H1-antihistamine treatment in young atopic children: effect on urticaria

The antiglycation potential of H1 receptor antagonists - in vitro studies in bovine serum albumin model and in silico molecular docking analyses

The H1 receptor belongs to the family of rhodopsin-like G-protein-coupled receptors activated by the biogenic amine histamine. H1 receptor antagonists are widely used in the treatment of allergies. However, these drugs could have a much broader spectrum of activity, including hypoglycemic effects, which can broaden the spectrum of their use. The aim of the study was to evaluate the antiglycation potential of twelve H1 receptor antagonists (diphenhydramine, antazoline, promethazine, ketotifen, clemastine, pheniramine, cetirizine, levocetirizine, bilastine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, and loratadine). Bovine serum albumin (BSA) was glycated with sugars (glucose, fructose, galactose, and ribose) and aldehydes (glyoxal and methylglyoxal) in the presence of H1 blockers. The tested substances did not induce a significant decrease in the content of albumin glycation end-products, and the inhibition rate of glycoxidation was not influenced by the chemical structure or generation of H1 blockers. None of the tested H1 receptor antagonists exhibited strong antiglycation activity. Antiglycemic potential of H1 blockers could be attributed to their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity, as well as their effects on carbohydrate metabolism/metabolic balance at the systemic level.

Do Pediatric Emergency Physicians Comply With Guideline Recommendations in Management of Patients With Acute Urticaria?

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of knowledge and practical preferences of pediatricians regarding acute urticaria (AU) management and to assess the effects of training provided in accordance with the current urticaria guideline recommendations on pediatricians who work in the pediatric emergency department (PED).

METHODS

A theoretical training was provided to pediatricians regarding the diagnosis and treatment of AU in line with current urticaria guideline recommendations. Before the training, pediatricians completed a 10-item questionnaire. This prospective study assesses their treatment approaches in patients admitted to PED because of AU during the 6-month period before and the 1-year period after training.

RESULTS

Four hundred seventeen children in the pretraining and 1085 children in the posttraining periods were treated for AU in PED. Forty-eight pediatricians participated in the training. According to their questionnaire responses, 35% of them used only H1 antihistamine (AH) treatment, 50% used second-generation H1 AH (2nd-GAH) as AHs, 75% preferred the oral route of administration, and 85.4% did not administer systemic corticosteroid (sCS) to all patients. Comparing the practice approaches of the pediatricians in the pretraining and posttraining periods, first-generation H1 antihistamine (1st-GAH) preference rate decreased from 68.4% to 30.3% and the sCS preference rate decreased from 58.5% to 25.7%, while the 2nd-GAH preference rate increased from 31.7% to 69.7% (P < 0.001 for all). No treatments were prescribed for 10.8% of patients before the training and 3% after the training during discharge at home (P < 0.05). Comparing the home treatment choices of the pediatricians in the pretraining and posttraining periods, 1st-GAH preference rate decreased from 11.5% to 5%, while the 2nd-GAH preference rate increased from 78.7% to 91.5% (for both parameters, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Practical treatment preferences of pediatricians in the treatment of children with AU differ considerably from both current guideline recommendations and their own theoretical knowledge, and training can enhance pediatricians' compliance with current guideline recommendations.

Oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for eczema

BACKGROUND

The symptoms of eczema can lead to sleeplessness and fatigue and may have a substantial impact on quality of life. Use of oral H1 antihistamines (H1 AH) as adjuvant therapy alongside topical agents is based on the idea that combining the anti-inflammatory effects of topical treatments with the blocking action of histamine on its receptors in the skin by H1 AH (to reduce the principal symptom of itch) might magnify or intensify the effect of treatment. Also, it would be unethical to compare oral H1 AH alone versus no treatment, as topical treatment is the standard management for this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment in adults and children with eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to May 2018: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the GREAT database (Global Resource of EczemA Trials; from inception). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the abstracts of four conference proceedings held between 2000 and 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought RCTs assessing oral H1 AH as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for people with eczema compared with topical treatment plus placebo or no additional treatment as add-on therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcome measures were 'Mean change in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema' and 'Proportion of participants reporting adverse effects and serious adverse events'. Secondary outcomes were 'Mean change in physician-assessed clinical signs', 'Mean change in quality of life', and 'Number of eczema flares'.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies (3285 randomised participants). Seventeen studies included 1344 adults, and eight studies included 1941 children. Most studies failed to report eczema severity at baseline, but they were conducted in secondary care settings, so it is likely that they recruited patients with more severe cases of eczema. Trial duration was between three days and 18 months. Researchers studied 13 different H1 AH treatments. We could not undertake pooling because of the high level of diversity across studies in terms of duration and dose of intervention, concomitant topical therapy, and outcome assessment. Risk of bias was generally unclear, but five studies had high risk of bias in one domain (attrition, selection, or reporting bias). Only one study measured quality of life, but these results were insufficient for statistical analysis.Although this review assessed 17 comparisons, we summarise here the results of three key comparisons in this review.Cetirizine versus placeboOne study compared cetirizine 0.5 mg/kg/d against placebo over 18 months in 795 children. Study authors did not report patient-assessed symptoms of eczema separately for pruritus. Cetirizine is probably associated with fewer adverse events (mainly mild) (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01) and the need for slightly less additional H1 AH use as an indication of eczema flare rate (P = 0.035; no further numerical data given). Physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index (SCORAD)) were reduced in both groups, but the difference between groups was reported as non-significant (no P value given). Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.One study assessed cetirizine 10 mg/d against placebo over four weeks in 84 adults. Results show no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema (pruritus measured as part of SCORAD; no numerical data given), numbers of adverse events (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45; mainly sedation, other skin-related problems, respiratory symptoms, or headache), or physician-assessed changes in clinical signs, amount of local rescue therapy required, or number of applications as an indicator of eczema flares (no numerical data reported). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality.Fexofenadine versus placeboCompared with placebo, fexofenadine 120 mg/d taken in adults over one week (one study) probably leads to a small reduction in patient-assessed symptoms of pruritus on a scale of 0 to 8 (mean difference (MD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.07; n = 400) and a greater reduction in the ratio of physician-assessed pruritus area to whole body surface area (P = 0.007; no further numerical data given); however, these reductions may not be clinically meaningful. Results suggest probably little or no difference in adverse events (mostly somnolence and headache) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.50; n = 411) nor in the amount of 0.1% hydrocortisone butyrate used (co-intervention in both groups) as an indicator of eczema flare, but no numerical data were given. Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.Loratadine versus placeboA study of 28 adults compared loratadine 10 mg/d taken over 4 weeks versus placebo. Researchers found no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed pruritus, measured by a 100-point visual analogue scale (MD -2.30, 95% CI -20.27 to 15.67); reduction in physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORAD) (MD -4.10, 95% CI -13.22 to 5.02); or adverse events. Study authors reported only one side effect (folliculitis with placebo) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.76). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality. Number of eczema flares was not measured for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the main comparisons, we did not find consistent evidence that H1 AH treatments are effective as 'add-on' therapy for eczema when compared to placebo; evidence for this comparison was of low and moderate quality. However, fexofenadine probably leads to a small improvement in patient-assessed pruritus, with probably no significant difference in the amount of treatment used to prevent eczema flares. Cetirizine was no better than placebo in terms of physician-assessed clinical signs nor patient-assessed symptoms, and we found no evidence that loratadine was more beneficial than placebo, although all interventions seem safe.The quality of evidence was limited because of poor study design and imprecise results. Future researchers should clearly define the condition (course and severity) and clearly report their methods, especially participant selection and randomisation; baseline characteristics; and outcomes (based on the Harmonising Outcome Measures in Eczema initiative).

