Comparison of the efficacy of levocetirizine 5 mg and desloratadine 5 mg in chronic idiopathic urticaria patients

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.

An update on the use of antihistamines in managing chronic urticaria

INTRODUCTION

Urticaria, a mast cell-mediated skin disease, manifests as acute or chronic, with the latter divided into spontaneous and inducible types and requires individualized management, including identifying triggers and comorbidities. Antihistamines, particularly the second generation group, form the mainstay of primary treatment plans consisting of dosage adjustments and/or in combination with other treatment modalities depending on underlying disease control.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was conducted using 'antihistamines,' 'urticaria,' 'pharmacogenomics,' 'genomics,' 'biomarkers' and 'treatment response' as key words. In this review, we focus on the comprehensive understanding and application of antihistamines in managing adult and adolescent patients with chronic urticaria.

EXPERT OPINION

Using antihistamines to treat urticaria is set to change significantly, focusing more on personalized medicine and identifying key biomarkers to enhance treatment response prediction. These changes aim to make treatments more specific and cost-effective by avoiding unnecessary tests. Applying new approaches in everyday clinical care faces challenges like proving the biomarkers' reliability, updating current guidelines, and incorporating individualized treatments into standard procedures. Efforts should now concentrate on finding easy-to-use biomarkers, improving access to pharmacogenomics, understanding why some patients are resistant to treatment, and creating more specific treatment options based on patient needs.

Is Gender an Important Factor in the Precision Medicine Approach to Levocetirizine?

Currently, there is insufficient information on the variability in levocetirizine pharmacometrics among individuals, a crucial aspect for establishing its clinical use. The gender differences in pharmacokinetics and the extent of variation in pharmacodynamics have not been definitively identified. The primary goal of this study was to investigate gender differences in levocetirizine pharmacokinetics and quantitatively predict and compare how these gender-related pharmacokinetic differences impact pharmacodynamics, using population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling. Bioequivalence results for levocetirizine (only from the control formulation) were obtained from both healthy Korean men and women. Physiological and biochemical parameters for each individual were utilized as pharmacokinetic comparison and modeling data between genders. Pharmacodynamic modeling was performed using reported data on antihistamine responses following levocetirizine exposure. Gender, weight, body surface area, peripheral distribution volume, albumin, central-peripheral inter-compartmental clearance, and the fifth sequential absorption rate constant were explored as effective covariates. A comparison of the model simulation results showed a higher maximum concentration and faster plasma loss in females than in males, resulting in a faster recovery to baseline of the antihistamine effect; however, the absolute differences between genders in the mean values were not large within 10 ng/mL (for plasma concentrations) or % (wheal and flare size changes). Regarding the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of levocetirizine, the gender effect may not be significant when applying the usual dosage (5 mg/day). This study will be useful for bridging the knowledge gap in scientific precision medicine by introducing previously unconfirmed information regarding gender differences in levocetirizine pharmacometrics.

Comparative Safety Profiles of Individual Second-Generation H1-Antihistamines for the Treatment of Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The comparative safety and/or dosing regimens of individual second-generation H1-antihistamines (sgAHs) in patients with chronic urticaria (CU) remain poorly elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety profiles of individual sgAHs and/or dosing regimens in adolescents or adult patients with CU using a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all available evidence.

METHODS

With limited English publications, electronic databases and gray literature were searched for randomized clinical trials from inception, with searches last updated on January 20, 2023. Relevant safety outcomes included treatment unacceptability (all-cause discontinuation), tolerability (discontinuation due to any adverse events), adverse events, serious adverse events, central nervous system (CNS) side effects, and anticholinergic side effects. Regarding the network estimates, the probability of being associated with the highest adverse outcome risk was estimated for each treatment comparison.

RESULTS

Fifty-one randomized clinical trials with 14 individual sgAHs and different dosing regimens, involving 7502 participants, were included. On the basis of the findings from network meta-analyses, variations in sgAH treatment comparisons were observed regarding the unacceptability of treatment, tolerability, adverse events, and CNS side effects. There were no statistically significant differences between the results of sgAH treatment for serious adverse events and those for anticholinergic side effects. On the basis of the ranking of safety profiles, emedastine 4 mg, mizolastine 10 mg, and cetirizine 10 mg were the top 3 ranked treatments with unfavorable safety profiles associated with CNS side effects and any adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest evidence of variations in safety profiles among sgAHs for CU treatment, particularly in terms of adverse events and CNS side effects.

Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of Licensed Dose Second-Generation Antihistamines in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Licensed dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (sgAHs) are the first-line treatment in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). However, the available evidence up to the present is insufficient to rank sgAHs in terms of their efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To study the comparative efficacy and acceptability of all licensed dose sgAHs in CSU treatment.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included licensed dose sgAHs in CSU treatment up until March 2020. A network meta-analysis was performed to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) from both direct and indirect evidence for efficacy outcomes. The primary outcome was the total symptom score (TSS) changes from baseline. Secondary outcomes were changes in pruritus score and wheal score from baseline. The acceptability was estimated using odds ratios.

