Acquired cold urticaria symptoms can be safely prevented by ebastine

New insights into chronic inducible urticaria

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) is a group of long-persisting and challenging to manage diseases, characterized by recurrent wheals and angioedema induced by definite triggers. In this review, we address recent findings on CIndU pathogenesis, diagnosis as well as its treatment, and we discuss novel potential targets that may lead to the development of more effective therapies for CIndU patients.

RECENT ADVANCES

Meaningful advances in the understanding of its pathogenesis have been reported in the last decades. Novel CIndU-specific patient-reported outcome measures enable a closer and better evaluation of patients. CIndU is a hard-to-treat disease that highly impairs quality of life (QoL) of affected patients. Provocation tests allow to diagnose CIndU subtypes. The only licensed and recommended treatment for CIndU are second generation non-sedating H1-antihistamines, which lack efficacy in many cases. Omalizumab off-label use has been assessed in all types of CIndU with overall good outcomes. Promising emerging therapies currently assessed in chronic spontaneous urticaria are paving the path for novel treatments for CIndU.

Cold urticaria - What we know and what we do not know

Cold urticaria (ColdU) is a common form of chronic inducible urticaria characterized by the development of wheals, angioedema or both in response to cold exposure. Recent research and guideline updates have advanced our understanding and management of ColdU. Today, its pathophysiology is thought to involve the cold-induced formation of autoallergens and IgE to these autoallergens, which provoke a release of proinflammatory mediators from skin mast cells. The classification of ColdU includes typical and atypical subtypes. We know that cold-induced wheals usually develop on rewarming and resolve within an hour and that anaphylaxis can occur. The diagnosis relies on the patient's history and cold stimulation testing. Additional diagnostic work-up, including a search for underlying infections, should only be done if indicated by the patient's history. The management of ColdU includes cold avoidance, the regular use of nonsedating antihistamines and the off-label use of omalizumab. However, many questions regarding ColdU remain unanswered. Here, we review what is known about ColdU, and we present important unanswered questions on the epidemiology, underlying pathomechanisms, clinical heterogeneity and treatment outcomes. Our aim is to guide future efforts that will close these knowledge gaps and advance the management of ColdU.

How to Approach Chronic Inducible Urticaria

Chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) is a group of chronic urticarias characterized by the appearance of recurrent wheals, recurrent angioedema or both, as a response to specific triggers. CIndU includes both physical (symptomatic dermographism, cold and heat urticaria, delayed pressure urticaria, solar urticaria, and vibratory urticaria) and nonphysical urticarias (cholinergic urticaria, contact and aquagenic urticaria). Here, we review the different forms of CIndU with an emphasis on symptomatic dermographism, cold urticaria, cholinergic urticaria, and delayed pressure urticaria. We discuss the clinical features, the diagnostic workup including provocation and threshold testing, and available treatment options.

Treatments of cold urticaria: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several treatment options for cold urticaria (ColdU) have been studied and reported, but systematic reviews and meta-analyses are limited.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to meta-analyze and review the efficacy and safety of ColdU treatments.

METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Suitable reports were identified by searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Our systematic review included 16 studies, 9 of which met the eligibility criteria for the meta-analysis. We analyzed the effects of treatments on critical temperature thresholds (CTTs) and critical stimulation time thresholds (CSTTs), as well as on rates of complete response and adverse events.

RESULTS

Our pooled meta-analyses showed that nonsedating second-generation H₁-antihistamines (nsAHs) are effective in the treatment of ColdU and that updosing of nsAHs significantly reduced CTTs relative to their own standard doses and placebos. In 4 studies involving CSTTs, updosing of nsAHs also resulted in significantly better CSTTs than their own standard doses or placebos. Omalizumab resulted in a marked reduction of CTTs in H₁-antihistamine-resistant patients. Of 118 adverse events in 8 studies, standard-dose nsAHs, updosed nsAHs, and omalizumab produced lower numbers of adverse events than first-generation antihistamines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that greater dosages of nsAHs were more effective than standard dosages in controlling ColdU symptoms. Increasing the dosages was not significantly associated with higher adverse event rates. Omalizumab at 150 and 300 mg every 4 weeks was shown to be effective for patients with ColdU refractory to antihistamines.