Management of Pediatric Urticaria with Review of the Literature on Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria in Children

There are substantial knowledge gaps related to diagnosis and management of pediatric cases of chronic urticaria, and in particular chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). In this article we aimed to review the diagnosis and management of chronic urticaria in children and CSU in particular. We conducted a systematic review of articles published in English and French on pediatric CSU management in the last 10 years. We included experimental studies (eg, randomized controlled trials), other experimental designs (eg, nonrandomized methods of assignment, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series), and observational studies (eg, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and case reports). Our findings highlight the efficacy of second-generation antihistamines for the treatment of CSU in children and supports the use of omalizumab for more severe cases. However, our study also reveals severe knowledge gaps related to the best management strategy in children with more severe/refractory cases of CSU. Future studies are required to establish the beneficial effect of high doses of second-generation antihistamines as well as the effectiveness and safety of omalizumab and other biologics in young children.

Diagnosis and treatment of urticaria and angioedema: a worldwide perspective

: Urticaria and angioedema are common clinical conditions representing a major concern for physicians and patients alike. The World Allergy Organization (WAO), recognizing the importance of these diseases, has contributed to previous guidelines for the diagnosis and management of urticaria. The Scientific and Clinical Issues Council of WAO proposed the development of this global Position Paper to further enhance the clinical management of these disorders through the participation of renowned experts from all WAO regions of the world. Sections on definition and classification, prevalence, etiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis are based on the best scientific evidence presently available. Additional sections devoted to urticaria and angioedema in children and pregnant women, quality of life and patient-reported outcomes, and physical urticarias have been incorporated into this document. It is expected that this article will supplement recent international guidelines with the contribution of an expert panel designated by the WAO, increasing awareness of the importance of urticaria and angioedema in medical practice and will become a useful source of information for optimum patient management worldwide.

Administration of levocetirizine (glencet) in eczema patients.Clinical and ultrasonic assessment of the efficacy

There was a clinical and ultrasonic study of the clinical efficacy of levocetirizine as a part of a complex therapy in 60 patients with eczema. The dynamic calculation of the EASI, EQ-5D and DLQI indices as well as analysis of ultrasound showings made it possible to confirm the benefits of glencet vs. cetirizine for achieving the clinical effect. The eczema therapy with glencet contributes to the elimination of both exudative and proliferative parts of the complex pathologic chain of the disease in patients with this type of dermatosis.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria in children: itching for insight

While there is increasing information about the pathogenesis and treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (csU) in adults, there is little published information about csU in children. Consequently, most of the recommendations contained in current guidelines for the prevention and treatment of csU in infants and children is based on extrapolation of data obtained in adults. To rectify this, this review points out critical gaps in our knowledge and suggests strategies which may help us to improve our understanding of this condition. How common is csU in children? What do we know about its clinical presentation and the presence of useful biomarkers? What are its common underlying causes? What is the course of csU in children? How does csU affect the everyday life of children? What treatment options are available for children? To answer these questions, two separate types of information are required. The first is information about the prevalence of the condition in the community at large and how csU affects the everyday life of both the child-patient and the parent or carer. Because most csU cases in infants and children do not come to specialists but are treated by general practitioners or by parents using over-the-counter medications, these questions may be answered only by general population surveys or schools programmes. The second is clinical information including family history and disease presentation, the presence of biomarkers and comorbidities, objective measures of severity, frequency and duration of exacerbations, the response to therapy and the time to remission. Targeted questionnaires need to be developed and validated for these investigations. This has already begun in Germany with the establishment of the CU-KID Netzwerk (Email address: cu-kid@charite.de), the aim of which is to identify clinical centres and colleagues who treat children with urticaria and to initiate the information gathering described above.

Evaluation of treatment satisfaction in children with allergic disease treated with an antihistamine: an international, non-interventional, retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists (antihistamines) have been shown to be efficacious and safe in children and are recommended as first-line treatment for the symptoms of allergic rhinitis and urticaria. No published study to date has directly compared satisfaction with the different antihistamines in children in a real-life clinical setting. This study aimed to investigate parent and physician satisfaction with the efficacy and tolerability of oral antihistamine treatment in children and to compare satisfaction between levocetirizine and the other antihistamines used by children in this cohort.