RESULTS

We identified and included 22 RCTs with 3943 patients for evidence synthesis. Olopatadine, fexofenadine, bilastine, rupatadine, and levocetirizine were more efficacious than placebo in TSS. Olopatadine was ranked first for all efficacy outcomes (TSS: SMD -1.26 [95% CI: -1.94 to -0.58], pruritus score: SMD -0.82 [95% CI: -1.30 to -0.35], and wheal score: SMD -0.65 [95% CI: -1.10 to -0.55]). The acceptability of all included sgAHs was not inferior to the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Olopatadine, fexofenadine, bilastine, rupatadine, and levocetirizine demonstrate superior therapeutic efficacy to placebo for the treatment of patients with CSU. Because of the low to very low quality of almost all studies included in this study, rigorous head-to-head trials are needed to confirm our findings.

The Efficacy of a Two-Fold Increase of H1-Antihistamine in the Treatment of Chronic Urticaria - the Vietnamese Experience

BACKGROUND

Chronic urticaria, a mast cell-driven condition, is common, debilitating and hard to treat. H1-antihistamines are the first line treatment of chronic urticaria, but often patients do not get satisfactory relief with the recommended dose. European guidelines recommend increased antihistamine doses up to four-fold.

AIM

We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy of increased H1-antihistamine doses up to two-fold in Vietnamese chronic urticaria patients.

METHODS

One hundred and two patients with chronic urticaria were recruited for treatment with levocetirizine (n = 52) or fexofenadine (n = 50). Treatment started at the conventional daily dose of 5 mg levocetirizine or 180 mg fexofenadine for 2 weeks and then increased to 10 mg levocetirizine or 360 mg fexofenadine for 2 weeks if patients did not have an improvement in symptoms. At week 0, week 2 and week 4 wheal, pruritus, size of the wheal, total symptom scores, and associated side-effects were assessed.

RESULTS

With the conventional dose, the total symptom scores after week 2 decreased significantly in both groups compared to baseline figures, i.e. 7.4 vs 2.3 for levocetirizine group and 8.0 vs 2.6 for fexofenadine group (p < 0.05). However, there were still 26 patients in each group who did not have improvements. Of these 26 patients, after having a two-fold increase of the conventional dose, 11.5% and 38.5% became symptom-free at week 4 in levocetirizine group and fexofenadine group, respectively. At week 4 in both groups, the total symptom scores had significantly decreased when compared with those at week 2 (2.8 ± 1.5 versus 4.7 ± 1.6 in levocetirizine group; 2.1 ± 1.9 versus 5.1 ± 1.4 in fexofenadine group). In both groups, there was no difference in the rate of negative side effects between the conventional dose and the double dose.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that increasing the dosages of levocetirizine and fexofenadine by two-fold improved chronic urticaria symptoms without increasing the rate of negative side effects.

Urticaria: A comprehensive review: Treatment of chronic urticaria, special populations, and disease outcomes

Second-generation antihistamines are considered first-line agents in the treatment of chronic urticaria because of their safety and efficacy profile. Some patients require higher doses of H₁ antihistamines alone or in combination with other classes of medications, including H₂ antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, or first-generation H₁ antihistamines. One major therapeutic advance has been omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E that was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic urticaria that is unresponsive to H₁ antagonists. In addition, the second article in this continuing medical education series outlines several evidence-based alternative treatments for urticaria and the differences in recommendations between 2 major consensus groups (the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology/World Allergy Organization and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force).

The effect of levocetirizine and montelukast on clinical symptoms, serum level and skin expression of COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes in patients suffering from chronic autoimmune urticaria - a pilot study

Introduction

Chronic autoimmune urticaria (CAU) lasts over 6 weeks and is characterized by circulating IgE autoantibodies or IgG against IgE or IgE receptor.

Aim

To assess the clinical, laboratory and histological effects of 4-week levocetirizine and montelukast therapy in patients suffering from CAU.

Material and methods

Of 296 tested patients with chronic urticaria 40 had a positive ASST test. Only 17 (16 female/1 male; medium age: 44 years) fulfilled all study inclusion/exclusion criteria. The study was designed as an open, randomized trial with two arms: levocetirizine or montelukast treatment for 4 weeks following a 2-week wash-out period. All participants completed urticaria activity score (UAS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaires before and after both therapies. Blood samples and skin bioptats were obtained before and after treatment to evaluate COX-1 and COX-2 serum concentrations and skin expression.

