Comparison of the efficacy and safety of bilastine 20 mg vs levocetirizine 5 mg for the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria: a multi-centre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

Comparative inhibition by oral bilastine, parenteral dexchlorpheniramine, and a new bilastine parenteral (i.v. and i.m.) formulation of histamine-induced wheal and flare response: A randomised phase I trial

BACKGROUND

Bilastine is a well-known non-sedating second-generation antihistamine authorised worldwide for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (seasonal and perennial) and urticaria with proven efficacy and good safety and tolerability profile. When the oral route is not suitable or a rapid onset of action is preferred, parenteral formulations represent an effective treatment option. However, the parenteral formulations currently available are sedating antihistamines. The objective of this research was to compare the peripheral anti-H1 activity of different bilastine formulations (i.v., i.m. and oral) and dexchlorpheniramine among them also versus placebo.

METHODS

This was a single-dose, randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase I clinical study performed on 25 adult healthy volunteers that compared the peripheral antihistaminic activity of a single dose of bilastine 12 mg i.v., bilastine 12 mg i.m., bilastine 20 mg oral tablets and dexchlorpheniramine 5 mg i.m. among them and versus placebo by inhibiting the histamine-induced wheal and flare (W&F) response. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability were also evaluated.

RESULTS

All bilastine formulations showed a rapid onset of action (15 min for parenteral and 30 min for the oral formulation), and the maximum effect in both wheal (i.v. 74.44 %; i.m.:74.29 %; oral 70,27 %) and flare area reduction (i.v. and i.m. 80.63 %; oral 77.67 %), was significantly larger compared to dexchlorpheniramine i.m. (25.85 % for wheal and 28.65 % for flare) and placebo (1.35 % for wheal and 4.02 % for flare). A more pronounced reduction in itching score was reached for bilastine oral, followed by i.m. and i.v. formulations. No serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported during the study, and 8 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 5 subjects, all resolved without sequelae. For psychomotor assessments, dexchlorpheniramine i.m. showed a fast onset of drowsiness, as well as decreased attention and coordination when compared to all bilastine formulations and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

All bilastine formulations showed a peripheral H1-blocking effect inducing a significantly greater inhibition of the wheal and flare response as compared to dexchlorpheniramine i.m. or placebo and provided a greater reduction of the itching sensation score. This study reconfirmed that bilastine has no sedative effect, even in a parenteral formulation. These results suggest that new bilastine parenteral formulation (i.v. or i.m.) may represent a suitable alternative for patients requiring immediate treatment of histamine-mediated type I hypersensitivity reactions, such as acute urticaria, or in those cases where oral administration is not possible.

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.

Bilastine Reimagined: A Comprehensive Exploration of Pruritus Management With a Novel Antihistamine

Managing pruritic conditions is essential due to their significant impact on patients' quality of life. Chronic urticaria (CU), characterized by persistent itching and hives, severely affects daily activities and sleep. CU includes chronic inducible urticaria and chronic spontaneous urticaria, with the latter lacking identifiable triggers, making treatment especially challenging. CU is a condition that occurs across all age groups, with a higher prevalence among young adults and middle-aged women. Current antihistamine treatments include first-generation antihistamines, which are associated with sedation, and second-generation antihistamines such as cetirizine and fexofenadine, which cause less sedation but have varying efficacy and safety profiles. Bilastine, a novel second-generation H1-antihistamine, offers advantages due to its potent antihistaminic activity, rapid onset of action, and minimal sedation. This narrative review thoroughly synthesizes the evidence for the efficacy and safety of bilastine in treating CU and other pruritic conditions. By analyzing clinical trials, real-world evidence, and comparative studies, this review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of bilastine in managing pruritic conditions, emphasizing its pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy, and safety profile compared to other antihistamines.

Efficacy and safety of switching to bilastine, an H1-antihistamine, in patients with refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (H1-SWITCH): a multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group comparative study

Background

For treating patients with refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) resistant to standard doses of 2nd generation H1-antihistamines (H1AH) the International and Japanese guidelines recommend increasing H1AH dose. The latter also recommends switching to a different H1AH. This study explored if the efficacy of the standard dose of bilastine 20 mg is non-inferior to that of double-dose of H1AH in patients with refractory CSU.

Methods

This phase IV, multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of switching treatment to bilastine compared to treatment with a 2-fold dose of H1AH in patients with CSU refractory to standard dose H1AH. The primary endpoint was the mean total symptom score (TSS) at Day 5-7 after the start of administration.

