patients used treatment during pregnancy especially second-generation antihistamines which seem to be safe during pregnancy regardless of the trimester. The rates of preterm births and medical problems of new-borns in CU patients were similar to population norms and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy. Emergency referrals for CU increased the risk of preterm birth and emphasize the importance of sufficient treatment to keep urticaria under control during pregnancy.

Histamine H1 receptor antagonist attenuates catecholamine surge and organ injury after severe burns

Severe burns induce a catecholamine surge, causing severe damage to the organism and raising the possibility of multisystem organ failure. Few strategies are generally acceptable to reduce catecholamine surge and organ injury post-burn. We have previously shown that histamine can amplify the catecholamine surge. In addition, promethazine, a first-generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist, alleviates catecholamine surge and organ injury after severe burns in rats. However, evidence is lacking on whether promethazine benefits patients after severe burns. Currently, sedation and analgesia (such as midazolam and fentanyl) are commonly required for patients after severe burns. It remains unclear if patients after severe burns derive clinical benefit from histamine H1 receptor antagonists combined with sedation and analgesia. This study investigates the therapeutic effect of promethazine on patients after severe burns. Moreover, we test the therapeutic effect of cetirizine, a second-generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist, combined with sedation and analgesia in rats after severe burns. We find that promethazine-pethidine treatment shows a tendency for a lower level of total bilirubin than midazolam-fentanyl in patients 7-day after severe burn. Our study confirms that cetirizine combined with midazolam and fentanyl reduces catecholamine surge and liver and lung damage after severe burns in rats; the effects are better than midazolam and fentanyl treatment. In summary, for the first time, we suggest that histamine H1 receptor antagonist has the potential clinical value of reducing liver injury in patients after severe burns. In addition, we reveal that cetirizine combined with midazolam and fentanyl may be an ideal strategy for treating severe burns.

A case of atopic cough with aphonia showed a prominent response to a histamine H1 receptor antagonist

A 33-year-old woman admitted to our hospital for further examination of severe non-productive cough lasting for about two months. Her symptom did not ameliorate by treatments including long acting β2 agonists. She had a medical history of drug allergy to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. At the initial visit, she could not speak at all and communicated with us in writing. Chest auscultation revealed no wheezes, rhonchi and other crackles. Laboratory findings showed a mild eosinophilia with normal total and specific serum immunoglobulin E. The results of an electrocardiogram, a chest X-ray and a chest CT were unremarkable. A fractional exhaled nitric oxide value was within normal limit. Based on these observations, a diagnosis of atopic cough (AC) was suspected, and we started treatment with a histamine H1 receptor antagonist (H1-RA). She had become able to speak again in association with complete disappearance of cough by eight-weeks after treatment initiation, and her symptoms did not recur even after cessation of treatment. By the confirmation of remarkable clinical improvement in response to a H1-RA, a diagnosis of AC was made. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of an AC patient who presented severe cough with aphonia. J. Med. Invest. 70 : 281-284, February, 2023.

An evaluation of remission rates with first and second line treatments and indicators of antihistamine refractoriness in chronic urticaria

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend standard doses of antihistamines as first-line, and updosing of antihistamines as second-line treatment for the management of chronic urticaria (CU). However, remission rates with different types of first- and second-line treatments and indicators of antihistamine response are largely lacking in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

To examine response rates to first- and second-line treatments in CU, and to identify patient characteristics that can predict antihistamine treatment outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed treatment outcomes of 657 CU (556 chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), 101 chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU)) patients who had at least 3-months of follow-up data.

RESULTS

A standard dose of second generation antihistamines (sgAH) was effective in 43.1 % of the patients. An additional 28.8 % of patients were in remission with second-line treatments. Among patients whose disease was in remission with a standard dose of sgAHs, 14.8 % benefited from switching from their current sgAH to another sgAH. Updosing sgAHs, combination of two different sgAHs, sgAH and first generation H1-antihistamine combination, and sgAH and leukotriene receptor antagonist combination provided remission in 38.3 %, 35.8 %, 37.5 % and 25 % of patients who were given these treatments, respectively. Baseline UCT score ≤ 4, emergency referral and family history of CSU were found to be risk factors for antihistamine refractoriness in patients with CSU.

CONCLUSIONS

A step-wise approach to the management of CU is practical as more patients respond to treatment at each step. The presence of baseline UCT score ≤ 4, emergency referral and family history of CSU might be helpful to determine patients who require third-line treatments in advance.

Histamine induced high mobility group box-1 release from vascular endothelial cells through H1 receptor

Background

Systemic allergic reaction is characterized by vasodilation and vascular leakage, which causes a rapid, precipitous and sustained decrease in arterial blood pressure with a concomitant decrease of cardiac output. Histamine is a major mediator released by mast cells in allergic inflammation and response. It causes a cascade of inflammation and strongly increases vascular permeability within minutes through its four G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) on endothelial cells. High mobility group box-1 (HMGB1), a nonhistone chromatin-binding nuclear protein, can be actively secreted into the extracellular space by endothelial cells. HMGB1 has been reported to exert pro-inflammatory effects on endothelial cells and to increase vascular endothelial permeability. However, the relationship between histamine and HMGB1-mediated signaling in vascular endothelial cells and the role of HMGB1 in anaphylactic-induced hypotension have never been studied.