Results

Clinical response to therapy measured with the UAS and VAS was better in the levocetirizine group. Both drugs caused a significant decrease in COX-1 and COX-2 serum level. COX-1 and COX-2 expression in epidermal and dermal inflammatory infiltration did not change significantly in either study group, but a significant decrease of COX-1 expression was observed when the groups were combined for analysis, and the decrease in COX-2 expression in the epidermis was of borderline significance.

Conclusions

The effectiveness of levocetirizine and montelukast in treating CAU may be partly related to the reduction of COX-1 and COX-2 serum level and tissue expression, but further studies on a larger group of patients are needed to support this observation.

Chronic Urticaria: Comparisons of US, European, and Asian Guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic urticaria is a common dermatological condition that has significant impact on quality of life. Multiple international societies have published guidelines, and although these guidelines generally agree on the definition of urticaria, as well as approach to diagnosis and management, there have been notable differences to date. These differences have been reconciled by the recent publication of the 2017 revision and update published by the EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF/WAO.

RECENT FINDINGS

The 2017 revision and update to the guidelines for chronic urticaria are the most comprehensive consensus document to date, and reconcile previously existing differences between the US, European, and Asian guidelines. The purpose of our review is to present basic background on urticaria and discuss classification, diagnosis, and most importantly, management. We present differences from previous US, European, and Asian guidelines and reconcile the previous differences by summarizing the 2017 revision and update published by the EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF/WAO.

Guideline of Chronic Urticaria Beyond

Urticaria is a relatively common condition that if chronic can persist for weeks, months or years and affect quality of life significantly. The etiology is often difficult to determine, especially as it becomes chronic. Many cases of chronic urticaria are thought to be autoimmune, although there is no consensus that testing for autoimmunity alters the diagnostic or management strategies or outcomes. Many times, urticaria is easily managed with antihistamines and/or short courses of oral corticosteroids, but too often control is insufficient and additional therapies must be added. For years, immune modulating medications, such as cyclosporine and Mycophenolate Mofetil, have been used in cases refractory to antihistamines and oral corticosteroids, although the evidence supporting their efficacy and safety has been limited. Omalizumab was recently approved for the treatment of chronic urticaria unresponsive to H1-antagonists. This IgG anti-IgE monoclonal antibody has been well demonstrated to safely and effectively control chronic urticaria at least partially in approximately 2/3 of cases. However, the mechanism of action and duration of treatment for omalizumab is still unclear. It is hoped that as the pathobiology of chronic urticaria becomes better defined, future therapies that target specific mechanistic pathways will be developed that continue to improve the management of these often challenging patients.

H1-antihistamines for chronic spontaneous urticaria

Background Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterised by the development of crops of red, itchy, raised weals or hives with no identifiable external cause.Objectives To assess the effects of H1-antihistamines for CSU.Search methods We searched the following databases up to June 2014: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE(from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and PsycINFO (from 1806). We searched five trials registers and checked articles for references to relevant randomised controlled trials.Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of H1-antihistamines for CSU. Interventions included single therapy or a combination of H1-antihistamines compared with no treatment (placebo) or another active pharmacological compound at any dose.Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.Our primary outcome measures were proportion of participants with complete suppression of urticaria: 'good or excellent' response,50% or greater improvement in quality of life measures, and adverse events.We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs). Main results We identified 73 studies (9759 participants); 34 studies provided data for 23 comparisons. The duration of the intervention was up to two weeks (short-term) or longer than two weeks and up to three months (intermediate-term).Cetirizine 10mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term led to complete suppression of urticaria by more participants than was seen with placebo (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.91). For this same outcome, comparison of desloratadine versus placebo in the intermediate term (5 mg) (RR 37.00, 95% CI 2.31 to 593.70) and in the short term (20 mg) (RR 15.97, 95% CI 1.04 to 245.04)favoured desloratadine, but no differences were seen between 5 mg and 10 mg for short-term treatment.Levocetirizine 20 mg per day (short-term) was more effective for complete suppression of urticaria compared with placebo (RR 20.87,95% CI 1.37 to 317.60), and at 5 mg was effective in the intermediate term (RR 52.88, 95% CI 3.31 to 843.81) but not in the shortterm, nor was 10 mg effective in the short term.Rupatadine at 10 mg and 20 mg in the intermediate term achieved a 'good or excellent response' compared with placebo (RR 1.35,95% CI 1.03 to 1.77).Loratadine (10 mg) versus placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.79) and loratadine (10 mg) versus cetirizine (10 mg) (RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.43) over short-term and intermediate-term treatment showed no significant difference for 'good or excellent response' or for complete suppression of urticaria, respectively.Loratadine (10 mg) versus desloratadine (5 mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71). For loratadine(10 mg) versus mizolastine (10 mg) (intermediate-term), no statistically significant difference was seen for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42).Loratadine (10mg) versus emedastine (2mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression(RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24); the quality of the evidence was moderate for this comparison.No difference in short-term treatment was noted between loratadine (10mg) and hydroxyzine (25mg) in terms of complete suppression(RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10).When desloratadine (5 to 20 mg) was compared with levocetirizine (5 to 20 mg), levocetirizine appeared to be the more effective (P value < 0.02).In a comparison of fexofenadine versus cetirizine, more participants in the cetirizine group showed complete suppression of urticaria(P value < 0.001).Adverse events leading to withdrawals were not significantly different in the following comparisons: cetirizine versus placebo at 10 mg and 20 mg (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 13.22); desloratadine 5 mg versus placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.10); loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.60); loratadine 10mg versus emedastine 2mg (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.07 to 17.14);cetirizine 10 mg versus hydroxyzine 25 mg (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.45); and hydroxyzine 25 mg versus placebo (RR 3.64, 95%CI 0.77 to 17.23), all intermediate term.No difference was seen between loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg in the proportion of participants with at least 50%improvement in quality of life (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.32 to 32.33).Authors' conclusions Although the results of our review indicate that at standard doses of treatment, several antihistamines are effective when compared with placebo, all results were gathered from a few studies or, in some cases, from single-study estimates. The quality of the evidence was affected by the small number of studies in each comparison and the small sample size for many of the outcomes, prompting us to downgrade the quality of evidence for imprecision (unless stated for each comparison, the quality of the evidence was low).No single H1-antihistamine stands out as most effective. Cetirizine at 10 mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term was found to be effective in completely suppressing urticaria. Evidence is limited for desloratadine given at 5 mg once daily in the intermediate term and at 20 mg in the short term. Levocetirizine at 5 mg in the intermediate but not short term was effective for complete suppression. Levocetirizine 20 mg was effective in the short term, but 10 mg was not. No difference in rates of withdrawal due to adverse events was noted between active and placebo groups. Evidence for improvement in quality of life was insufficient.

