Efficacy and safety of bilastine in reducing pruritus in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria and other skin diseases: an exploratory study

Quality of life measurement in assessing treatment effectiveness in urticaria: European experts position statement

In this study, the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and Urticaria and Angioedema has examined the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) measurement in the treatment of urticaria. The Dermatology Life Quality Index was the most frequently used HRQoL instrument in clinical trials on urticaria. Many reports of clinical trials of urticaria gave no exact numeric results related to HRQoL changes, making clear conclusions and comparisons with other studies impossible. The interpretation of HRQoL impairment data is more difficult when assessed by instruments without severity stratification systems. The minimal clinically significant difference (MCID) is a more clinically oriented and relevant parameter than depending on statistically significant changes in HRQoL scores. Therefore, using HRQoL instruments with established MCID data in clinical trials and clinical practice is preferred.

Quality of life measurement in urticaria: Position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and Urticaria and Angioedema

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces on quality of life (QoL) and patient-oriented outcomes and on urticaria and angioedema recommendations for the assessment of Health-related (HR) QoL in all patients with urticaria in research and practice are as follows: to use the DLQI for adults and the CDLQI for children as dermatology-specific and the CU-Q2oL as a disease-specific HRQoL instruments in urticaria; to use generic instruments to provide comparison of data on urticaria with non-dermatologic diseases, or to compare with healthy volunteers or the general population; to select validated HRQoL instruments with appropriate age limits; to present exact numeric data for HRQoL results; correct title of any HRQoL instrument should be used, along with its correct abbreviation and the reference to its original publication, where possible. The EADV TFs discourage the use of non-validated HRQoL instruments and modified HRQoL instruments that have not undergone standard validation.

A Prospective Randomized Non-Blinded Study of Safety and Efficacy of Bilastine Up-Dosing (40 mg) Versus Combination of Bilastine 20 mg With Levocetirizine 5 mg in the Treatment of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria

Introduction

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is the most commonly diagnosed skin condition in dermatology outpatient departments. Second-generation antihistamines are shown to be effective in the control of CSU. As per the guidelines, a combination of antihistamines is less recommended due to the lack of synergistic effect, though used widely. Exploring effective treatment options are crucial, given the challenges posed by CSU.

Aims and Objectives

To assess the safety and efficacy of Bilastine up-dosing versus combination of 20 mg Bilastine with 5 mg Levocetirizine in the treatment of CSU.

Materials and Methods

This prospective randomized non-blinded comparative trial involved 62 patients, with 32 in group A and 30 in group B. Group A received Tablet Bilastine 20 mg bd, while Group B received a combination of Tablet Bilastine 20 mg and Tablet Levocetirizine 5 mg. Urticarial Activity Score 7 was performed at baseline and follow-up visits (every 2 weeks for 6 weeks).

Results

Both groups had a higher number of male patients in the 20-30 years age group. Angioedema was present in 15.6% of group A and 23.3% in group B. After 6 weeks, both the groups showed a significant improvement in UAS 7 scores (P value <0.05). Group A demonstrated a remarkable reduction in UAS 7 from 19.4% to 0.03% with minimal side effects.

Conclusion

Bilastine up-dosing proved to be efficient, secure, and well tolerated when compared to the combined dose of Levocetirizine 5 mg and Bilastine 20 mg, suggesting that up-dosing of Bilastine could be a valuable addition to the current medication arsenal with the minimal side effects.

Bilastine in Refractory Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: Disease Control and Cytokine Modulation in an Open-label Prospective Study

Introduction

The treatment options for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) primarily include second generation non-sedative antihistamine (SGAHs). Bilastine is a newer, nonsedating SGAH approved for urticaria in February 2019 by the Drugs Controller General of India. Its major advantages are in terms of superior efficacy, lack of drug interactions and adverse effects, including sedation, compared to conventional SGAHs. The role of cytokines in the pathogenesis of CSU is well known. However, there is a shortage of data regarding the change in serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines following H1 antihistamines. We conducted this trial to evaluate the role of bilastine in cytokine modulation and autoimmunity, thereby explaining its role in modifying the disease process in CSU.

Materials and Methods

This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary institute in Kolkata on patients aged 12 years and above with a CSU >6 months. These patients had an unsatisfactory response, as per the Urticaria Activity Score 7 (UAS7), to previous antihistamine therapies in standard doses. Treatment effectiveness was determined by comparing the UAS7 at baseline with that at weeks 4, 8 and 12. Also, baseline serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) and IL-17 were compared with those at the end of the study, that is, 12 weeks.