Methods and results

EA.hy 926 cells were treated with different concentrations of histamine for the indicated periods. The results showed that histamine induced HMGB1 translocation and release from the endothelial cells in a concentration- and time-dependent manner. These effects of histamine were concentration-dependently inhibited by d-chlorpheniramine, a specific H₁ receptor antagonist, but not by H₂ or H_3/4 receptor antagonists. Moreover, an H₁-specific agonist, 2-pyridylethylamine, mimicked the effects of histamine, whereas an H₂-receptor agonist, 4-methylhistamine, did not. Adrenaline and noradrenaline, which are commonly used in the clinical treatment of anaphylactic shock, also inhibited the histamine-induced HMGB1 translocation in endothelial cells. We therefore established a rat model of allergic shock by i.v. injection of compound 48/80, a potent histamine-releasing agent. The plasma HMGB1 levels in compound 48/80-injected rats were higher than those in controls. Moreover, the treatment with anti-HMGB1 antibody successfully facilitated the recovery from compound 48/80-induced hypotension.

Conclusion

Histamine induces HMGB1 release from vascular endothelial cells solely through H₁ receptor stimulation. Anti-HMGB1 therapy may provide a novel treatment for life-threatening systemic anaphylaxis.

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy With or Without H1 and H2 Antihistamine Premedication for Peanut Allergy (PISCES): A Placebo-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Current forms of peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) are associated with side effects, and there is a lack of evidence addressing how to mitigate them.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether premedication with desloratadine and ranitidine results in fewer side effects during peanut OIT/desensitization.

METHODS

A total of 43 patients with peanut allergy (mean age, 7.6 ± 2.1 years, 37% females, 63% males, baseline eliciting dose, 33 ± 26 mg) were randomized to OIT with or without concomitant H₁ and H₂ antihistamine blockade, or double-placebo. Patients, study staff/investigators, and statisticians were blinded. The primary outcomes were the frequency and severity of OIT-induced adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and eliciting doses to blinded food challenge.

RESULTS

Adverse reactions occurred more in the OIT groups compared with the double-placebo group (OIT with antihistamines vs double-placebo hazard ratio, 3.75 [95% CI, 2.79-4.72]; OIT with placebo antihistamines vs double-placebo, hazard ratio, 4.62 [95% CI, 3.61-5.62]). Patients given antihistamines cotreatment with OIT had a similar risk of adverse events compared with those who did not use antihistamines with OIT (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.49-1.97]). OIT with and without antihistamines accelerated the incidence rate of adverse events compared with double-placebo (4.8 and 6.4 events per patient vs 3.5 per patient, incidence rate ratio, 2.49 [95% CI, 1.36-4.56] and 2.04 [95% CI, 1.01-4.15], respectively). Antihistamines pretreatment modestly reduced the frequency of moderate to severe adverse reactions among OIT-treated groups (1.9 per patient vs 4.2 per patient, incidence rate ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.24-0.89]), primarily urticaria (0.6 vs 2.1 per patient) followed by abdominal pain (2.6 vs 4.2 per patient), but increased neuropsychiatric adverse events (primarily tiredness and sedation, 2.3 vs 0.7 per patient). Eliciting doses after treatment were similar in all groups. Quality of life improved similarly regardless of treatment with peanut OIT or placebo OIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut OIT with antihistamines modestly reduce the skin and gastrointestinal components of the high incidence of adverse reactions during OIT, and there are no clear differences in improvement in quality of life whether treated with OIT, OIT with antihistamines, or placebo OIT despite OIT being effective in inducing desensitization. Safer food allergy treatment approaches that importantly improve quality of life need to be proved in future robust randomized trials.

A Specialized Therapeutic Approach to Chronic Urticaria Refractory to H1-Antihistamines Improves Disease Burden: The Spanish AWARE Experience

OBJECTIVE

During its first year, the AWARE study assessed disease activity, patient quality of life (QOL), and treatment patterns in chronic urticaria (CU) refractory to H1-antihistamines (H1-AH) in clinical practice.

METHODS

We performed an observational, prospective (24 months), international, multicenter study. The inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years and H1-AH-refractory CU (>2 months). At each visit, patients completed questionnaires to assess disease burden (Urticaria Control Test [UCT]), disease activity (7 day-Urticaria Activity Score [UAS7]), and QOL (Dermatology Life Quality index [DLQI], Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire [CU-Q2oL], and Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire [AE-QoL]). We present data for Spain.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 270 evaluable patients (73.3% female, mean [SD] age, 48.9 [14.7] years). At baseline, 89.3% were prescribed a CU treatment. After 1 year, first- and second-line treatments became less frequent and third-line treatments became more frequent. At baseline, 47.0% of patients experienced angioedema; at 1 year, this percentage had fallen to 11.8%. The mean (SD) AE-QoL score decreased from 45.2 (28.7) to 24.0 (25.8). The mean (SD) UCT score decreased from 7.0 (4.5) to 12.1 (4.1). According to UAS7, 38.2% of patients reported absence of wheals and itch in the previous 7 days at 1 year compared with 8.3% at baseline. The mean (SD) DLQI score decreased from 8.0 (7.4) to 2.8 (4.6). At the 1-year visit, the percentage of patients reporting a high or very high impact on QOL fell from 29.9% to 9.6%.

CONCLUSION

H1-AH-refractory CU in Spain is characterized by absence of control of symptoms and a considerable impact on QOL. Continuous follow-up of CU patients and third-line therapies reduce disease burden and improve patients' QOL.

An open-label, proof-of-concept study of lirentelimab for antihistamine-resistant chronic spontaneous and inducible urticaria

BACKGROUND

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a debilitating mast cell-driven disease, often refractory to standard therapy (ie, antihistamines). Lirentelimab, an anti-sialic acid-binding immunoglobulin-like lectin 8 mAb, selectively inhibits mast cells and depletes eosinophils.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine safety and efficacy of lirentelimab in patients with CU.