Results

Treatment efficacy and safety were evaluated in 128 patients (bilastine, n=64; 2-fold dose of H1AH, n=64). The mean TSS at Day 5-7 after the start of administration was smaller than the non-inferiority margin of 0.8, demonstrating non-inferiority of the bilastine switching group to the double-dose H1AH group (0.17 (95% CI -0.32, 0.67)). No difference in Japanese version of Epworth Sleepiness Scale (JESS), DLQI, and urticaria activity score over 7 consecutive days (UAS7) was observed between the two groups. There were no serious adverse events in either group. H1AH-related adverse events occurred in 5 subjects (8 cases) and 2 subjects (3 cases) in the double-dose H1AH and bilastine groups, respectively.

Conclusions

Switching treatment to bilastine demonstrated non-inferiority to a double-dose of H1AH in terms of efficacy in patients with CSU refractory to standard dose H1AH with a favorable safety profile.

Clinical trial registration

https://jrct.niph.go.jp/latest-detail/jRCTs051180105, identifier jRCTs051180105.

Analyzing the clinical efficacy and safety of levocetirizine based on its receptor occupancy, intraclass comparison and role in the treatment of CSU: an AROG consensus statement

INTRODUCTION

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterized by urticaria persisting for more than 6 weeks. Antihistamines, notably sgAH (second generation antihistamines) are the first line of treatment for CSU.

AREAS COVERED

This consensus aimed to review the existing research on receptor occupancy of antihistamines, including levocetirizine, and translate its implications in the treatment of CSU. The consensus deliberations were under the banner of the Antihistamine Receptor Occupancy Group (AROG) from India, an expert panel of 12 dermatologists with a mix of institutional and practitioner backgrounds. This group analyzed the existing translational research on the receptor occupancy of levocetirizine to establish the clinical efficacy and safety of levocetirizine in the treatment of CSU using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method vis-a-vis the varied SGAH.

EXPERT OPINION

SGAH constitute the first step in the therapeutic ladder for managing CSU. Levocetirizine has high bioavailability, high affinity and occupancy of the H1 receptor, rapid onset of action, limited distribution and minimal hepatic metabolism. It exhibits significant anti-inflammatory effects at clinically relevant concentrations. The marked receptor occupancy translates to enhanced efficacy as compared to similarly dosed SGAH with the lower cost making it an appropriate drug for chronic use. Receptor occupancy should be the basis of intra-class head-to-head trials in CSU.

Bioequivalence and Safety of Bilastine 20 mg Orodispersible Tablets and Conventional Tablets: A Randomized, Single-Dose, Two-Period Crossover Study in Healthy Volunteers Under Fasting Conditions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Orodispersible tablets (ODT) rapidly dissolve in the oral cavity and can improve patient's convenience. This pharmacokinetic study assessed the bioequivalence of a novel 20 mg ODT formulation of bilastine compared with bilastine 20 mg tablets in healthy volunteers under fasting conditions.

METHODS

A phase I, single-center, open-label, two-period, two-sequence crossover randomized clinical trial was conducted. The study comprised two periods, in which participants were administered a single oral dose of bilastine 20 mg in the form of ODT as the test product, or conventional tablets as the reference product, and a washout of 7 days between each period. Blood samples were collected for up to 72 h. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence intervals of the Cmax and AUC0-t were within the acceptance range (80-125%). Safety was evaluated at the follow-up visit (days 4-7 after the second dose) and throughout the study.

RESULTS

A total of 42 healthy volunteers were randomized, and 41 completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable for both formulations after a single dose of 20 mg. Bilastine ODT and conventional tablets were bioequivalent as the 90% confidence intervals of the test over reference ratios were within the predefined range (80-125%). Both formulations were well tolerated and showed a similar safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilastine ODT was bioequivalent to the reference treatment formulated as conventional tablets when administered as a single oral dose of 20 mg under fasting conditions. Both formulations showed a similar tolerability and safety profile, with no serious adverse events or significant analytical alterations reported.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

2019-004071-39. Date of authorization: 10 December 2019.