Update and insights into treatment options for chronic spontaneous urticaria

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is defined as itchy weals, angio-oedema, or both, arising spontaneously without external physical stimuli. Symptoms of the disease continue to develop for more than 6 weeks. It carries a high socioeconomic burden with considerable health care costs. Second generation H1-antihistamines are the mainstay of urticaria treatment and are the only licensed option. However, many patients are resistant to H1-antihistamine therapy. Omalizumab has proven to be an effective therapeutic option in patients with recalcitrant chronic urticaria. Ciclosporin appears to be more beneficial in patients with functional histamine releasing autoantibodies as a cause of their disease. This review article will highlight the major therapeutic options available today for the management of CSU knowing that good quality evidence for efficacy of many agents is scarce except for H1-antihistamines and omalizumab.

The Management and Treatment of Chronic Urticaria

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a challenging and frequently encountered diagnosis characterized by the presence of evanescent wheals that persist for greater than 6 weeks. It is estimated that 15% to 25% of the US population are affected at some time in their lives with urticaria and that 33% of all urticaria cases are considered to be chronic. Although acute urticaria is generally benign and self-limiting, serious medical illness may occur with CU. The incidence of CU is estimated to be as high as 5% in the general population and greater than 10% when surveying allergy and dermatology patients. CU is an episodic, pruritic disorder in which 45% to 90% of patients will not have an identifiable cause and occurs 4 times more often in females than males. The average disease duration of CU is between 2 and 5 years, and its typical onset is in the third to fourth decade of life. CU is thought to have the most impact on quality of life than any other allergic disease. This article will provide a clinical update and review on the management and treatment of CU.

Efficacy and safety of sulfasalazine in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding alternative treatments for antihistamine refractory chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). Patients with recalcitrant skin disease often cannot gain satisfactory symptom control with standard therapies and may require prolonged courses of oral corticosteroids. There is a lack of information describing the degree and duration of sulfasalazine's efficacy, the frequency and nature of adverse reactions, and the appropriate safety monitoring parameters.

OBJECTIVE

To present a case series detailing the efficacy and safety of sulfasalazine therapy in patients with CIU.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of 39 patients with sulfasalazine-treated CIU evaluated at Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Center from October 2007 to March 2012. Eight patients were excluded from the final analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients (83.9%) showed an improvement in symptoms within the first 3 months, with 51.6% of patients (n = 16) becoming asymptomatic within the first 6 months of starting sulfasalazine. Eleven patients (35.4%) achieved complete relief of symptoms after tapering off sulfasalazine therapy. Five of the 31 patients (16.1%) failed treatment, defined as worsening symptoms and pursuit of an alternative therapy. Six of 31 patients (19.4%) had a modified course of sulfasalazine therapy owing to abnormal hematologic parameters. Serious adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 6.5% of patients (n = 2) and included a patient with drug-induced leukopenia and one with rhabdomyolysis.

CONCLUSION

Sulfasalazine is a highly effective treatment for patients with antihistamine resistant CIU. The frequency of adverse events leading to an alteration of sulfasalazine treatment supports the need for close monitoring of these patients.