Review of cold-induced urticaria characteristics, diagnosis and management in a Western Canadian allergy practice

Background

Cold-induced urticaria is a significant condition, especially among young females. Despite the morbidity of this disease, studies that fully characterize the disease are limited.

Methods

We analyzed the characteristics of patients diagnosed with cold-induced urticaria at a community-based allergy practice in Vancouver, BC, Canada between 2003 and 2016. Detailed patient history, diagnostic measures and treatment were evaluated.

Results

A total of 50 patients were found to have active cold-induced urticaria with a median age of 28.5 (range 2-67) years and 35 patients (70%) were female. 16 patients (32%) had co-occurring physical urticarias while 26 patients (52%) had secondary allergic diagnoses and 3 patients (6%) were thought to have a provoking factor. Of those with a clinical history of suspected cold-induced urticaria that were evaluated with ice cube testing, a positive test was obtained in 84.7% of patients. Treatment was largely with non-sedating antihistamines, with the majority of patients receiving this modality.

Conclusions

Cold-induced urticaria is a complex disease with significant overlap with other chronic inducible urticarias and other allergic diseases. Diagnostic testing shows inconsistent results and the mainstay of treatment consists of non-sedating antihistamines, with other options available for those who do not respond.

Targeting Histamine Receptors in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Critical Appraisal

Irritable bowel syndrome is a group of functional gastrointestinal disorders with not yet fully clarified etiology. Recent evidence suggesting that mast cells may play a central role in the pathogenesis of irritable bowel syndrome paves the way for agents targeting histamine receptors as a potential therapeutic option in clinical treatment. In this review, the role of histamine and histamine receptors is debated. Moreover, the clinical evidence of anti-histamine therapeutics in irritable bowel syndrome is discussed.

The definition, diagnostic testing, and management of chronic inducible urticarias - The EAACI/GA(2) LEN/EDF/UNEV consensus recommendations 2016 update and revision

These recommendations for the definition, diagnosis and management of chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) extend, revise and update our previous consensus report on physical urticarias and cholinergic urticaria (Allergy, 2009). The aim of these recommendations is to improve the diagnosis and management of patients with CIndU. Our recommendations acknowledge the latest changes in our understanding of CIndU, and the available therapeutic options, as well as the development of novel diagnostic tools.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria - a management pathway for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common and challenging disease, especially with respect to healthcare provision in the context of the German statutory health insurance system. If treatment with second-generation antihistamines is unsuccessful, current guidelines recommend further therapeutic options. However, most of these are off-label. This discrepancy between treatment according to guidelines and the ability to prescribe drugs at the expense of the statutory health insurance (reimbursability) often leads to uncertainties in everyday clinical practice. In addition, physicians prescribing certain drugs are faced with the difficulty of measuring and documenting therapeutic success/outcome. Respective outcome measurement methods have not yet been established in daily practice. Using a consensus process, a working group composed of dermatologists in private practice and specialized urticaria centers has defined a practical pathway for the implementation of current treatment recommendations based on the 2013 S3 guidelines for urticaria. Here, we present a diagnostic and therapeutic management pathway for CSU. Further, we discuss prescription issues in daily practice, including updosing of antihistamines, with regard to cost-effectiveness and drug approval on the basis of published studies and current legislation. Constituting the highest treatment level, the use of cyclosporine A, montelukast, and omalizumab, which has recently become available as therapeutic option, is reviewed. The urticaria control test (UCT) is presented as a valid outcome measure in routine practice. Our objective was to provide physicians in private practice with a practical guideline-based therapeutic decision tool, taking into account the requirements imposed by the statutory health insurance system. It is not meant to replace individualized history taking or treatment of this heterogeneous disease. Rather, we would like to suggest reference points for clinical diagnosis and treatment of CSU.