The Effect of Placebo on Pruritus in Patients with Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The anti-pruritic effect of placebo in patients with chronic urticaria has gained increasing attention in clinical research. However, the extent of placebo effect and its influencing factors in the treatment of chronic urticaria are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of placebo on pruritus in patients with chronic urticaria and to explore relevant influencing factors.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 10 July, 2024. Primary outcome included pruritus scores. The secondary outcomes focused on global symptoms and quality of life. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses were conducted based on drug types, sample size, participants' age, and other variables. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and a trial sequential analysis were employed to establish the reliability of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 65 eligible publications (including 67 randomized controlled trials) involving 10,704 patients with chronic urticaria were included. The pruritus scores decreased following placebo treatment (moderate evidence). In addition, favorable results were observed in global symptoms (moderate evidence) and quality of life (low evidence) after placebo treatment. Subgroup analyses indicated that the type of active medication in intervention groups was an influencing factor of placebo effect of pruritus. Meta-regression analyses demonstrated that the anti-pruritic effect of placebo was inversely correlated with sample size and positively correlated with participants' age. A trial sequential analysis provided further support for the anti-pruritic effect of placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial improvement of pruritus after placebo treatment was observed in patients with chronic urticaria. The anti-pruritic effect of placebo varied with sample size, participants' age, and type of active medication used. Future research should further investigate the effect size of placebo and clarify the potential mechanism.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) as CRD42023482608.

Bilastine for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria: results from an international Delphi study

Background

Second-generation oral H1-antihistamines, including bilastine, represent the emerging treatments of allergic rhinitis (including rhinoconjunctivitis) and chronic urticaria in both adults and children. This study analyses available evidence supporting the use of bilastine amongst second-generation antihistamines for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria in adults and children.

Methods

Consensus amongst experts from 17 countries on the ideal treatment of rhinitis and urticaria, and the specific role of bilastine was measured by means of a modified Delphi process. A total of 12 statements were voted on by the experts using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). The definition of consensus was set at a minimum of 80% concordance for 4+5 scores (agree or strongly agree).

Results

All proposed statements reached consensus, with a concordance of ≥98% for five statements and ≥96% for seven.

Conclusions

The wide consensus obtained for the proposed statements suggests a prominent role for bilastine in the management of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

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.

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.

A systematic review of 454 randomized controlled trials using the Dermatology Life Quality Index: experience in 69 diseases and 43 countries

BACKGROUND

Over 29 years of clinical application, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) has remained the most used patient-reported outcome (PRO) in dermatology due to its robustness, simplicity and ease of use.

OBJECTIVES

To generate further evidence of the DLQI's utility in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to cover all diseases and interventions.

METHODS

The methodology followed PRISMA guidelines and included seven bibliographical databases, searching articles published from 1 January 1994 until 16 November 2021. Articles were reviewed independently by two assessors, and an adjudicator resolved any opinion differences.

RESULTS

Of 3220 screened publications, 454 articles meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion, describing research on 198 190 patients, were analysed. DLQI scores were primary endpoints in 24 (5.3%) of studies. Most studies were of psoriasis (54.1%), although 69 different diseases were studied. Most study drugs were systemic (85.1%), with biologics comprising 55.9% of all pharmacological interventions. Topical treatments comprised 17.0% of total pharmacological interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, mainly laser therapy and ultraviolet radiation treatment, comprised 12.2% of the total number of interventions. The majority of studies (63.7%) were multicentric, with trials conducted in at least 42 different countries; 40.2% were conducted in multiple countries. The minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) was reported in the analysis of 15.0% of studies, but only 1.3% considered full score meaning banding of the DLQI. Forty-seven (10.4%) of the studies investigated statistical correlation of the DLQI with clinical severity assessment or other PRO/quality of life tools; and 61-86% of studies had within-group scores differences greater than the MCID in 'active treatment arms'. The Jadad risk-of-bias scale showed that bias was generally low, as 91.8% of the studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3; only 0.4% of studies showed a high risk of bias from randomization. Thirteen per cent had a high risk of bias from blinding and 10.1% had a high risk of bias from unknown outcomes of all participants in the studies. In 18.5% of the studies the authors declared that they followed an intention-to-treat protocol; imputation for missing DLQI data was used in 34.4% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides a wealth of evidence of the use of the DLQI in clinical trials to inform researchers' and -clinicians' decisions for its further use. Recommendations are also made for improving the reporting of data from future RCTs using the DLQI.

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.