Study design and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of chronic idiopathic or autoimmune urticaria: review

Background

The recommended first-line therapy of chronic urticaria is second-generation antihistamines, but the modalities of treatment remains unclear. Numerous recommendations with heterogeneous conclusions have been published. We wondered whether such heterogeneous conclusions were linked to the quality of published studies and their reporting.

Objective

To review the study design and quality of reporting of randomized control trials investigating pharmacological treatment of autoimmune or idiopathic chronic urticaria.

Methodology/Principal Findings

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for pharmacological randomized controlled trials involving patients with chronic autoimmune or idiopathic urticaria, with the main outcome being treatment efficacy. Data were collected on general characteristics of the studies, internal validity, studied treatments, design of the trial, outcome measures and “spin” strategy in interpreting results. Spin was defined as use of specific reporting strategies to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite statistically nonsignificant results. We evaluated 52 articles that met our criteria. Patients were reported as blinded in 42 articles (81%) and the outcome assessor was blinded in 37 (71%). A placebo was the only comparator in 13 (25%) studies. The study duration was <8 weeks in 39 articles (75%), with no follow-up after discontinuation of treatment in 37 (71%). In 4 articles (8%), blinding was clear because they described blinding of the outcome assessor, the treatment was not recognizable (identical or double-dummy) or had no major secondary effects, and computed randomization was centralized. The primary outcome was specified in 33 articles (63%) and was a score in 31. In total, 15 different scores were used. A spin strategy was used for 10 of 12 studies with a nonsignificant primary outcome.

Conclusion

For establishing guidelines in treatment of chronic urticaria, studies should focus on choosing clinically relevant and reproducible primary outcomes, long-term follow-up, limited use of placebo and avoiding spin strategies.

Update on the treatment of chronic urticaria

Chronic spontaneous urticaria, also known as chronic idiopathic urticaria or simply chronic urticaria, is a common disorder that has a prevalence in the general population that ranges between 0.5% and 1%. This condition negatively affects the patient's quality of life and has considerable impact on direct and indirect health-related costs. Chronic urticaria is difficult to manage. Nonsedating H1 antihistamines are the first line of therapy, but fewer than 50% of patients experience relief at recommended dosages. Although guidelines call for increasing the dosage when response is inadequate, some patients still do not achieve adequate control of symptoms. New treatment alternatives, with proven efficacy under the standards of evidence-based medical practice, must therefore be developed.

Comparison of effects of 5 and 10 mg oral desloratadine and levocetirizine on histamine-induced wheal and flare response in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Levocetirizine and desloratadine are mostly used as H1-antihistamines in the treatment of allergic disease in 5 and 10 mg doses.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the efficacy of single oral dosages of 5 and 10 mg desloratadine and levocetirizine were compared by using histamine-induced wheal and flare reactions.

METHODS

Eighty healthy volunteers were randomized for four double-blinded treatment with desloratadine 5 and 10 mg and levocetirizine 5 and 10 mg. Wheal and flare responses were produced by histamine. Measurements were performed just before the ingestion of antihistamines (baseline) and afterward at 30, 60, 240 min and 24 h. The values obtained for each antihistamine were compared with baseline values.

RESULTS

It was found that except the flare reactions at 30th min, levocetirizine 5 and 10 mg suppressed histamine-induced wheal and flare reactions more than desloratadine 5 and 10 mg did. There were not any significant differences between desloratadine 5 and 10 mg in all periods. Levocetirizine 10 mg suppressed wheal and flare reactions significantly more than levocetirizine 5 mg only at 24th h.

CONCLUSION

In this study, it was observed that levocetirizine 5 and 10 mg had a higher activity than desloratadine 5 and 10 mg.

H(1)-antihistamines and urticaria: how can we predict the best drug for our patient?

Urticaria, and especially chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), is a difficult condition to treat. Consequently, clinicians need to use the best H(1)-antihistamines currently available and the pharmaceutical industries need to keep developing H(1)-antihistamines that are more effective than the ones we have today. To do this we need to be able to compare the clinical efficacy of both established and new drugs. Obviously, the ideal way to do this is to use head-to-head studies in CSU. However, such studies are extremely expensive and, in the case of novel molecules, have ethical and logistical problems. Consequently, we need to have predictive models. Although determination of Ki, an indicator of the in vitro potency of an H(1)-antihistamine, may help in the initial selection of candidate molecules, the large differences in volume of distribution and tissue accumulation in humans, precludes this from being a good predictor of clinical efficacy in CSU. From the data reviewed in this article, especially the direct comparative data of desloratadine and levocetirizine in weal and flare studies and CSU, weal and flare response would appear to be the best indicator we have of effectiveness of H(1)-antihistamines in clinical practice. However, it must be pointed out that the conclusion is, essentially, based on detailed comparisons of two drugs in studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Consequently, to confirm the conclusions of this review, a multicentre study independent from the influence of pharmaceutical companies should be commissioned to compare the speed of onset and effectiveness of desloratadine, fexofenadine and levocetirizine in chronic spontaneous urticaria and against histamine-induced weal and flare responses in the same patients so that we have a clear understanding of the predictive value of our models.