METHODS

This phase 2a study enrolled patients with CU refractory to up to 4-fold H1-antihistamine doses. Patients received 6 monthly intravenous doses of lirentelimab (0.3, 1, and up to 3 mg/kg). Primary efficacy end point was change in Urticaria Control Test score at week 22. Urticaria Activity Score weekly average (UAS7) was assessed in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and Cholinergic UAS7 was used for patients with cholinergic urticaria (CholU).

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients were enrolled in 4 cohorts (n = 13 omalizumab-naive CSU, n = 11 omalizumab-refractory CSU, n = 11 CholU, n = 10 symptomatic dermographism). Urticaria Control Test scores increased with lirentelimab across cohorts, with mean changes at week 22 of 11.1 ± 4.1, 4.8 ± 7.0, 6.5 ± 6.2, and 3.4 ± 4.1 and complete response rates (Urticaria Control Test score ≥ 12) of 92%, 36%, 82%, and 40%, respectively. In omalizumab-naive and omalizumab-refractory patients with CSU, disease activity decreased at week 22 (mean UAS7 change, -73% and -47%, respectively), with UAS7 response rates (≥50% reduction) of 77% and 45%, respectively. In patients with symptomatic dermographism, 50% (5 of 10) and 40% (4 of 10) had complete itch and hive resolution by FricTest, respectively, and 100% (7 of 7) evaluable patients with CholU had negative responses to Pulse-Controlled Ergometry exercise test. Most common adverse events included infusion-related reactions (43%; all mild/moderate and transient), nasopharyngitis (21%), and headache (19%). No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Lirentelimab demonstrated activity across 3 forms of antihistamine-refractory CU.

[Modern H1 antihistamines in the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis and comorbid acute respiratory infections]

Patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) have a predisposition to frequent acute respiratory viral infections (ARVI). Inflammation of the mucous membrane of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses in such patients is more pronounced against the background of a combination of allergic and infectious inflammation.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of therapy using modern antihistamines on the condition and severity of symptoms in adult patients with exacerbation of AR caused by plant pollen (seasonal) (SAR) and the development of ARVI.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An observational study was conducted at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology of the Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation from April to August 2021. Included are patients of both sexes aged 18 to 65 years with a previously (at least 1 year ago) verified diagnosis of mild and moderate acute SAR in the acute stage, who sought medical help for ARVI. All patients were prescribed therapy with the inclusion of a drug belonging to the pharmacological group of antihistamines of the 2nd generation (a course of 14 days). In addition, patients received symptomatic ARVI therapy according to indications, including nasal decongestants (as needed), antipyretic and antitussive drugs.

RESULTS

Based on the data obtained, it was possible to prove that the use of modern antihistamines in patients comorbid with AR and ARVI has a pronounced therapeutic effect. Theoritin provides a therapeutic effect at an early stage in relation to nasal and non-nasal symptoms of SAR/ARVI, and also quickly improves the quality of life of patients, which makes its use promising for the treatment of ARVI against the background of AR. The drug has an antihistamine activity comparable to cetirizine and surpasses it in its ability to suppress an allergic inflammatory reaction, for example on the skin, as well as in the duration of preservation of the antihistamine effect.

CONCLUSION

The presented results indicate the effectiveness of theoritin and cetirizine in the treatment of patients with seasonal exacerbation of allergic rhinitis, comorbid for acute respiratory viral infections.

Doxylamine Addiction: A Case Report

Doxylamine succinate, one of the antihistamines available without a prescription for patients suffering from insomnia, is also an antihistamine with the potential for abuse. Although there are case reports about the addictive potential of antihistamines, there are not many studies on doxylamine succinate addiction in the literature. To our knowledge, there have been no case reports on doxylamine succinate addiction in Turkey. This case report presents a patient (43, M), who started using over-the-counter doxylamine succinate at 25 mg/day due to insomnia, gradually increased to 125 mg/day for the last 3 years continuing his doxylamine succinate intake for 5 years uninterrupted, as well as his treatment process. In addition, possible causes and consequences of doxylamine succinate and the potential for abuse of antihistaminic drugs are discussed through the case. Keywords: Antihistamines, drug dependence, doxylamine.

An Update on Assessment, Therapeutic Management, and Patents on Insomnia

Insomnia is an ordinary situation related to noticeable disability in function and quality of life, mental and actual sickness, and mishappenings. It represents more than 5.5 million appointments to family doctors every year. Nonetheless, the ratio of insomniacs who are treated keeps on being low, demonstrating the requirement for proceeding with advancement and dispersal of effective treatments. Accordingly, it becomes significant to provide a compelling treatment for clinical practice. It indicates a need for the determination of various critical viewpoints for the evaluation of insomnia along with various accessible alternatives for treatment. These alternatives incorporate both nonpharmacological therapy, specifically cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, and a number of pharmacological treatments like orexin antagonists, "z-drugs," benzodiazepines, selective histamine H1 antagonists, nonselective antihistamines, melatonin receptor agonists, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants. Besides in individuals whose insomnia is due to restless leg syndrome, depression/mood disorder, or/and circadian disturbance, there is insignificant proof favouring the effectiveness of different prescriptions for the treatment of insomnia though they are widely used. Other pharmacological agents producing sedation should be prescribed with care for insomnia therapy because of greater risk of next-day sleepiness along with known adverse effects and toxicities. This review is also aimed at providing an update on various patents on dosage forms containing drugs for insomnia therapy.

Urticaria and edema in a 2-year-old boy

The absence of blisters, the presence of mild systemic symptoms, and the patient's age guided the diagnosis.