Physical urticaria

The physical urticarias are a heterogeneous subgroup of chronic urticarias in which wheals can be reproducibly induced by different specific physical stimuli such as cold, heat, pressure, vibration, or sunlight. Physical urticarias comprise up to 25 % of chronic urticarias and occur more frequently in young adults. Symptoms, i.e. wheal and flare responses or angioedema, are usually limited to the skin areas exposed to the eliciting stimulus. However, generalised urticaria with variable extracutaneous manifestations can also occur. Some patients may also present with more than one physical urticaria. Skin lesions in physical urticaria result from mast cell activation and mediator release. The mechanisms by which physical stimuli activate skin mast cells are not fully understood. Because of this, trigger avoidance and symptomatic treatment are key therapeutic concepts for physical urticarias. Identification of the inducing physical trigger, including its individual thresholds, is necessary for an effective therapy. Here, we have summarized clinical features, diagnostic workup and therapy options for physical urticarias.

Modern approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of cold contact urticaria

Cold contact urticaria (CCU) is a common subtype of physical urticaria characterized by itchy wheals and/or angioedema due to skin mast cell activation and the release of proinflammatory mediators after cold exposure. The underlying causes are largely unknown. When CCU is suspected, cold stimulation tests and threshold testing should be done to confirm the diagnosis and to determine the severity and course of CCU, respectively. Avoidance of critical cold exposure should be recommended but is often impossible, especially for severely affected patients with high temperature and low exposure time thresholds. Symptomatic treatment of choice is the use of modern, nonsedating antihistamines. Patients should be informed that complete protection from CCU symptom development may require increased doses of antihistamines. Standardizing cold provocation tests and further characterization of the natural course of CCU and its variants may lead to a better understanding of the disease-driving mechanisms.

Efficacy and tolerability of second- and third-generation antihistamines in the treatment of acquired cold urticaria: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acquired cold urticaria (ACU) is a form of physical urticaria that has been treated with first-generation antihistamines; there is a paucity of data regarding second- and third-generation antihistamines for the treatment of ACU.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy of second- and third-generation antihistamines in the treatment of ACU.

METHODS

Data were extracted via a MEDLINE search of the literature between 1950 and May 2009. We included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing the treatment of patients with ACU with second- and third-generation antihistamine medications vs placebo.

RESULTS

Overall, 98 patients were identified from 4 included studies. Two trials indicated that second- and third-generation antihistamines significantly eliminated the presence of wheals after treatment vs placebo (odds ratio [OR], 8.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.35 to 18.13). Two trials demonstrated a reduction in wheal area after treatment with a second- or third-generation antihistamine compared with placebo (mean difference, -347.99 mm2; 95% CI, -489.43 to -206.54 mm2). Two trials demonstrated significant elimination of pruritus with second- or third-generation antihistamine treatment vs placebo (OR, 10.44; 95% CI, 4.39 to 24.84). All 4 studies assessed the tolerability of a second- or third-generation antihistamine vs placebo and found an increased rate of adverse events (OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.53 to 6.06), although the complaints were mild.

CONCLUSIONS

The newer, less-sedating antihistamines seem to be effective in the treatment of ACU in terms of their ability to significantly reduce the presence of wheals and pruritus after cold exposure. These medications are usually well tolerated, with only mild adverse effects.

Rupatadine and its effects on symptom control, stimulation time, and temperature thresholds in patients with acquired cold urticaria

BACKGROUND

Patients with acquired cold urticaria (ACU) show itchy wheals during cold exposure. This disturbing condition involves histamine and platelet-activating factor in its pathogenesis. Rupatadine is a dual antagonist of both histamine and platelet-activating factor.

OBJECTIVE

To assess rupatadine efficacy in preventing reactions to cold challenge in patients with ACU.

METHODS

A crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which 21 patients with ACU received rupatadine, 20 mg/d, or placebo for 1 week each is presented. The main outcome was the critical stimulation time threshold (CSTT) determined by ice cube challenge. Secondary outcomes included CSTT and the critical temperature threshold assessed by a cold provocation device (TempTest 3.0), as well as scores for wheal reactions, pruritus, burning sensations, and subjective complaints after cold challenge.