Efficacy and safety of KN046, a novel bispecific antibody against PD-L1 and CTLA-4, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who failed platinum-based chemotherapy: a phase II study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of KN046, a novel recombinant humanised antibody targeting PD-L1 and CTLA-4 in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients after failure or intolerance to platinum-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this multi-centre, open-label phase II clinical trial, patients were enroled after failure or intolerance to platinum-based chemotherapy. KN046 at 3 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg was administered intravenously every 2weeks. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR) evaluated by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC).

RESULTS

A total of 30 and 34 patients were included in the 3 mg/kg (cohort A) and 5 mg/kg (cohort B) cohorts. On 31st August 2021, the median follow-up duration was 24.08 months (interquartile [IQR], 22.28, 24.84) and 19.35months (IQR, 17.25, 20.90) in the 3 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg cohorts, respectively. BIRC-assessed ORRs were 13.3% and 14.7% in the 3 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg cohorts, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 3.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.22-7.29) and 3.68 (95%CI 1.81-7.39) months, while overall survival was 19.70 (95.5%CI 15.44-not estimated [NE]) and 13.04 (95.5%CI 9.86-NE) months, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were anaemia (28.1%), hyperglycaemia (26.7%), and infusion-related reactions (26.7%). The incidence rates of grade ≥ 3 TRAEs and TRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation were 42.2% and 14.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both 3 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg KN046 showed promising efficacy and favourable safety profile for advanced NSCLC after failure or intolerance to previous platinum-based chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03838848.

Diphenhydramine: Time to Move on?

Diphenhydramine is one of the most widely available, longest-used antihistamine medications but has many side effects including sedation and risk of toxicity in overdose including cardiac toxicity. It is frequently inappropriately used when newer, more favorable antihistamine medications are available. Second-generation antihistamines are also widely available and affordable, with many of the same desired effects as diphenhydramine and fewer, if any, of the undesirable side effects. Because of the negative side effects and wide availability of alternative antihistamine medications, it is definitively time to move on from diphenhydramine.

A highly sensitive spectrofluorimetric method for the determination of bilastine in its pharmaceutical preparations and biological fluids

Allergic rhinitis and urticaria are extremely prevalent among all age groups. From the clinical experience, usually, an essential second-generation non-sedating H₁-antihistaminic drug, such as bilastine is given to relieve allergic symptoms. Bilastine is preferred to be used instead of oral corticosteroids and first -generation sedating H₁-antihistaminics to avoid their side effects. A highly sensitive and simple spectrofluorometric method was developed and validated for the determination of bilastine in its dosage forms and biological fluids. The quantum yield was calculated and was found to be as high as 0.48. Aqueous water solution of bilastine gives high native fluorescence emission at 298 nm after excitation at 272 nm. A rectilinear calibration plot was obtained over the concentration range of 1.0-50.0 ng mL^-1. The limits of quantitation and detection were 1.0 and 0.33 ng mL^-1, respectively. The parameters influencing its spectrofluorimetric behavior, viz, type of solvent, pH and organized media were studied. The proposed method was successfully applied for the determination of the drug in pharmaceutical dosage form and the results obtained were in good agreement with those of given by reported method. The high sensitivity of the proposed method enabled the estimation of the drug in biological matrices, including human plasma and urine samples after simple protein precipitation, and the results obtained were satisfactory.

The Impact of Bilastine on Symptoms of Allergic Rhinitis and Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Allergic diseases are immunological exaggerations with symptoms that may interfere with life quality. Bilastine, a novel oral second-generation H-1 antihistamine, is highly selective to H-1 receptors and has anti inflammatory properties. The present evidence regarding the drug efficacy is inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bilastine compared with the placebo and other active antihistamines in patients who complained either from AR or chronic urticaria.

METHODS

We systematically searched the Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating bilastine effects on symptomatic hyper histaminic allergic conditions. We collected data on total symptoms scores (TSS), total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), discomfort associated with these allergic conditions measured by visual analog score (VAS), and quality of life (QOL) for AR and urticaria. Other outcomes such as clinical global impression and safety profiles were reported as well. We pooled the studies in a random effect model using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

We included 9 RCTs comprising 3801 participants. The meta-analysis revealed that bilastine was superior to placebo, improving TSS, TNSS, VAS, and QOL in AR or chronic urticaria participants. Moreover, the bilastine was comparable to active antihistamines such as cetirizine, fexofenadine, and loratadine regarding mentioned outcomes. In addition, the novel drug was safe and tolerable with no difference in the incidence of adverse events with a placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilastine safely improved TSS in hyper histaminic allergic conditions involving nasal symptoms in AR. It decreases the discomfort associated with the disease resulting in improving the QOL of the participants.