Efficacy and Pharmacological Appropriateness of Cinnarizine and Dimenhydrinate in the Treatment of Vertigo and Related Symptoms

Vertigo is not itself a disease, but rather a symptom of various syndromes and disorders that jeopardize balance function, which is essential for daily activities. It is an abnormal sensation of motion that usually occurs in the absence of motion, or when a motion is sensed inaccurately. Due to the complexity of the etiopathogenesis of vertigo, many pharmacological treatments have been tested for efficacy on vertigo. Among these drugs, cinnarizine, usually given together with dimenhydrinate, appears to be the first-line pharmacotherapy for the management of vertigo and inner ear disorders. Based on these considerations, the present non-interventional study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of cinnarizine (20 mg) and dimenhydrinate (40 mg) in patients suffering from vertigo-related symptoms. To this end, we enrolled 120 adults-70 males, and 50 females-with an average age of 64 years. Before beginning pharmacological treatment, all patients were screened for the intensity of vertigo, dizziness, and concomitant symptoms through the Visual Scale of Dizziness Disorders and Dizziness Handicap Inventory scales. At the end of the anamnestic evaluation, patients received the fixed-dose combination of cinnarizine (20 mg) plus dimenhydrinate (40 mg) 3 times daily, for 60 days. The results of this study provide further insight regarding the efficacy of the fixed combination when used to reduce symptoms of vestibular vertigo of central and/or peripheral origin, after both the 15- and 60-day therapies. Independent of the type of vertigo, the fixed combination was able to reduce dizziness- and vertigo-associated symptoms in more than 75% of all patients treated, starting from 15 days of therapy, and improving 60 days after starting the therapy. Interestingly, we also found differences between male and female patients in the framework of the pharmacological effects of therapy. This study provides further details concerning the therapeutic efficacy of the fixed combination of cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate, and also focuses attention on the possibility that these drugs could act in a gender-specific manner, paving the way for further research.

Pulmonary tuberculosis presenting as henoch-schönlein purpura: Case report and literature review

INTRODUCTION

Henoch-Schönlein purpura (HSP) is an extremely rare condition in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis, with only a few reported cases. Compared to patients with typical clinical symptoms, it is difficult to make a definitive diagnosis when HSP presents as an initial manifestation in pulmonary tuberculosis patients. Herein, a case of pulmonary tuberculosis that showed HSP at first was reported, and the related literatures were reviewed.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 24-year-old man presented with palpable purpura on the extremities, accompanied by abdominal pain, bloody stools, and knee pain.

DIAGNOSES

The patient was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis based on the results of interferon gamma release assays, purified protein derivative test, and computed tomography.

INTERVENTIONS

The patient was treated with vitamin C and chlorpheniramine for 2 weeks, and the above-mentioned symptoms were relieved. However, 3 weeks later, the purpura recurred with high-grade fever and chest pain during the inspiratory phase. The patient was then treated with anti-tuberculosis drugs, and the purpura as well as the high fever disappeared.

OUTCOMES

The patient recovered well and remained free of symptoms during the follow-up examination.

CONCLUSION

Pulmonary tuberculosis presenting with HSP as an initial manifestation is not common. Therefore, it is difficult to clinically diagnose and treat this disease. When an adult patient shows HSP, it is important to consider the possibility of tuberculosis to avoid misdiagnosis and delayed treatment.

Antihistamine Drug Ebastine Inhibits Cancer Growth by Targeting Polycomb Group Protein EZH2

Enhancer of zester homolog 2 (EZH2), a histone lysine methyltransferase and the catalytic component of polycomb repressive complex 2, has been extensively investigated as a chromatin regulator and a transcriptional suppressor by methylating H3 at lysine 27 (H3K27). EZH2 is upregulated or mutated in most cancers, and its expression levels are negatively associated with clinical outcomes. However, the current developed small-molecule inhibitors targeting EZH2 enzymatic activities could not inhibit the growth and progression of solid tumors. Here, we discovered an antihistamine drug, ebastine, as a novel EZH2 inhibitor by targeting EZH2 transcription and subsequently downregulating EZH2 protein level and H3K27 trimethylation in multiple cancer cell lines at concentrations below 10 μmol/L. The inhibition of EZH2 by ebastine further impaired the progression, migration, and invasiveness of these cancer cells. Overexpression of Ezh2 wild-type and its mutant, H689A (lacking methyltransferase activity), rescued the neoplastic properties of these cancer cells after ebastine treatment, suggesting that EZH2 targeted by ebastine is independent of its enzymatic function. Next-generation RNA-sequencing analysis also revealed that C4-2 cells treated with 8 μmol/L ebastine showed a gene profiling pattern similar to EZH2-knockdown C4-2 cells, which was distinctively different from cells treated with GSK126, an EZH2 enzyme inhibitor. In addition, ebastine treatment effectively reduced tumor growth and progression, and enhanced progression-free survival in triple-negative breast cancer and drug-resistant castration-resistant prostate cancer patient-derived xenograft mice. Our data demonstrated that ebastine is a novel, safe, and potent anticancer agent for patients with advanced cancer by targeting the oncoprotein EZH2.

A new treatment of alopecia induced by palbociclib: Topical cetirizine

INTRODUCTION

Recently CDK4/6 inhibitors have been introduced for the treatment of hormone positive breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy. Among their side effects, alopecia is often reported being associated to patients' distress and depressive symptoms.

CASE REPORT

We report the case of a 70-year-old woman affected by breast cancer in treatment with Palbociclib, who developed alopecia.Management and Outcome: We prescribed a topical solution with cetirizine. Global photography, trichoscopy and trichogram were assessed. All evaluations demonstrated alopecia improvement.