RESULTS

After rupatadine treatment, 11 (52%) of 21 patients exhibited a complete response (ie, no urticaria lesions after ice cube provocation). A significant improvement in CSTT compared with placebo was observed after ice cube and TempTest 3.0 challenge (P = .03 and P = .004, respectively). A significant reduction of critical temperature threshold (P < .001) and reduced scores for cold provocation-induced wheal reactions (P = .01), pruritus (P = .005), burning sensation (P = .03), and subjective complaints (P = .03) after rupatadine treatment were also found. Mild fatigue (n = 4), somnolence (n = 1), and moderate headache (n = 1) were reported during active treatment.

CONCLUSION

Rupatadine, 20 mg/d, shows high efficacy and is well tolerated in the treatment of ACU symptoms.

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).

Ebastine in the light of CONGA recommendations for the development of third-generation antihistamines

In 2003 a consensus group on new-generation antihistamines (CONGA) defined the characteristics required for a third-generation H(1) antihistamine as there had been much controversy about this issue since the early 1990s. One of the antihistamines that had been claimed to belong to such a group is the second-generation antihistamine, ebastine. The objective of this review is to analyze the pharmacology of ebastine, in light of the CONGA recommendations for the development of new-generation antihistamines: (1) anti-inflammatory properties, (2) potency, efficacy and effectiveness, (3) lack of cardiotoxicity, (4) lack of drug interactions, (5) lack of CNS effects, and (6) pharmacological approach. Ebastine seems to have anti-inflammatory properties that help to ameliorate nasal congestion, though this has not yet been conclusively demonstrated. Its pharmacological-therapeutic profile does not differ greatly from that of other second-generation antihistamines. Its cardiac safety has been widely assessed and no cardiac toxicity has been found at therapeutic doses despite initial concerns. The risk of potentially relevant drug interactions has been investigated and ruled out. Ebastine does not produce sedation at therapeutic doses and drug interaction studies with classical CNS depressants have not demonstrated a synergistic effect. Pharmacologically, ebastine is an H(1) inverse agonist. Perhaps the answer to the quest for new-generation antihistamines lies not only in H(1) but in a combined approach with other histamine receptors.

Ebastine in allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria

Histamine is a key mediator in the development of allergy symptoms, and oral H(1)-antihistamines are among the most widely used treatments for symptomatic relief in conditions such as allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. Ebastine is a second-generation antihistamine which has been shown to be an effective treatment for both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. In controlled clinical trials in adult and adolescent patients with allergic rhinitis, ebastine 10 mg once-daily improved symptoms to a significantly greater extent than placebo and to a similar extent as loratadine 10 mg and cetirizine 10 mg (both once-daily), while ebastine 20 mg proved to be more effective than these two comparator antihistamines. In addition, ebastine was significantly more effective than placebo at relieving the symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria. Ebastine provides efficacy throughout the 24-h dosing interval with once-daily administration and clinical benefit is seen from the first day of treatment. Small studies have found beneficial effects for ebastine in patients with other disorders, including cold urticaria, dermographic urticaria, atopic asthma, mosquito bites and (in combination with pseudoephedrine) the common cold. In addition to the regular ebastine tablet, a fast-dissolving tablet (FDT) formulation, which disintegrates in the mouth without the aid of a drink, is also available. It has been shown to be bioequivalent to the regular tablet, and to be significantly more effective than desloratadine at reducing histamine-induced cutaneous wheals. A number of patient surveys demonstrated that the majority of individuals who tried the fast-dissolving formulation reported it to be convenient for use, fast-acting and preferred it to their previous antihistamine medication. Perhaps most importantly, a large proportion of patients indicated that they would prefer to use this new formulation in the future. Ebastine has a rapid onset of action and it can be administered once-daily, with or without food. Dose modifications are not needed in elderly patients, or in those with renal or mild to moderate hepatic impairment. Ebastine is generally well-tolerated, and clinical studies showed that at usual therapeutic doses of 10 and 20 mg once-daily, it had no clinically relevant adverse effects on cognitive function and psychomotor performance or on cardiovascular function. In conclusion, ebastine is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. In addition to the regular tablet formulation, ebastine is available as a FDT, providing a treatment option that is particularly convenient for patients.