One-year treatment of chronic urticaria with mizolastine: efficacy and safety. URTOL study group

Acute-phase response and its biomarkers in acute and chronic urticaria

Introduction

Since urticaria is a persisting inflammatory disease it is important to establish the prognostic factors for the duration and severity of the disease.

Aim

To evaluate serum concentrations of selected acute-phase proteins (APP) in patients with various forms of urticaria as compared to healthy volunteers and also to analyze these concentrations in different types of urticaria. Additionally, to evaluate the correlation between serum levels of selected APP and disease activity.

Material and methods

Serum concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP), α₁-acid glycoprotein (AGP), α₁-antichymotrypsin (ACT), α₁-antitrypsin (AT), ceruloplasmin (Cp), transferrin (Tf), α₂-macroglobulin (α₂M) and haptoglobin (Hp) were measured. Quantitative measurement was conducted using the rocket immunoelectrophoresis. Disease activity was assessed with the use of total symptom score.

Results

Analysis of serum APP concentrations revealed statistically higher serum concentrations of CRP, AGP and ACT in the entire group of patients with urticaria in comparison with the control group. In the entire group of patients with urticaria, CRP, AGP, ACT, Cp and Hp correlated positively with disease activity, intensity of pruritus and the number and size of urticarial wheals. Statistically lower serum concentrations of CRP, ACT, Cp and Hp were detected in the group of patients with acute urticaria (AU) and angioedema together, compared to the patients suffering from AU only.

Conclusions

Patients with symptoms of various forms of urticaria present a distinct profile of serum APP concentrations. A significant correlation observed between CRP, AGP, ACT, Cp, Hp and clinical activity score points to the potential role of APP as markers of the urticarial activity.

Urticaria and its subtypes: the role of second-generation antihistamines

Urticaria is a heterogeneous group of debilitating skin disorders characterized by wheals, pruritus, and frequently angioedema. The various forms of urticaria are often chronic and can exact a toll on quality of life. New diagnostic criteria and management guidelines are available to assist primary care physicians in the identification and proper treatment of different subtypes of urticaria. Second-generation antihistamines are recommended as first-line therapy because of their high degree of efficacy and safety. It is important to note, however, that European indications for most agents in this class are limited to specific forms of urticaria. The exception is desloratadine, the only second-generation antihistamine approved for the treatment of all urticaria subtypes in the European Union. Guidelines and best practice suggest that doses of antihistamines up to 4 times higher than those normally recommended for urticaria may benefit patients who do not respond to standard doses of antihistamines. Adjunctive therapy with leukotriene receptor antagonists may be advantageous in certain subgroups of patients who have suboptimal responses to antihistamine monotherapy. In all cases, physicians should work closely with patients to ensure proper adherence to prescribed regimens-a component that is often lacking but holds the key to successful outcomes.

EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO guideline: management of urticaria

This guideline, together with its sister guideline on the classification of urticaria (Zuberbier T, Asero R, Bindslev-Jensen C, Canonica GW, Church MK, Giménez-Arnau AM et al. EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO Guideline: definition, classification and diagnosis of urticaria. Allergy 2009;64: 1417-1426), is the result of a consensus reached during a panel discussion at the Third International Consensus Meeting on Urticaria, Urticaria 2008, a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-funded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2)LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO). As members of the panel, the authors had prepared their suggestions regarding management of urticaria before the meeting. The draft of the guideline took into account all available evidence in the literature (including Medline and Embase searches and hand searches of abstracts at international allergy congresses in 2004-2008) and was based on the existing consensus reports of the first and the second symposia in 2000 and 2004. These suggestions were then discussed in detail among the panel members and with the over 200 international specialists of the meeting to achieve a consensus using a simple voting system where appropriate. Urticaria has a profound impact on the quality of life and effective treatment is, therefore, required. The recommended first line treatment is new generation, nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines. If standard dosing is not effective, increasing the dosage up to four-fold is recommended. For patients who do not respond to a four-fold increase in dosage of nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines, it is recommended that second-line therapies should be added to the antihistamine treatment. In the choice of second-line treatment, both their costs and risk/benefit profiles are most important to consider. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their unavoidable severe adverse effects. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).

Chronic unremitting urticaria: is the use of antihistamines above the licensed dose effective? A preliminary study of cetirizine at licensed and above-licensed doses

Recently, several authors have suggested an off-label increase of antihistamine dosage should be given to patients with chronic urticaria (CU) not responding to the usual, recommended doses, in order to gain better control of the disease. However, this recommendation is not evidence-based. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of increased doses of antihistamines in patients with CU showing poor control at recommended doses. In total, 22 adult patients with moderate/severe CU not controlled with the usual antihistamine doses were studied. These subjects recorded urticaria severity on a visual analogue scale (range 0-10) for 2 weeks. During the first week, they were treated with cetirizine at the licensed dose (10 mg/day), and with a three-fold increased dose (10 mg x 3/day) during week 2. Only 1 patient (5%) responded satisfactorily to the increased dosage of antihistamine; in the remaining 21 subjects, urticaria scores did not change, and these patients had to be treated with steroids, ciclosporin, and in 1 case with cyclophosphamide. Disease control was eventually gained in all cases. This study suggests that the proportion of patients with severe CU that may gain a better control of their disease with high, off-label doses of antihistamines is probably small, and that most patients will eventually have to undergo more aggressive treatments.