DISCUSSION

Currently, no treatment options for CDK 4/6 inhibitors induced alopecia have been proposed. Herein, we report the use of topical cetirizine.

Bilastine: a lifetime companion for the treatment of allergies

Objective: Bilastine is a potent and highly selective H₁-antihistamine approved for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. This article summarizes available data on the use of bilastine in the treatment of allergic disorders in different age groups, including younger and older adults, and school-age children and adolescents.Methods: A PubMed literature search ("bilastine") was conducted on 25 February 2019. Additional literature known to the authors and identified from the reference lists of cited publications was included.Results: Bilastine is administered orally at a dose of 20 mg once daily in adults and adolescents aged ≥12 years and 10 mg once daily in children aged 6 to <12 years. Clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy at improving nasal and ocular symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis, and wheals and itching in patients with urticaria. It has a rapid onset of action and long duration of action. Bilastine does not undergo significant metabolism and does not interact with the CYP450 system, which limits its potential for drug-drug interactions. No dosage adjustments are required in patients with renal or hepatic impairment, or in the elderly. Bilastine is generally well tolerated, even when administered at above-standard doses. It does not exhibit anticholinergic effects or cardiotoxic effects, shows no central nervous system penetration and has minimal sedative properties. It has been shown to improve health-related quality of life.Conclusions: Bilastine is a suitable option for the treatment of patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or urticaria across age groups from school-age children to elderly patients.

An Urticarial Primer

This primer focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of urticaria. All forms have in common the release of histamine with resultant pruritis. Causes include allergies, medications, infections, cold, heat, and pressure with many being defined as idiopathic. Most diagnoses require only a history and physical examination. Treatments normally include non-sedating antihistamines and avoidances but may require systemic steroids, H2 or leukotriene blockers, immunosuppressants, or anti-IgE therapy. While some forms are short lived, many are recurrent for years. Relief from the pruritis should be expected.

Urticaria and angioedema

Urticaria, also known as hives, may affect up to 20% of the population at some time. Urticaria is described as pruritic erythematous, raised, circumscribed lesions with central pallor that blanch with pressure. Urticaria is closely associated with angioedema in 40% of individuals; approximately 10% of patients experience angioedema without urticaria. Urticarial lesions often are generalized, with multiple lesions in no specific distribution; angioedema tends to be localized and commonly affects the face (periorbital and perioral regions) or tongue. Urticaria is subdivided into acute and chronic urticaria based on the duration of symptoms. Acute urticaria lasts < 6 weeks, and an identifiable cause, such as food products, medications (aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics), or insect stings, may be discovered. Urticaria that lasts for >6 weeks is designated as chronic urticaria, and an etiology is seldom identified and thus considered spontaneous. Chronic urticaria may have an autoimmune basis. There is a well-documented association between autoimmune hypothyroidism (Hashimoto disease) and urticaria and angioedema, with a higher incidence of antithyroid (antithyroglobulin and antiperoxidase) antibodies in these patients, who are usually euthyroid. Furthermore, results of studies revealed a circulating immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody directed against the high affinity IgE receptor alpha subunit IgE receptor (FcεRI) or IgE in 40-60% of patients with chronic urticaria. A stepwise approach to the treatment of urticarial is recommended with second-generation H₁ antihistamines being the first line of therapy.

Interventions for pityriasis rosea

BACKGROUND

Pityriasis rosea is a scaly, itchy rash that mainly affects young adults and lasts for 2 to 12 weeks. The effects of many available treatments are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for the management of pityriasis rosea in any individual diagnosed by a medical practitioner.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched five trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies, contacted trial authors, scanned the abstracts from major dermatology conference proceedings, and searched the CAB Abstracts database. We searched PubMed for adverse effects to November 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions in pityriasis rosea. Treatment could be given in a single therapy or in combination. Eligible comparators were no treatment, placebo, vehicle only, another active compound, or placebo radiation treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane. Our key outcomes were good or excellent rash improvement within two weeks, rated separately by the participant and medical practitioner; serious adverse events; resolution of itch within two weeks (participant-rated); reduction in itch score within two weeks (participant-rated); and minor participant-reported adverse events not requiring withdrawal of the treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials (761 participants). In general, risk of selection bias was unclear or low, but risk of performance bias and reporting bias was high for 21% of the studies. Participant age ranged from 2 to 60 years, and sex ratio was similar. Disease severity was measured by various severity indices, which the included studies did not categorise. Six studies were conducted in India, three in Iran, two in the Philippines, and one each in Pakistan, the USA, and China. The included studies were conducted in dermatology departments and a paediatric clinic. Study duration ranged from 5 to 26 months. Three studies were funded by drug manufacturers; most studies did not report their funding source. The included studies assessed macrolide antibiotics, an antiviral agent, phototherapy, steroids and antihistamine, and Chinese medicine. None of the studies measured participant-rated good or excellent rash improvement. All reported outcomes were assessed within two weeks of treatment, except for adverse effects, which were measured throughout treatment. There is probably no difference between oral clarithromycin and placebo in itch resolution (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.52; 1 study, 28 participants) or rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.44; 1 study, 60 participants). For this comparison, there were no serious adverse events (1 study, 60 participants); minor adverse events and reduction in itch score were not measured; and all evidence was of moderate quality. When compared with placebo, erythromycin may lead to increased rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 4.02, 95% CI 0.28 to 56.61; 2 studies, 86 participants, low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI indicates that the result may also be compatible with a benefit of placebo, and there may be little or no difference between treatments. Itch resolution was not measured, but one study measured reduction in itch score, which is probably larger with erythromycin (MD 3.95, 95% CI 3.37 to 4.53; 34 participants, moderate-quality evidence). In the same single, small trial, none of the participants had a serious adverse event, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, which included gastrointestinal upset (RR 2.00, CI 0.20 to 20.04; moderate-quality evidence). Two trials compared oral azithromycin to placebo or vitamins. There is probably no difference between groups in itch resolution (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.48) or reduction in itch score (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.43) (both outcomes based on one study; 70 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence from two studies indicates there may be no difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.00; 119 participants). In these same two studies, no serious adverse events were reported, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, specifically mild abdominal pain (RR 5.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 47.10; moderate-quality evidence). Acyclovir was compared to placebo, vitamins, or no treatment in three trials (all moderate-quality evidence). Based on one trial (21 participants), itch resolution is probably higher with placebo than with acyclovir (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94); reduction in itch score was not measured. However, there is probably a significant difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) in favour of acyclovir versus all comparators (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.53; 3 studies, 141 participants). Based on the same three studies, there were no serious adverse events in either group, and there was probably no difference between groups in minor adverse events (only one participant in the placebo group experienced abdominal pain and diarrhoea). One trial compared acyclovir added to standard care (calamine lotion and oral cetirizine) versus standard care alone (24 participants). The addition of acyclovir may lead to increased itch resolution (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.22 to 16.62) and reduction in itch score (MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78) compared to standard care alone. Rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) was not measured. The trial reported no serious adverse events in either group, and there may be no difference between groups in minor adverse events, such as headache (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 122.44) (all results based on low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared with placebo or no treatment, oral acyclovir probably leads to increased good or excellent, medical practitioner-rated rash improvement. However, evidence for the effect of acyclovir on itch was inconclusive. We found low- to moderate-quality evidence that erythromycin probably reduces itch more than placebo. Small study sizes, heterogeneity, and bias in blinding and selective reporting limited our conclusions. Further research is needed to investigate different dose regimens of acyclovir and the effect of antivirals on pityriasis rosea.