Pharmacology of antihistamines

This article reviews the molecular biology of the interaction of histamine with its H1-receptor and describes the concept that H1-antihistamines are not receptor antagonists but are inverse agonists i.e. they produce the opposite effect on the receptor to histamine. It then discourages the use of first-generation H1-antihistamines in clinical practice today for two main reasons. First, they are less effective than second generation H1-antihistamines. Second, they have unwanted side effects, particularly central nervous system and anti-cholinergic effects, and have the potential for causing severe toxic reactions which are not shared by second-generation H1-antihistamines. There are many efficacious and safe second-generation H1-antihistamines on the market for the treatment of allergic disease. Of the three drugs highlighted in this review, levocetirizine and fexofenadine are the most efficacious in humans in vivo. However, levocetirizine may cause somnolence in susceptible individuals while fexofenadine has a relatively short duration of action requiring twice daily administration for full all round daily protection. While desloratadine is less efficacious, it has the advantages of rarely causing somnolence and having a long duration of action. Lastly, all H1-antihistamines have anti-inflammatory effects but it requires regular daily dosing rather than dosing 'on-demand' for this effect to be clinically demonstrable.

Pharmacology of antihistamines

This article reviews the molecular biology of the interaction of histamine with its H₁-receptor and describes the concept that H₁-antihistamines are not receptor antagonists but are inverse agonists i.e. they produce the opposite effect on the receptor to histamine. It then discourages the use of first-generation H₁-antihistamines in clinical practice today for two main reasons. First, they are less effective than second generation H₁-antihistamines. Second, they have unwanted side effects, particularly central nervous system and anti-cholinergic effects, and have the potential for causing severe toxic reactions which are not shared by second-generation H₁-antihistamines. There are many efficacious and safe second-generation H₁-antihistamines on the market for the treatment of allergic disease. Of the three drugs highlighted in this review, levocetirizine and fexofenadine are the most efficacious in humans in vivo. However, levocetirizine may cause somnolence in susceptible individuals while fexofenadine has a relatively short duration of action requiring twice daily administration for full all round daily protection. While desloratadine is less efficacious, it has the advantages of rarely causing somnolence and having a long duration of action. Lastly, all H₁-antihistamines have anti-inflammatory effects but it requires regular daily dosing rather than dosing 'on-demand' for this effect to be clinically demonstrable.

Challenges in the management of chronic urticaria

The term "chronic idiopathic urticaria" denotes a spectrum of conditions with different poorly understood pathogenetic mechanisms in which the release of histamine plays a role. Nonsedating second-generation H1 antihistamines are postulated to be the first line of treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria by national and international guidelines, but as control is not always achievable with the usually recommended doses, first-generation sedating antihistamines like hydroxyzine and diphenhydramine at high daily doses (200 mg) have been proposed as an alternative before resorting to treatment with systemic corticosteroids and other potentially hazardous agents. Our long time experience and recent research give us grounds to believe that increasing the doses of nonsedating H1 antihistamines up to fourfold improves significantly the chances of successful treatment. Our data suggest that the urticaria-associated discomfort is relieved by higher than conventional doses of levocetirizine and desloratadine in about 75% of the patients and that sedation/somnolence does not seem to be a major deterrent. The dose increase also improves the urticaria-specific quality of life. Contrary to the belief that individual patients may benefit from one antihistamine or another, we demonstrate that the drug with better ability to suppress the histamine skin effects in experiments in healthy volunteers (levocetirizine) is also superior in improving the different aspects of control of chronic urticaria (subjective and objective symptoms, quality of life) and that increasing its dose of up to fourfold may even paradoxically reduce the sense of sedation/somnolence in parallel with the relief of urticaria discomfort.

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.

Clinical meaning in skin-specific quality of life instruments: a comparison of the Dermatology Life Quality Index and Skindex banding systems

Clinical meaning can be assigned to scores of health status measures by using a variety of approaches. The anchor-based approach involves determining the difference on a quality of life (QOL) scale that corresponds to a self-reported small but important change on a global scale given concomitantly, which serves as an independent anchor. This article focuses on the anchor-based banding approach and reviews methods to assign clinical meaning to QOL measures, specifically the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Skindex. This article also includes pilot data that compares the DLQI and Skindex using these previously validated banding systems.