Emerging drugs for chronic urticaria

Chronic urticaria (CU), with or without angioedema, is a frequent disorder defined as the occurrence of pruritic wheals for > 6 weeks. Studies carried out in the last two decades showed that the origin of the disease is autoimmune in up to 50% of cases. Currently available treatments include antihistamines, corticosteroids and ciclosporin; recently, leukotriene receptor antagonists proved effective in a subset of patients as well. For patients with an unremitting and extremely severe disease unresponsive to standard treatments, plasmapheresis and immunosuppressive drugs have been successfully attempted. Recent findings that the autologous plasma skin test scores positive in nearly all patients and that plasmas from patients with both autoimmune and 'idiopathic' chronic urticaria are frequently characterised by signs of thrombin activation (plasma levels of prothrombin fragment F(1.2) are significantly increased) suggest that clotting cascade might be somehow involved in the pathogenesis of CU. These findings put under a new light some rather sparse studies of the effect of drugs active on the coagulation system (heparin and oral anticoagulants) in patients with CU.

EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF guideline: management of urticaria

This guideline is the result of a consensus reached during a panel discussion at the second International Consensus Meeting on Urticara, Urticaria 2004, a joint initiative of the EAACI Dermatology Section and GA2LEN. Urticaria has a profound impact on the quality of life, and effective treatment is therefore required. The recommended first line treatment are nonsedating H1 antihistamines. They have proven to be effective in double-blind controlled studies, but dosages increased up to fourfold over the recommended doses may be necessary. However, for different urticaria subtypes and in view of individual variation in the course of the disease and response to treatment, additional or alternative therapies may be required. Immunosuppressive drugs like cyclosporin A and corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to unavoidable severe adverse effects. This guideline was, in addition, accepted by the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and formally approved by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).

Chronic Urticaria

Chronic urticaria is a common condition that can be very disabling when severe. A cause for chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) is only infrequently identified. Potential causes include reactions to food and drugs, infections (rarely) and, apart from an increased incidence of thyroid disease, uncomplicated urticaria is not usually associated with underlying systemic disease or malignancy. About one-third of patients with CIU have circulating functional autoantibodies against the high affinity IgE receptor or against IgE, although it is not known why such antibodies are produced, or how the presence of such antibodies alters the course of the disease or response to treatment. There are only a few publications relating to childhood urticaria, but it is probably similar to the adult form, except that adult urticaria is more common. The diagnosis is based on patient history and it is vital to spend time documenting this in detail. Extensive laboratory tests are not required in the vast majority of patients. Chronic urticaria resolves spontaneously in 30-55% of patients within 5 years, but it can persist for many years. Treatment is aimed firstly at avoiding underlying causative or exacerbating factors. Histamine H1 receptor antagonists remain the mainstay of oral treatment for all forms of urticaria. The newer low-sedating antihistamines desloratadine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine and mizolastine should be tried first. Sedating antihistamines have more adverse effects but are useful if symptoms are causing sleep disturbance. Low-dose dopexin is effective and especially suitable for patients with associated depression. There is controversy as to whether the addition of an histamine H2 receptor antagonist or a leukotriene antagonist is helpful. For CIU, second-line agents include ciclosporin (cyclosporine) [which is effective in approximately 75% of patients], short courses of oral corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulins and plasmapheresis, although the last two were found to be beneficial in small trials only. Treatments for CIU with only limited or anecdotal supportive evidence include sulphasalazine, methotrexate, stanazol, rofecoxib and cyclophosphamide. The efficacy of photo(chemo)therapy is controversial. Physical urticarias may respond to H1 receptor antagonists, although in delayed pressure urticaria, and cold, solar and aquagenic urticaria, the response may be disappointing. Second-line agents for physical urticarias vary depending on the urticaria and most have limited supportive evidence. The potential for spontaneous resolution, the variation in the disease activity and the unpredictable nature of the disease makes the efficacy of treatments difficult to assess.

Chronic urticaria: a role for newer immunomodulatory drugs?