Effect of Bilastine on Diabetic Nephropathy in DBA2/J Mice

Diabetic nephropathy is an unmet therapeutic need, and the search for new therapeutic strategies is warranted. Previous data point to histamine H₁ receptor as a possible target for glomerular dysfunction associated with long term hyperglycaemia. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of the H₁ receptor antagonist bilastine on renal morphology and function in a murine model of streptozotocin-induced diabetes. Diabetes was induced in DBA2/J male mice and, from diabetes onset (glycaemia ≥200 mg/dL), mice received bilastine (1–30 mg/kg/day) by oral gavage for 14 consecutive weeks. At the end of the experimental protocol, diabetic mice showed polyuria (+195.5%), increase in Albumin-to-Creatine Ratio (ACR, +284.7%), and a significant drop in creatinine clearance (p < 0.05). Bilastine prevented ACR increase and restored creatinine clearance in a dose-dependent manner, suggesting a positive effect on glomerular filtration. The ultrastructural analysis showed a preserved junctional integrity. Preservation of the basal nephrin, P-cadherin, and synaptopodin expression could explain this effect. In conclusion, the H₁ receptor could contribute to the glomerular damage occurring in diabetic nephropathy. Bilastine preserved the glomerular junctional integrity, leading to the hypothesis of anti-H₁ antihistamines as a possible add-on therapy for diabetic nephropathy.

The Role of Histamine in the Pathophysiology of Asthma and the Clinical Efficacy of Antihistamines in Asthma Therapy

Mast cells play a critical role in the pathogenesis of allergic asthma. Histamine is a central mediator released from mast cells through allergic reactions. Histamine plays a role in airway obstruction via smooth muscle contraction, bronchial secretion, and airway mucosal edema. However, previous clinical trials of H1 receptor antagonists (H1RAs) as a treatment for asthma were not successful. In recent years, type 2 innate immunity has been demonstrated to be involved in allergic airway inflammation. Allergic asthma is defined by IgE antibody-mediated mast cell degranulation, while group 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2) induce eosinophilic inflammation in nonallergic asthma without allergen-specific IgE. Anti-IgE therapy has demonstrated prominent efficacy in the treatment of severe allergic asthmatics sensitized with specific perennial allergens. Furthermore, recent trials of specific cytokine antagonists indicated that these antagonists were effective in only some subtypes of asthma. Accordingly, H1RAs may show significant clinical efficacy for some subtypes of allergic asthma in which histamine is deeply associated with the pathophysiology.

Chronic Urticaria in the Real-Life Clinical Practice Setting in Portugal: Baseline Results from the Non-Interventional Multicentre AWARE Study

INTRODUCTION

There is a paucity of information regarding chronic urticaria patients' care in a real-world setting. The objective of this study was to report and evaluate the baseline characteristics of Portuguese chronic urticaria patients refractory to H1-antihistamines included in the AWARE study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a non-interventional cohort study. Adult patients with a diagnosis of chronic urticaria with symptoms for at least two months, refractory to H1-antihistamines, consulting one of the 10 participating urticaria centers throughout Portugal have been included in the study. Baseline sociodemographic data, medical history, clinical parameters, medication, weekly urticaria activity score, and dermatology quality of life index have been collected.

RESULTS

Seventy six patients were included, of which 76.3% were women. The majority of patients had a diagnosis of chronic spontaneous urticaria (88.2%) and 39.5% had angioedema. Around 91.0% of patients were medicated with non-sedative H1-antihistamines and 35.4% with a third line therapy. Median dermatology quality of life index was 5.0 and median weekly urticaria activity score was 13.0.