Results

Thirty patients who matched the inclusion criteria and signed informed consent were included in the study. At the end of 12 weeks, 10% of patients (n = 3) achieved a complete treatment response (UAS = 0), whereas 43.33% of patients (n = 13) were labelled as having well-controlled urticaria (UAS <6). At 12 weeks, the mean UAS7 score (6.47 ± 4.45) was statistically significant compared to the baseline score (25.47 ± 7.74). The mean values of serum IL-6 (pg/ml) and IL-17 (pg/ml) at baseline were 5.96 ± 5.24 pg/ml and 6.96 ± 5.97 pg/ml, respectively. At the end of treatment, that is, 3 months, the mean values were reduced to 4.61 ± 4.56 pg/ml and 5.08 ± 3.87 pg/ml. The reduction was statistically significant for both serum IL-6 (P < 0.001) and IL-17 (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

We conclude that bilastine at a once-daily continuous dose of 40 mg for 3 months is safe and effective in CSU patients who are refractory to treatment at the standard doses of SGAHs. Improved symptomatic control with bilastine was also associated with better control over the inflammatory process, as suggested by the lowering of mean cytokine levels in our study.

Progress and challenges of plant-derived nucleic acids as therapeutics in macrophage-mediated RNA therapy

Plant-derived nucleic acids, especially small RNAs have been proved by increasing evidence in the pharmacological activities and disease treatment values in macrophage meditated anti-tumor performance, immune regulating functions and antiviral activities. But the uptake, application and delivery strategies of RNAs as biodrugs are different from the small molecules and recombinant protein drugs. This article summarizes the reported evidence for cross-kingdom regulation by plant derived functional mRNAs and miRNAs. Based on that, their involvement and potentials in macrophage-mediated anti-tumor/inflammatory therapies are mainly discussed, as well as the load prospect of plant RNAs in viruses and natural exosome vehicles, and their delivery to mammalian cells through macrophage were also summarized. This review is to provide evidence and views for the plant derived RNAs as next generation of drugs with application potential in nucleic acid-based bio-therapy.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Major Risk Factors Analysis of Pruritus Complicated by Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and the Effect of Comprehensive Nursing Intervention

Objective

To observe the main risk factors for pruritic skin evidence complicating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the effectiveness of interventions with comprehensive care measures.

Methods

Two hundred and twenty four patients with T2DM admitted to our hospital from June 2020 to November 2021 were selected and divided into Diabetic pruritus group (DP group, n = 71) and T2DM group (n = 153) according to the patients' complications of pruritus. General information such as gender, age, body mass index (BMI), duration of illness, family history, treatment modalities, other comorbidities, underlying illnesses were collected from all patients. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), renal function [Serum creatinine (Scr), urea nitrogen (BUN), uric acid (BUA)], lipid levels [total cholesterol (TC), triacylglycerol (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)] were measured in all patients on day 2 after admission. Risk factors for pruritus complicating T2DM were identified by single multifactorial analysis. Meanwhile, patients in the DP group were divided into group A (n = 35) and group B (n = 36) using the random number table method. Group A adopted the conventional care mode and group B patients adopted the comprehensive care interventions to compare the care effects [visual analog score (VAS) before and after care, treatment efficiency, care satisfaction rate] of patients in groups A and B; the levels of pruritus mediator indicators [substance P,β-endorphin (β-EP) and γ-interferon (INF-γ)] before and after care.

Results

Risk factors for pruritus in T2DM were age, duration of DM, combined Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), combined diabetic retinopathy (DR), combined diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and serum FPG levels (P &lt;0.05). Satisfaction rate of nursing care, treatment efficiency, post-care improvement in VAS scores, serum substance P, β-EP and INF-γ levels and other mediators of pruritus were better in Group B with integrated nursing intervention than in group A with conventional care only (P &lt; 0.05).

Conclusion

Pruritus in T2DM is associated with age, duration of DM, combined DPN, combined DR, combined DKD and FPG levels. Comprehensive care according to the above risk factors can effectively relieve patients' clinical symptoms and signs, improve the level of pruritus mediators and patient-care relationship.