Chronic urticaria is now recognized as an autoreactive disorder in a substantial fraction of patients. A serologic mediator of whealing has been demonstrated in 50-60% of patients with chronic urticaria, and autoantibodies against the high affinity IgE receptor or IgE have been detected in about half of these patients. The demonstration that chronic urticaria is frequently autoimmune has encouraged a more aggressive therapeutic approach, with the use of immunomodulatory drugs.A step-by-step approach to the management of chronic urticaria is proposed, based on our personal experience and review of current medical literature, identified through Medline research and hand searching in medical journals. The non- or low-sedating H(1) receptor antagonists (antihistamines), such as cetirizine, fexofenadine, loratadine, mizolastine and, more recently, levocetirizine, desloratadine and ebastine, represent the basic therapy for all chronic urticaria patients. Older sedating antihistamines, such as hydroxyzine and diphenhydramine, may be indicated if symptoms are severe, are associated with angioedema, and if the patient is anxious and disturbed at night.Corticosteroid therapy with prednisone or methylprednisolone can be administered for a few days (7-14) if urticarial symptoms are not controlled by antihistamines and a rapid clinical response is needed. In cases of relapse after corticosteroid suspension, leukotriene receptor antagonists, such as montelukast and zafirlukast, should be tried. In our experience, remission of urticarial symptoms can be achieved in 20-50% of chronic urticaria patients unresponsive to antihistamines alone. When urticaria is unremitting and is not controlled by combined therapy with antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists, prolonged corticosteroid therapy may be needed. Long-term corticosteroid therapy should be administered at the lowest dose able to control urticarial symptoms, in order to minimize adverse effects. In a few patients, however, high-dose corticosteroid therapy may have to be administered for long periods. In these patients, immunosuppressive treatment with low-dose cyclosporine can be started. This type of treatment has a corticosteroid-sparing effect and is also generally effective in patients with severe, unremitting urticaria, but requires careful monitoring of cyclosporine plasma concentration and possible adverse effects. Other immunomodulating drugs that have been tried in chronic urticaria patients include hydroxychloroquine, dapsone, sulfasalazine and methotrexate, but their efficacy has not been proven in large controlled studies. Warfarin therapy may also be considered in some patients with chronic urticaria and angioedema unresponsive to antihistamines.

Mizolastine in primary acquired cold urticaria

BACKGROUND

Treatment of primary acquired cold urticaria (CU) is quite difficult because of variable clinical effectiveness and side effects of classic antihistamines.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mizolastine, an antihistaminic with antiallergic properties, versus placebo in primary acquired CU.

METHODS

This study was a phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study of mizolastine (10 mg, once daily) versus placebo in 28 patients with primary acquired CU. Efficacy was measured by the cold-stimulation time test, the wheal response, and pruritus intensity after an ice-cube test.

RESULTS

Mizolastine delayed the cold-induced wheal reaction, reduced wheal response at 3 and 10 minutes, and reduced pruritus intensity. Statistically significant differences were observed versus placebo for the cold-stimulation time test, wheal response at 3 and 10 minutes, and pruritus intensity (P =.006,.015,.009, and.005, respectively). No clinically relevant adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Mizolastine (10 mg, once daily) was shown to be superior to placebo for both delaying and reducing the cold-induced wheal reaction without significant adverse events. Results suggest that mizolastine may be effective in the treatment of CU.

Mizolastine provides effective symptom relief in patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinitis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study versus loratadine

BACKGROUND

Mizolastine is a nonsedating H1 histamine receptor antagonist with additional antiallergic properties currently marketed in Europe for the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and urticaria.

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mizolastine in PAR compared with loratadine and placebo.

METHODS

After a 1-week placebo run-in period, 428 adult PAR patients received placebo (146 of 428), mizolastine 10 mg (141 of 428), or loratadine 10 mg (141 of 428) once daily for 28 days. Symptoms were evaluated by patients and physicians using a total nasal score, evaluating itching, rhinorrhea, nasal blockade, and sneezing severity.

RESULTS

Mizolastine treatment resulted in a significantly greater decrease in patient-rated total nasal score than placebo after 2 weeks (D14; -42%, P < 0.001) and at the end of the treatment period (-46%, P = 0.01), and significantly greater than that observed with loratadine at D14 (P = 0.031). No significant difference in change in total nasal score was observed between loratadine and placebo at 2- and 4-week visits. The global safety was satisfactory and the incidence of adverse events was similar in the three treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Mizolastine provides effective symptom relief in PAR together with a satisfactory safety profile. Improvement with mizolastine was significantly greater than placebo throughout the study despite a large placebo effect. Also mizolastine's effects were greater those observed with loratadine after 2 weeks of treatment.