DISCUSSION

The baseline results suggest that patients with chronic urticaria refractory to H1-antihistamines are being under-treated in the real-world setting.

CONCLUSION

The AWARE study demonstrates the real impact of chronic urticaria on Portuguese patients refractory to H1-antihistamines treatment, and 30% report a very large or extremely large deleterious effect on their quality of life. The follow-up of these patients will allow evaluating strategies aimed at optimizing disease control.

Ondansetron or promethazine: Which one is better for the treatment of acute peripheral vertigo?

BACKGROUND

Vertigo is a common annoying complaint needing emergent treatment. There are various treatment options for this condition with different outcomes and side effects.

OBJECTIVES

Assessment and comparison of the effectiveness of Ondansetron and Promethazine in the treatment of acute peripheral vertigo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This clinical trial was conducted in an academic hospital in the north of Iran in 2017. A total of 170 eligible patients were randomly allocated to groups A: received intramuscular (IM) promethazine; and B: received intravenous (IV) Ondansetron, using quadripartite blocks. The severity of vertigo, nausea, blood pressure, heart rate, side-effects, need for re-administration, and the time to become asymptomatic were assessed before the injections, 30 min after and 2 h after the injections.

RESULTS

Excellent improvement in vertigo occurred in both groups (P < 0.001), with a more significant reduction in the promethazine-treated group (P < 0.001). Nausea was reduced more significantly in the ondansetron-treated group (P < 0.05). There were more side-effects seen in the promethazine-treated when compared to the group with ondansetron treatment (P < 0.001). No significant differences were seen in the blood pressures between groups (P > 0.05). Heart rates were reduced in both groups but the changes were insignificant (P > 0.05). The ondansetron-treated group showed a greater need for re-administration of the medication (50.6% vs. 27.1%). The relief score was significantly higher in the ondansetron-treated group compared with the group received promethazine (P < 0.001). The time to become asymptomatic showed no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated that while promethazine cures peripheral vertigo more efficiently, ondansetron is more beneficial for the improvement of nausea and vomiting.

Effect of a Pharmacist-Led Educational Intervention on Inappropriate Medication Prescriptions in Older Adults: The D-PRESCRIBE Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

High rates of inappropriate prescribing persist among older adults in many outpatient settings, increasing the risk of adverse drug events and drug-related hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of a consumer-targeted, pharmacist-led educational intervention vs usual care on discontinuation of inappropriate medication among community-dwelling older adults.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cluster randomized trial (D-PRESCRIBE [Developing Pharmacist-Led Research to Educate and Sensitize Community Residents to the Inappropriate Prescriptions Burden in the Elderly]) that recruited community pharmacies in Quebec, Canada, from February 2014 to September 2017, with follow-up until February 2018, and randomly allocated them to intervention or control groups. Patients included were adults aged 65 years and older who were prescribed 1 of 4 Beers Criteria medications (sedative-hypnotics, first-generation antihistamines, glyburide, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), recruited from 69 community pharmacies. Patients were screened and enrolled before randomization.

INTERVENTIONS

Pharmacists in the intervention group were encouraged to send patients an educational deprescribing brochure in parallel to sending their physicians an evidence-based pharmaceutical opinion to recommend deprescribing. The pharmacists in the control group provided usual care. Randomization occurred at the pharmacy level, with 34 pharmacies randomized to the intervention group (248 patients) and 35 to the control group (241 patients). Patients, physicians, pharmacists, and evaluators were blinded to outcome assessment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Discontinuation of prescriptions for inappropriate medication at 6 months, ascertained by pharmacy medication renewal profiles.

RESULTS

Among 489 patients (mean age, 75 years; 66% women), 437 (89%) completed the trial (219 [88%] in the intervention group vs 218 [91%] in the control group). At 6 months, 106 of 248 patients (43%) in the intervention group no longer filled prescriptions for inappropriate medication compared with 29 of 241 (12%) in the control group (risk difference, 31% [95% CI, 23% to 38%]). In the intervention vs control group, discontinuation of inappropriate medication occurred among 63 of 146 sedative-hypnotic drug users (43.2%) vs 14 of 155 (9.0%), respectively (risk difference, 34% [95% CI, 25% to 43%]); 19 of 62 glyburide users (30.6%) vs 8 of 58 (13.8%), respectively (risk difference, 17% [95% CI, 2% to 31%]); and 19 of 33 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users (57.6%) vs 5 of 23 (21.7%), respectively (risk difference, 35% [95% CI, 10% to 55%]) (P for interaction = .09). Analysis of the antihistamine drug class was not possible because of the small sample size (n = 12). No adverse events requiring hospitalization were reported, although 29 of 77 patients (38%) who attempted to taper sedative-hypnotics reported withdrawal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among older adults in Quebec, a pharmacist-led educational intervention compared with usual care resulted in greater discontinuation of prescriptions for inappropriate medication after 6 months. The generalizability of these findings to other settings requires further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02053194.