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.

Quality of life in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases: in the eye of the beholder

Allergic and immunologic skin diseases negatively impact the quality of life (QoL) of affected patients with detrimental consequences. Nonetheless, in everyday clinical practice the evaluation of QoL is often overlooked. Considering the increasing prevalence of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, hereditary angioedema, cutaneous mastocytosis, and urticaria, it is essential to determine the effects of allergic and immunologic skin diseases on QoL. A joint meeting (GET TOGETHER 2021) of the Italian Society of Allergology, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC) and the Italian Society of Allergological, Occupational and Environmental Dermatology (SIDAPA) aimed to summarize the features of the main QoL tools used in these diseases and to describe the extent of QoL impairment as well as the impact of treatments on QoL, particularly biologic therapies. The assessment of QoL in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases relies on generic, organ-specific and disease-specific questionnaires. While generic and organ-specific questionnaires allow comparison between different diseases, disease-specific questionnaires are designed and validated for specific cohorts: the QoL Index for Atopic Dermatitis (QoLIAD) and the Childhood Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale (CADIS) in atopic dermatitis, the ACD-11 in allergic contact dermatitis, the Angioedema QoL Questionnaire (AE-QoL) and the Hereditary Angioedema QoL questionnaire (HAE-QoL) in hereditary angioedema, the Mastocytosis QoL Questionnaires (MCQoL e MQLQ) in cutaneous mastocytosis, and the Chronic Urticaria QoL questionnaire (CU-Q2oL) in urticaria. Among the many factors that variably contribute to QoL impairment, pruritus can represent the leading cause of patient discomfort. Biologic therapies significantly ameliorate QoL in atopic dermatitis, hereditary angioedema, mastocytosis and chronic urticaria. In general, adequate management strategies are essential for improving QoL in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases.

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.

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.

Real-Life Experience of Efficacy and Safety of Bilastine in the Refractory Cases of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria and its Effect on the Quality of Life of Patients

Introduction:

Second-generation H1-antihistamines (SGAHs) are the mainstay of treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Bilastine, newer non-sedating SGAHs, was recently introduced in India after the approval of the Drugs Controller General of India. There is a paucity of evidence about the long-term efficacy and safety of Bilastine in Indian patients. We undertook this study to find the long-term efficacy and tolerability of Bilastine in patients with CSU in India.

Materials and Methods:

This retrospective chart analysis was conducted by analyzing electronic medical records from May 1, 2019, to March 20, 2020, to identify patients of CSU who were prescribed Bilastine. Adult patients, with CSU >6 months were included, who had an unsatisfactory response as per Urticaria Activity Score 7 (UAS7) to previous antihistamine therapies, and who continued treatment for at least 6 months were included. Treatment effectiveness was determined by retrospectively reviewing their UAS7 scores from their medical records and evaluating their scores at weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. Also, DLQI was assessed and compared at baseline and week 24.

Result:

Forty-nine patients were found to fulfill the criteria and included in the study. At the end of 24 weeks, 51% of patients (n = 25) achieved complete treatment response (UAS = 0), whereas 49% of patients (n = 24) were labeled as well-controlled urticaria (UAS<6). At 24 weeks, the mean UAS7 score (1.35 ± 1.61) was statistically significant compared to the baseline score (20.2 ± 5.73). The mean score of DLQI was also reduced to 1.63 ± 1.18 at 24 weeks from 8.39 ± 2.49 at baseline (P-value <0.001).

Conclusion:

The study showed that in patients who had an inadequate response with commonly used antihistamines at a double dose or combined use, switching over to Bilastine resulted not only in relieving the symptoms of CSU but also improved the quality of life of the patients with CSU.

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.

Second generation antihistamines: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article presents an update on the clinical pharmacology, mechanisms of action, and safety of second generation antihistamines (SGAHs).

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research has shown the efficacy and good tolerance of SGAHs supporting its indication as first line medications for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria.

SUMMARY

The information contained in this review is relevant for the correct utilization of SGAHs by practicing physicians who take care of these highly prevalent clinical disorders.