How bilastine is used to treat allergic rhinitis and urticaria in children

Management guidelines for allergic rhinitis and urticaria recommend oral second-generation antihistamines as first-line treatment. The efficacy and safety of bilastine, the newest nonsedating second-generation antihistamine, are well established in adolescents/adults with these allergic conditions. The bilastine development program for pediatric use (2-<12 years) followed EMA-authorized processes. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic simulation and modeling and a pharmacokinetic study were conducted to identify and confirm the pediatric dose (10 mg/day). A Phase III, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was performed to confirm the safety of bilastine 10 mg/day in children. In this article, evidence is reviewed for use of bilastine in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or urticaria. Several cases are presented which demonstrate its role in routine clinical practice.

Bilastine 10 and 20 mg in paediatric and adult patients: an updated practical approach to treatment decisions

Background

Bilastine, a non-sedating H₁-antihistamine, is indicated to treat the symptoms of allergic disorders (e.g. rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria) in adults and adolescents and, more recently, in children. Following its marketing approval, many questions regarding the ideal use of bilastine in various clinical practice situations have been received by the Medical Information Department (MID) of Faes Farma Spain. This article is an update of a previous review, with a focus on recent clinical information on the use of bilastine in paediatric and other populations.

Methods

Results of recent clinical studies in paediatric and other populations as well as questions received and responses provided by the Faes Farma MID.

Results

The information regarding the use of bilastine in paediatric patients is the most relevant aspect of this updated review. The stepwise approval of the paediatric formulations in various countries started with the European Medicines Agency approval in 2017 in accordance with a 2009 Paediatric Investigation Plan, followed by approval in other countries. The queries that are most commonly received by the Faes Farma MID include the potential for drug interactions involving bilastine and other frequently used drugs, and the use of bilastine in special populations or to treat specific symptoms related to allergic conditions. As the concomitant use of many medications is not permitted during clinical trials, the advice provided regarding the concomitant use of other medications with bilastine considers the pharmacological properties of both the drug in question and bilastine, as well as expert opinion. Likewise, advice regarding the use of bilastine in special populations (e.g. patients with renal impairment, obesity, lactose intolerance, and elderly or pregnant individuals) or to treat specific symptoms (e.g. treatment-resistant urticaria, pruritus or BASCULE syndrome) considers the best evidence from a variety of sources, including clinical studies, real-world experience, guideline recommendations and expert opinion.

Conclusion

This updated review provides current data regarding the best use of bilastine in specific situations and patients and identifies areas in which further knowledge is required. Although decisions regarding the use of bilastine may be aided by expert opinion that relies on knowledge of the underlying science, additional research and evidence are required to answer certain queries regarding the use of bilastine.

Effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of bilastine 20 mg vs levocetirizine 5 mg for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria: A double-blind, parallel group, randomized controlled trial

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a debilitating condition, adversely affecting the patient's quality of life. Bilastine is a recently introduced, non-sedative H1-antihistamine for its treatment. We wanted to compare the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of bilastine 20 mg vs levocetirizine 5 mg in moderate-to-severe CSU. We conducted a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with two groups: bilastine 20 mg (n = 31) and levocetirizine 5 mg (n = 27), once daily for 42 days. We included patients (18-65 years), with moderate-to-severe CSU. UAS7, VAS, and DLQI were used to assess severity of urticaria, global urticaria-induced discomfort and quality of life, respectively. DLQI was assessed at baseline (D0) and end-of-treatment (D42), while UAS7 and VAS were noted at baseline and all follow-up visits. Assessment of UAS7 alteration was our primary objective, while changes in DLQI and VAS were the secondary outcomes. Safety was assessed by recording drug-related adverse events, biochemical investigations, and electrocardiogram, along with tolerability and compliance. Both drugs significantly improved UAS7, DLQI, and VAS at end-of-treatment (D42) compared with baseline (intra-group). At the end-of-treatment, all parameters showed greater improvement with bilastine, but only UAS7 reduction was significant (bilastine > levocetirizine, P = .03). In both the groups, UAS7 and VAS improved significantly D14 onwards, and was maintained throughout the study. Sedation was significantly less with bilastine (P = .04), while neither drug showed any serious adverse-effect. Tolerability of both drugs was similar. Therefore, bilastine was found to be a more effective and less-sedative novel therapy for CSU compared to levocetirizine, with similar effect on quality of life.