Ketotifen fumarate attenuates feline gingivitis related with gingival microenvironment modulation

Gingivitis is evidenced by inflammation of the free gingiva, and still reversible. If left untreated, it may then progress to periodontitis. In the present study, the therapeutical effect of ketotifen fumarate on gingivitis was explored. Domestic cats with varying degrees of gingivitis naturally were enrolled in this study. Subgroups of animals were treated twice daily for one week with or without ketotifen fumarate (5 mg/kg). Effects of ketotifen fumarate were measured on gingival index, cells accumulation, mediators release, receptor-ligand interaction, oxidative stress, MAPK and NF-κB pathways, epithelial barrier and apoptosis. Ketotifen fumarate attenuated the initiation and progression of gingivitis, inhibited the infiltrations of mast cells, B lymphocytes, T lymphocytes, macrophages, neutrophils and eosinophils as well as the release of IgE, β-hexosaminidase, tryptase, chymase, TNF-α, IL-4, and IL-13, influenced endothelial cells, fibroblasts and epithelial cells proliferation and apoptosis, and induced Th2 cells polarization, where ketotifen fumarate also might affect their interactions. Ketotifen fumarate reduced the oxidative stress, and inhibited NF-κB and p38 MAPK related with mast cells and macrophages accumulation. Ketotifen fumarate improved the aberrant expression of ZO-1 and inhibits the following apoptosis. On the other hand, these cells and mediators augmented functional attributes of them involving SCF/c-Kit, α4β7/VCAM-1 and IL-8/IL-8RB interactions, thus creating a positive feedback loop to perpetuate gingivitis, where an inflammation microenvironment was modeled. Our results showed a previously unexplored therapeutic potential of ketotifen fumarate for gingivitis and further suggest that, in addition to biofilms, targeting inflammation microenvironment could be new strategy for the treatment of gingivitis/periodontitis.

The Dysfunction of the Cerebellum and Its Cerebellum-Reward-Sensorimotor Loops in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common itchy skin disease. Despite its prevalence, the neuropathology of CSU is uncertain. In this study, we explored resting state functional connectivity (rs-FC) changes in CSU, as well as how the symptom changes following intervention can modulate rs-FC. Forty patients and 40 healthy controls (HCs) were recruited. Following an intervention, 32 patients participated in a second scan approximately 6 weeks after the first scan. Compared with healthy controls, CSU subjects exhibited higher regional homogeneity (ReHo) values in the cerebellum, which were positively associated with urticaria activity scores over 7 days (UAS7) at baseline. After an intervention accompanied with clinical improvement, we found that ReHo values decreased at the cerebellum and increased at the bilateral primary somatosensory cortex (SI)/primary motor cortex (MI)/supplementary motor area (SMA). Using the cerebellum as a seed, CSU subjects exhibited increased rs-FC with reward regions when compared with HCs and exhibited decreased rs-FC at the right orbitofrontal cortex and right sensorimotor region following the intervention. The improvement rate values were positively associated with reduced rs-FC values in the two regions. Using the cluster of SI/MI/SMA as a seed, CSU patients exhibited decreased rs-FC with the left putamen, caudate, accumbens, and thalamus following the intervention. These results demonstrate the altered cerebellar activity and cerebellum-reward-sensorimotor loops in CSU.

Blocking H1/H2 histamine receptors inhibits damage/fibrosis in Mdr2-/- mice and human cholangiocarcinoma tumorigenesis

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) patients are at risk of developing cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). We have shown that (1) histamine increases biliary hyperplasia through H1/H2 histamine receptors (HRs) and (2) histamine levels increase and mast cells (MCs) infiltrate during PSC and CCA. We examined the effects of chronic treatment with H1/H2HR antagonists on PSC and CCA. Wild-type and multidrug-resistant knockout (Mdr2-/- ) mice were treated by osmotic minipumps with saline, mepyramine, or ranitidine (10 mg/kg body weight/day) or a combination of mepyramine/ranitidine for 4 weeks. Liver damage was assessed by hematoxylin and eosin. We evaluated (1) H1/H2HR expression, (2) MC presence, (3) L-histidine decarboxylase/histamine axis, (4) cholangiocyte proliferation/bile duct mass, and (5) fibrosis/hepatic stellate cell activation. Nu/nu mice were implanted with Mz-ChA-1 cells into the hind flanks and treated with saline, mepyramine, or ranitidine. Tumor growth was measured, and (1) H1/H2HR expression, (2) proliferation, (3) MC activation, (4) angiogenesis, and (5) epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) were evaluated. In vitro, human hepatic stellate cells were evaluated for H1HR and H2HR expression. Cultured cholangiocytes and CCA lines were treated with saline, mepyramine, or ranitidine (25 μM) before evaluating proliferation, angiogenesis, EMT, and potential signaling mechanisms. H1/H2HR and MC presence increased in human PSC and CCA. In H1/H2HR antagonist (alone or in combination)-treated Mdr2-/- mice, liver and biliary damage and fibrosis decreased compared to saline treatment. H1/H2HR antagonists decreased tumor growth, serum histamine, angiogenesis, and EMT. In vitro, H1/H2HR blockers reduced biliary proliferation, and CCA cells had decreased proliferation, angiogenesis, EMT, and migration. Conclusion: Inhibition of H1/H2HR reverses PSC-associated damage and decreases CCA growth, angiogenesis, and EMT; because PSC patients are at risk of developing CCA, using HR blockers may be therapeutic for these diseases. (Hepatology 2018).

Pheniramine maleate: an apparently safe drug causing bullous fixed drug eruption

Fixed drug eruption is a delayed type hypersensitivity reaction to a drug seen most frequently with antibiotics such as tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and NSAIDs such as naproxen and ibuprofen. Although H1-antihistamines rarely elicit cutaneous adverse effects, there have been a few reports in the literature implicating them in causing fixed drug eruption, particularly the piperazine derivatives (hydroxyzine, cetirizine, levocetirizine), and loratadine. However, cutaneous drug reactions with the alkylamine derivatives like pheniramine maleate are extremely uncommon and fixed drug eruptions have not been reported with any of the alkylamine antihistamines to date. We herein report a case of multifocal bullous fixed drug eruption following ingestion of pheniramine maleate.