Urticaria and angioedema

Urticaria and angioedema are common disorders that can severely impair the quality of a patient's life and can be extremely difficult to treat. Symptoms can persist for years to decades. The causes of urticaria and angioedema are varied and may be immunologic, nonimmunologic, or idiopathic. This article reviews the literature and provides primary care physicians with up-to-date information of the epidemiology, basic pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of this common and often debilitating condition. Additionally, clinical manifestations of acute and chronic urticaria, hereditary and acquired angioedema, as well as the physical urticarias will be discussed.

Chronic urticaria: a comparison of management guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Chronic urticaria is characterized by recurring episodes of spontaneous transient dermal wheals and pruritus, with or without angioedema, which can persist for ≥ 6 weeks. Chronic urticaria impairs quality of life, emphasizing the need for effective treatments. Professional societies and clinical experts have issued evidence-based recommendations for the management of chronic urticaria, including recommending the use of second-generation antihistamines as a first-line therapy.

AREAS COVERED

A Medline search was conducted from 2000 to 2011 using the following terms, alone or in combination: 'chronic urticaria', 'management guidelines', 'consensus guidelines' and 'expert opinions'. Ten management guidelines/expert opinions met the inclusion criteria.

EXPERT OPINION

There was a universal agreement among the articles reviewed, that low-sedating, second-generation antihistamines should be prescribed as a first-line treatment of chronic urticaria. For refractory urticaria, however, recommendations varied and included dose escalation of second-generation antihistamines and adjunctive treatments with other agents of the same class, such as sedating antihistamines or leukotriene receptor antagonists. More research into effective second-line treatments and consistent implementation of current guidelines is needed, to ensure that treatment is based on clinical evidence.

Unmet clinical needs in chronic spontaneous urticaria. A GA²LEN task force report

Chronic spontaneous urticaria, formerly also known as chronic idiopathic urticaria and chronic urticaria (CU), is more common than previously thought. At any time, 0.5-1% of the population suffers from the disease (point prevalence). Although all age groups can be affected, the peak incidence is seen between 20 and 40 years of age. The duration of the disease is generally 1-5 years but is likely to be longer in more severe cases, cases with concurrent angioedema, in combination with physical urticaria or with a positive autologous serum skin test (autoreactivity). Chronic spontaneous urticaria has major detrimental effects on quality of life, with sleep deprivation and psychiatric comorbidity being frequent. It also has a large impact on society in terms of direct and indirect health care costs as well as reduced performance at work and in private life. In the majority of patients, an underlying cause cannot be identified making a causal and/or curative treatment difficult. Nonsedating H₁-antihistamines are the mainstay of symptomatic therapy, but treatment with licensed doses relieves symptoms effectively in < 50% of patients. Although guideline-recommended updosing up to fourfold increases symptom control in many patients, a substantial number of patients have only little benefit from H₁ -antihistamines. Consequently, there is a great need for new therapeutic strategies.

Improving SAR symptoms with levocetirizine: evaluating active and placebo effects in pollen challenge vs. natural exposure studies

OBJECTIVE

Despite a plethora of published data on levocetirizine, no meta-analyses exist on the effect of study design, and covariates like age, gender, and baseline symptom severity on treatment response. The objective of this study was the efficacy of levocetirizine 5  mg tablets and matching placebo at reducing allergy symptoms in adult subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis under various pollen exposure study conditions and by age, gender and baseline symptom severity.

METHODS

This was a meta-analysis of original reports from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Clinical studies without detailed reports, open-label, non-randomized and non-controlled studies, or paediatric studies, were excluded. Study subjects were divided into an environmental exposure (EE) group or a natural exposure (NE) group.

RESULTS

Data from 3640 subjects were analysed (n = 2174 for levocetirizine, n = 1466 for placebo). The overall results confirmed the efficacy of levocetirizine 5  mg, with an approximately 40% symptom score improvement from baseline, in both the EE and NE groups. While levocetirizine showed no gender- or age-related differences in efficacy, female subjects responded better to placebo in the EE, but not in the NE group; younger subjects (<30 years of age) responded less favourably to placebo compared with older subjects (≥ 50 years of age). Levocetirizine was consistently superior to placebo regardless of baseline symptom score levels. The highest significance levels between the active and placebo groups were observed in subjects sensitized to animal dander and grass.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between an oral antihistamine and placebo in clinical studies of allergic rhinitis might be due to a different response to placebo rather than to the active drug. Levocetirizine seems to have consistent efficacy regardless of age, gender, and baseline scores.

Clinical evaluation and treatment of chronic urticaria

Chronic urticaria is a common disease characterized by recurrent pruritic wheals with surrounding erythema for >6 weeks. It is associated with a significant health care burden and affects patient quality of life. The etiology of chronic urticaria is often difficult to elucidate; however, known etiologies include autoimmune urticaria, physical urticarias (eg, cold, cholinergic, and delayed pressure urticaria), and idiopathic urticaria. The etiology is unknown in many patients, leading to a diagnosis of chronic idiopathic urticaria. The diagnosis of chronic idiopathic urticaria can be challenging for the primary care physician because of the disease's chronic symptoms. Diagnosis requires a detailed patient history and comprehensive physical examination, with additional testing tailored to the patient's history. Effective treatments include antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists in combination with antihistamines, and oral immunomodulatory drugs, including corticosteroids, cyclosporine, dapsone, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine. Newer experimental therapies include intravenous immunoglobulin and omalizumab. This article reviews the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic urticaria.