Cupping therapy for patients with chronic urticaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a common skin disease, which has a negative effect on quality of life. Current treatments do not fully control the symptoms of urticaria for many CU patients, thus effective and safe treatments for CU are still needed.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cupping therapy in patients with CU.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The search strategy looked for the presence of related keywords, such as "chronic urticaria" and "cupping therapy," in the title and abstract of research articles indexed in major databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected after querying nine electronic databases from their inception to May 2019 with the above search terms.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

RCTs were included if they recruited patients with CU who were intervened with dry or wet cupping. Publications could be written in Chinese or English.

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted, and the studies were assessed for the quality of their methodological design and risk of bias. Meta-analyses of the RCT data were conducted to assess the total effective rate of the treatment as the primary outcome. Skin disease quality of life index score, recurrence rate, and adverse events were assessed as secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on different interventions.

RESULTS

Thirteen comparisons from 12 RCTs involving 842 participants were included. There were no significant differences between wet cupping and medications in total effective rate (n = 372; risk ratio [RR] = 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97 to 1.25; P = 0.14) or recurrence rate (n = 240; RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.36; P = 0.20). Cupping therapy, in combination with antihistamine treatment was more efficacious than antihistamines alone, with a greater total effective rate (n = 342; RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.39; P = 0.03) and lower recurrence rate (n = 342; RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.84; P = 0.007). Cupping therapy combined with acupuncture was more effective than acupuncture alone (n = 156; RR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.46; P = 0.006). No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Wet cupping may be as effective as treatment with antihistamines. When cupping therapy is used as an adjuvant therapy to antihistamines or acupuncture, it may enhance the efficacy. Results drawn from these studies should be interpreted with caution and applied with care to clinical practice, because of the poor quality among the studies that were reviewed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019137451.

Bilastine: a lifetime companion for the treatment of allergies

Objective: Bilastine is a potent and highly selective H₁-antihistamine approved for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. This article summarizes available data on the use of bilastine in the treatment of allergic disorders in different age groups, including younger and older adults, and school-age children and adolescents.Methods: A PubMed literature search ("bilastine") was conducted on 25 February 2019. Additional literature known to the authors and identified from the reference lists of cited publications was included.Results: Bilastine is administered orally at a dose of 20 mg once daily in adults and adolescents aged ≥12 years and 10 mg once daily in children aged 6 to <12 years. Clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy at improving nasal and ocular symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis, and wheals and itching in patients with urticaria. It has a rapid onset of action and long duration of action. Bilastine does not undergo significant metabolism and does not interact with the CYP450 system, which limits its potential for drug-drug interactions. No dosage adjustments are required in patients with renal or hepatic impairment, or in the elderly. Bilastine is generally well tolerated, even when administered at above-standard doses. It does not exhibit anticholinergic effects or cardiotoxic effects, shows no central nervous system penetration and has minimal sedative properties. It has been shown to improve health-related quality of life.Conclusions: Bilastine is a suitable option for the treatment of patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or urticaria across age groups from school-age children to elderly patients.

The safety and tolerability profile of bilastine for chronic urticaria in children

Background

Urticaria is a condition defined by the development of wheals, angioedema or both. It is classified based on its duration as acute (≤ 6 weeks) or chronic (> 6 weeks). Chronic urticaria is less frequent than acute one in children, but it represents a debilitating condition, always needing treatment. Symptoms affect child's daily activities and disturb sleeping patterns, causing emotional distress and negatively influencing learning and cognition. Therefore, the management of chronic urticaria must point to a complete control of symptoms, taking into account tolerability and the patient quality of life.

Review of literature

The recently revised version of EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guideline on the management of urticaria, in addition to recommending the use of second-generation H₁ antihistamines as the treatment of choice, gives particular attention to their use in the paediatric population. Bilastine has been studied in children; at the dose of 10 mg/once daily, it is licenced for the symptomatic relief of urticaria in children ≥ 6 to 11 years, in the European Union, in appropriate formulation, as oral solution or orodispersible tablet.

Conclusions

In line with the recent guideline recommendation for the use of second generation H₁ antihistamines in children we have reviewed the safety and tolerability profile of bilastine in children with chronic urticaria.

Cupping for patients with chronic urticaria: A systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

The program aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cupping in patients with chronic urticaria (CU).