Comparative activity of cetirizine and mizolastine on histamine-induced skin wheal and flare responses at 24 h

AIMS

The aim of our study was to compare the activity of cetirizine 10 mg with that of mizolastine 10 mg vs placebo at 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled, three-way cross-over study with a wash-out period of 7 +/- 2 days between each period. The study included 36 healthy volunteers (18--50 years, mean age = 32 years; 9 males). The objective measurement was the cutaneous reactivity to increasing concentrations of histamine (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 mg ml(-1)) administered by prick tests. The reactivity was evaluated by the wheal and flare areas (mm2). The AUC (area under curves) values of the wheal and flare areas as a function of the log2 transformed histamine concentration were calculated for each subject and treatment, and compared.

RESULTS

A highly significant treatment effect was evidenced both for wheal and flare responses (P = 0.0001). This indicates the good activity of both cetirizine 10 mg and mizolastine 10 mg in inhibiting skin wheal and flare reactions to histamine. In addition, the mean AUC values significantly differed between cetirizine and mizolastine (64.8 and 117.8 log2 (mg ml(-1)) x mm2 for wheal, and 939.4 and 2340.8 for flare, respectively; P = 0.0001), with a superior activity of cetirizine than mizolastine at 24 h after intake both on wheal and flare responses. The tolerance of cetirizine and mizolastine was good. The severity of the adverse events was never more than 'moderate', 'fatigue' being the most frequent reported symptom [cetirizine (6 subjects), placebo (3), mizolastine (5)], followed by 'somnolence' [cetirizine (0), placebo (1), mizolastine (3)]. There was no serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that cetirizine (10 mg) suppresses skin reactivity to histamine more effectively than mizolastine (10 mg) 24 h after intake in healthy volunteers.

Antihistamines in late-phase clinical development for allergic disease

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health concern and shares a high comorbidity with asthma. Recent research suggests that different allergic diseases, such as AR, asthma, allergic conjunctivitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU), are evoked by common pathological mechanisms characterised by the release of histamine and other inflammatory mediators. Although H(1) receptor antagonists are the mainstay of therapy for allergic disease, the unacceptably high incidence of anticholinergic and CNS-related side effects of first-generation H(1) antagonists led to the search for improved second-generation H(1) antagonists. While many of these agents were largely devoid of CNS side effects, their tendency for drug-drug interactions (e.g., terfenadine and astemizole) resulted in an increased incidence of cardiotoxicity. Furthermore, second-generation H(1) antagonists exhibited weak anti-inflammatory properties and had no effect on nasal congestion. These observations emphasised the need for newer anti-allergic agents with a broader spectrum of activity and an improved safety profile. Among the newer H(1) antagonists currently in clinical development, desloratadine and mizolastine are the most widely studied. Both have a rapid onset of action, and desloratadine has demonstrated clinical efficacy in AR, CIU and seasonal asthma. Desloratadine has several advantages over other H(1) antagonists in that it has proven decongestant activity, a sparing effect on the use of bronchodilators (beta(2)-agonists) and a low potential for drug interactions. The broad anti-inflammatory properties of desloratadine and mizolastine, which distinguish these agents from other H(1) antagonists in clinical development (e.g., norastemizole and levocetirizine), suggest they may have a more profound impact on the underlying disease in patients suffering from different forms of allergy. The lack of clinical efficacy and safety data on rupatadine and HSR-609, both novel H(1) antagonists, precludes an accurate assessment of their potential for treating allergic disease. Epinastine and efletirizine are being developed exclusively for topical application and are unlikely to play a significant role in the management of allergic diseases as a whole.

Clinical advantages of dual activity in urticaria

Urticaria is a common disorder that adversely affects quality of life; work-related and recreational activities are restricted, while rest, sleep, and emotions are seriously disturbed in a significant proportion of patients. The pathogenic mechanisms vary, but cutaneous mast-cell activation with release of histamine and other vasoactive or proinflammatory mediators is thought to be the final common pathway for lesion induction in most cases. A subsequent, but incompletely understood, late-phase allergic reaction seems to prolong the inflammatory process, particularly in certain chronic forms of the disorder. Although histamine is considered an important mediator of urticaria, additional substances, including the cysteinyl leukotrienes (LTs), are putative mediators of the immediate urticarial responses and the inflammatory events that follow in some types of urticaria. A second-generation antihistamine, mizolastine, which exhibits dual activity with selective H1-receptor antagonism and, as shown in animal studies, anti-5-lipoxygenase activity, represents an advance in the treatment of urticaria. It has rapid, potent and sustained action. At the recommended 10-mg dose, mizolastine suppresses the histamine-induced wheal reaction as early as 1 h after oral administration. Compared to placebo, mizolastine significantly reduces overall patient discomfort and pruritus in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have also shown mizolastine to be at least as effective as other second-generation antihistamines. Furthermore, with long-term use of mizolastine over 1 year, a reduction in pruritus and the number of urticarial episodes was maintained with no evidence of tachyphylaxis or tolerance. Mizolastine has also been shown to be an effective treatment for cold-induced urticaria, causing significant delay in the whealing response to the ice-cube test and also reducing the wheal diameter.