Levocetirizine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Levocetirizine (LCZ) is a second-generation antihistamine that was approved in January 2008 for the relief of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR), and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) in adults and children aged > or = 6 years.

OBJECTIVES

This article reviews the available literature on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, clinical efficacy and tolerability, and effect on quality of life (QoL) of LCZ.

METHODS

A search of the English-language literature was performed using the following databases: MEDLINE (1966-February 2009), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (19 70-February 2009), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE Drugs & Pharmacology (1991-February 2009), Blackwell Synergy, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, and Wiley Interscience. The search terms were levocetirizine, allergic rhinitis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, antihistamine, pharmacokinetics, quality of life, drug interactions, case reports, and cost. Publications describing studies of > or = 2 weeks' duration that concerned the efficacy, tolerability, pharmacoeconomics, and/or QoL effects of LCZ were included in the review.

RESULTS

In 4 studies in adult patients with moderate to severe PAR, LCZ 5 mg/d was associated with significant improvements in symptom scores for sneezing, rhinorrhea, and ocular/nasal pruritus at 4 to 6 weeks compared with placebo (P < or = 0.05). In 3 studies, nasal congestion scores were significantly improved within 4 to 6 weeks compared with placebo (P < 0.001). LCZ 5 mg/d was associated with improvements compared with placebo in scores for the ability to do housework, complete work activities, and engage in outdoor activities at 6 months (P < or = 0.011). In a 6-week study in children with moderate to severe SAR, LCZ 5 mg/d was associated with significant improvements compared with placebo in sneezing, rhin-orrhea, and itchy nose (P < 0.004); significant improvements in symptoms from baseline were also seen in a 4-week study in adults with SAR (P < 0.001). One study in patients with SAR reported no significant difference between LCZ and fluticasone compared with fluticasone monotherapy in terms of improvement in QoL, nasal airflow obstruction, sneezing, or pruritus. In a 6-week study in patients with moderate to severe CIU, LCZ 5 mg/d was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing overall CIU symptoms (P < 0.05). In two 4-week studies, one comparing LCZ 5 mg/d with placebo and the other comparing it with desloratadine (DSL), LCZ was significantly more effective than either comparator in terms of improvement in scores for pruritus severity (P < or = 0.001 vs placebo; P < 0.004 vs DSL) and duration (P < or = 0.001 vs placebo; P = 0.009 vs DSL). LCZ was significantly more effective than placebo (but not DSL) in reducing the number and size of wheals (both, P = 0.001). In a 12-week, open-label, crossover study, patients reported significantly longer symptom relief with cetirizine than LCZ (P < 0.005). The most commonly reported adverse events in two 6-month studies in adults with PAR treated with LCZ 5 mg/d included headache (23.8%), pharyngitis (19.4%), influenza (14.6%), fatigue (8.3%), and somnolence (8.3%). There is serious concern about the possibility of febrile seizures in infants treated with LCZ. Three pharmacoeconomic studies of LCZ 5 mg/d were identified, one comparing it with placebo in patients with PAR, one comparing it with placebo in patients with CIU, and another comparing it with second-generation antihistamines and montelukast in patients with PAR. Because of design limitations and differences in comparators in these studies, it was not possible to determine the cost-effectiveness of LCZ in the treatment of PAR or CIU.

CONCLUSIONS

In the studies reviewed, LCZ 5 mg/d was effective in reducing symptoms of PAR, SAR, and CIU and improving QoL, with an acceptable tolerabili-ty profile. There is a need for studies of longer durations, head-to-head comparisons against other anti-histamines, drug-interaction studies, safety studies in infants, and cost-effectiveness analyses.

Levocetirizine in the treatment of allergic diseases

BACKGROUND

Levocetirizine, the R-enantiomer of cetirizine dihydrochloride, is a new molecule with a potent and selective antihistamine activity.

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

Evaluation of published articles in English, or having an English abstract.

RESULTS

Clinical trials indicate that levocetirizine is safe and effective for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. The compound shows a rapid onset of action, high bioavailability and affinity for the H1 receptor. Moreover, this molecule demonstrates many anti-inflammatory effects that enhance the clinical therapeutic benefit not only in short-term but also in long-term treatments, as reported in recent trials utilizing levocetirizine for several months.

CONCLUSION

Levocetirizine confirms its safe effective activity for treatment of allergic disease in both adults and children.