Night-time sedating H1 antihistamine increases daytime somnolence but not treatment efficacy in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a randomized controlled study

A Comparison of the United States and International Perspective on Chronic Urticaria Guidelines

Urticaria is a heterogeneous skin disorder that may be acute or chronic and is defined by the appearance of wheals, angioedema, or both. The European perspective is expressed in a recent international guideline and the American perspective has been based on the US Joint Task Force chronic urticaria practice parameter published in 2014. Both the international guideline (initiated by the European societies European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology [EAACI]/Global Allergy and Asthma European Network [GA²LEN]/European Dermatology Forum [EDF] in collaboration with the World Allergy Organization [WAO]) and the US (American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology) guideline have been developed to help direct primary care physicians and specialists in the management of their patients with urticaria. The EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guideline applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to developing consensus recommendations and these were then discussed in a Delphi conference including more than 250 specialists in the field and have been endorsed by more than 40 international societies. In contrast, the US Joint Task Force CU practice parameter made recommendations based on scientific evidence whenever possible; however, when there was insufficient evidence, recommendations were based on expert consensus opinion. Although both agree on most points regarding the definition, general evaluation, and treatment, there are some differences that exist between the 2 guidelines. Most of these differences pertain to recommendations based on expert opinion because of weak scientific evidence. Within this document, we compare the recommendations of these 2 groups, highlighting the key similarities and differences.

Effectiveness and safety of antihistamines up to fourfold or higher in treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria

Background

Treatment with second-generation antihistamines is recommended in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Some patients remain unresponsive even after up-dosing up to fourfold. Many third line treatment options have limited availability and/or give rise to significant side effects. We investigated effectiveness and safety of antihistamine treatment with dosages up to fourfold and higher.

Methods

This retrospective analysis of patients’ records was performed in adult CSU patients suffering wheals and/or angioedema (AE). Demographic, clinical, and therapeutic data was extracted from their medical records. We recorded the type, maximum prescribed dosage, effectiveness, and reported side effects of antihistamine treatment.

Results

Of 200 screened patients, 178 were included. Treatment was commenced with a once daily dose of antihistamines. Persisting symptoms meant that up-dosing up to fourfold occurred in 138 (78%) of patients, yielding sufficient response in 41 (23%). Up-dosing antihistamines was necessary in 110 (80%) patient with weals alone or weals with angioedema and 28 (64%) with AE only (p = 0.039). Of the remaining 97 patients with insufficient response, 59 were treated with dosages higher than fourfold (median dosage 8, range 5–12). This was sufficient in 29 patients (49%). Side effects were reported in 36 patients (20%), whereof 30 (17%) experienced somnolence. Side effects after up-dosing higher than fourfold were reported in six out of 59 patients (10%).

Conclusion

Up-dosing antihistamines higher than fourfold dosage seems a feasible therapeutic option with regards to effectiveness and safety. The need for third line therapies could be decreased by 49%, with a very limited increase of reported side effects.