METHODS

This was an international Observational Survey in Children with Allergic Rhinitis (OSCAR). Children aged 2-12 years, with a history of an allergic condition leading to a consultation, were enrolled from 424 primary-care/specialist allergy clinics across Bulgaria, India, Portugal, Romania, Russia, South Korea and Spain. At the consultation, parents and physicians of eligible children completed questionnaires evaluating their satisfaction with specific antihistamines currently employed for management of the child's allergic condition, as well as their intention for future use of that treatment. Parents' satisfaction scores for efficacy, tolerability and global satisfaction with the antihistamine used were primary study outcomes, while physicians' satisfaction scores for the same measures were secondary outcomes. Other secondary outcomes were parents' rating of the impact of the antihistamine treatment on their child's sleep and school performance, and parents' and physicians' willingness to use/recommend the same antihistamine in the future.

RESULTS

A total of 4581 patients were enrolled; 3048 (66.5%) had allergic rhinitis (55.9% persistent allergic rhinitis and 44.1% intermittent allergic rhinitis), and 663 (14.5%) had urticaria as primary conditions. Additionally, 2465 patients (53.8%) suffered from other allergic diseases, including allergic asthma (33.3%), atopic dermatitis (17.6%), food allergy (5.3%), other allergies (5.0%) and drug hypersensitivity (2.0%). Parents' and physicians' satisfaction scores were closely concordant and demonstrated significantly greater global satisfaction for the second-generation antihistamines than for the first-generation antihistamines. Levocetirizine (n = 2339) and fexofenadine (n = 42) generally scored highest for efficacy, tolerability and global satisfaction, as well as for impact on the child's ability to function at school, quality of school activities and quality of sleep. Furthermore, >97% of parents and physicians indicated their desire to continue or recommend the use of levocetirizine in the future. Somnolence, the most commonly reported adverse event in this survey, was observed predominantly in patients treated with first-generation antihistamines. Among second-generation antihistamines, reports of somnolence were most frequent in the cetirizine group.

CONCLUSION

Second-generation antihistamines have a better risk:benefit ratio than first-generation antihistamines, indicating that the latter should be avoided or their use limited in children whenever possible. Levocetirizine and fexofenadine were perceived by parents and physicians to produce significantly higher treatment satisfaction than the majority of the other antihistamines with respect to overall efficacy and tolerability, and impact on the child's sleep and school activities. The newer antihistamine levocetirizine seems to be a preferred and appropriate future treatment choice for children with allergic diseases.

The anti-inflammatory effects of levocetirizine--are they clinically relevant or just an interesting additional effect?

Levocetirizine, the R-enantiomer of cetirizine dihydrochloride has pharmacodynamically and pharmacokinetically favourable characteristics, including rapid onset of action, high bioavailability, high affinity for and occupancy of the H1-receptor, limited distribution, minimal hepatic metabolism together with minimal untoward effects. Several well conducted randomised clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of levocetirizine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria in adults and children. In addition to the treatment for the immediate short-term manifestations of allergic disease, there appears to be a growing trend for the use of levocetirizine as long-term therapy. In addition to its being a potent antihistamine, levocetirizine has several documented anti-inflammatory effects that are observed at clinically relevant concentrations that may enhance its therapeutic benefit. This review will consider the potential or otherwise of the reported anti-inflammatory effects of levocetirizine to enhance its effectiveness in the treatment of allergic disease.

Management of atopic dermatitis in the pediatric population

Atopic dermatitis, one of the most common skin disorders in young children, has a prevalence of 10% to 20% in the first decade of life. It is a chronic illness that requires a multifaceted treatment strategy in the setting of limited therapeutic options. Balancing safety concerns with efficacious treatment is of particular importance in the pediatric population. Parents of patients with atopic dermatitis turn to their primary caregivers for guidance regarding this physically demanding and psychologically stressful condition. In addition to serving as a review of atopic dermatitis, this article delves into the state-of-the-art therapeutic options and includes a detailed review of the differences between topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors. We also discuss new treatment strategies that are being used by atopic dermatitis specialists, such as comprehensive "education-as-intervention" models, wet wraps, bleach baths, and systemic immunomodulatory therapies.

New oral H1 antihistamines in children: facts and unmeet needs

BACKGROUND

Second-generation antihistamines differ from first-generation ones because of their elevated specificity and affinity for peripheral H1-receptors and because of their lower penetration to the central nervous system, having fewer sedative effects as a result. Over the last few years, new compounds with different pharmacokinetic properties have been synthesized. More recent improvements of the molecules, generally in the form of active metabolites, led to the synthesis of new-generation antihistamines.

METHODS

Recommendations on the minimum criteria that would have to be met for compounds to be classified as new-generation antihistamines have been recently established by a consensus statement. In the past, the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of H1 antihistamines have not been optimally investigated in the pediatric population, especially in infants and young children.

RESULTS

The pharmacology of second-generation H1 antihistamines has been investigated relatively deeper than old antihistamines in children. In the pediatric population, clinical studies with new-generation antihistamines are still limited in number and, with rare exceptions, of brief duration. Comparative trials on the efficacy and safety between different compounds are also lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Properly designed, long-term trials with new-generation H1 antihistamines need to be performed in single age groups, in order to better define the effects of these drugs in all pediatric population.

H1 antihistamines: current status and future directions

In this review, we compare and contrast the clinical pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of first-generation H1 antihistamines and second-generation H1 antihistamines. First-generation H1 antihistamines cross the blood-brain barrier, and in usual doses, they potentially cause sedation and impair cognitive function and psychomotor performance. These medications, some of which have been in use for more than 6 decades, have never been optimally investigated. Second-generation H1 antihistamines such as cetirizine, desloratadine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine, and loratadine cross the blood-brain barrier to a significantly smaller extent than their predecessors. The clinical pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of these medications have been extensively studied. They are therefore the H1 antihistamines of choice in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, and urticaria. In the future, clinically advantageous H1 antihistamines developed with the aid of molecular techniques might be available.

An update on childhood urticaria and angioedema

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review serves to address urticaria - both acute and chronic - as well as the differential diagnosis of urticarial syndromes in the pediatric population. We also wish to update the reader on progress in the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of urticaria.

RECENT FINDINGS

Acute and chronic urticaria represent syndromes caused by a variety of triggers. Recent literature continues to describe subtypes of urticaria that may be differentially responsive to particular therapies. Recent associations highlight the need to fully evaluate patients for allergic and infectious triggers of urticaria. It is important to distinguish idiopathic urticaria from related conditions such as anaphylaxis, systemic conditions and autoimmune urticaria. Although antihistamines remain a cornerstone of therapy, particular urticaria subtypes may also respond to novel therapies such as omalizumab. Chronic urticaria has a significant impact on a patient's quality of life.

SUMMARY

Urticaria is a common condition. Our understanding of distinct urticaria subtypes differentially responsive to targeted therapies continues to increase. Due to the myriad of triggers that may cause urticaria, careful individualized patient assessment is necessary to exclude potential etiologies prior to a diagnosis of idiopathic urticaria.

A review of the role of levocetirizine as an effective therapy for allergic disease

BACKGROUND

Levocetirizine is the R-enantiomer of cetirizine dihydrochloride with pharmacodynamically and pharmacokinetically favourable characteristics.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence that levocetirizine is an effective therapy for allergic disease.

METHODOLOGY

Relevant articles in English or with English abstracts were identified from systematic PubMed searches.

RESULTS

Levocetirizine has high bioavailability, high affinity for and occupancy of the H1 receptor, rapid onset of action, limited distribution and minimal hepatic metabolism. Clinical trials indicate that it is safe and effective for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria in adults and children with a minimal number of untoward effects. It is also becoming clearer that, in addition to its being a potent antihistamine, levocetirizine has several anti-inflammatory effects that are observed at clinically relevant concentrations that may enhance its therapeutic benefit. Furthermore, there appears to be a growing trend for the use of levocetirizine as long-term therapy in addition to it being used as a treatment for the immediate short-term manifestations of allergic disease.

CONCLUSION

Levocetirizine is an effective and safe treatment for use in adults and children with allergic disease.