METHODS

We will search the databases including PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, China Science Journal Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan-fang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database from their inception to May 2019. In addition, we will manually search the list of medical journals as a supplement. The clinical randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials related to cupping for the treatment of CU will be included in the study. Data were synthesized by using a fixed-effect model or random effect model depend on the heterogeneity test. The primary outcome is the total effective rate. Secondary outcomes include skin disease quality of life index scores, adverse events, and recurrence rates. RevMan V.5.3 statistical software will be used for meta-analysis. If it is not appropriate for a meta-analysis, then a descriptive analysis will be conducted. Data synthesis will use the risk ratio and the standardized or weighted average difference of continuous data to represent the results.

RESULTS

This study will provide a comprehensive review of the available evidence to assess the effectiveness and safety of cupping for patients with CU.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review (SR) will provide evidence to judge whether cupping is an effective intervention for patients with CU.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol of the SR does not require ethical approval because it does not involve humans. We will publish this article in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019137451.

Sex differences in the pharmacology of itch therapies-a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Chronic itch is the most common skin-related condition, associated with a high psychosocial and economic burden. In recent years, increasing evidence of sex differences in the perception, clinical presentation and treatment requirements of itch points towards potential benefits when using sex-adapted therapies. It is well-known that body composition, absorption, metabolism, elimination and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) differ between sexes, but only little is known about the impact of sex in the pharmacology of itch treatments, which could help to rationalise sex-adapted treatment strategies.

AIM

To evaluate and review sex effects in the pharmacokinetics and /-dynamics of drugs used to treat itch.

METHODS

In this narrative review we performed a PubMed and MEDLINE (Ovid) search using the terms (itch OR pruritus) AND (gender OR sex) AND (drug OR medication OR pharmacokinetics OR pharmacodynamics). Additional searches were performed for the topical and systemic drugs recommended by the European Guideline on Chronic Pruritus.

RESULTS

We found numerous reports with variable levels of evidence of sex effects with respect to the pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics of 14 drug classes used for the treatment of itch, including a total of 19 systemic and 3 topical drugs. Women seem to present higher plasma levels of several drugs used in itch treatment, including tri- and tetracyclic antidepressants (e.g. doxepin, amitriptyline, mirtazapine), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. paroxetine, sertraline, fluoxetine), immunosuppressive drugs (e.g. cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil), serotonin receptor antagonists (e.g. ondansetron) and betablockers (e.g. propranolol). Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were generally more common in women. Being female was reported to be an independent risk factor for QTc-prolongation associated with antihistamines and tetracyclic antidepressants. Additionally, women seem to be more prone to sedative effects of antihistamines, and to suffer from a higher frequency as well as severity of side effects with systemic calcineurin inhibitors, opioid agonists, and opioid antagonists. Women were also sensitised more often to topically applied drugs. Of note, apart from only one experimental study with capsaicin, none of these reports were designed specifically to assess the effect of sex (and gender) in the treatment of itch.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Our review supports previous reports that sex is of importance in the pharmacokinetics and /-dynamics of several drugs used to treat itch although those drugs were mostly evaluated for non-itch indications. However, the results are limited by methodological limitations evident in most studies such as underrepresentation of women in clinical trials. This emphasises the need to study the impact of sex (and gender) in future itch trials to yield better outcomes and prevent ADRs in both sexes.

Real-World, Non-Interventional, Observational Study of Hydroxyzine Hydrochloride in Chronic Pruritus: a Prospective, Non-Comparative Study

INTRODUCTION

Although hydroxyzine is widely used for symptom relief in pruritus, its clinical safety and efficacy data in the Indian setting are scarce. We conducted a study to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of hydroxyzine in the management of Indian patients with chronic pruritus in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational, patient-reported outcomes (PRO) study in patients with chronic pruritus due to dermatological causes treated with hydroxyzine as per the clinician's discretion for a period of up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was improvement in quality of life from baseline, assessed using the 10-point Dermatology Quality of Life Index (DLQI) at week 12 of the study period. Secondary outcomes were improvement in the pruritus scores (5-D itch scale) at 12 weeks, improvements in the DLQI and 5-D itch scores at 2, 4 and 8 weeks and safety.

RESULTS

The study included 400 patients (179 males, 221 females) from 7 dermatology centres across India. Of the 400 patients recruited, 391 patients completed at least 2 weeks of treatment. There was significant (p < 0.0001) improvement from baseline in the DLQI scores and 5-D itch scores at 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks; 189/391 (48.34%) patients had symptom relief leading to early termination. Overall, the treatment was well tolerated with a total of 11 mild-to-moderate adverse events reported during the study, which included dizziness, constipation, drowsiness, dry mouth and sedation. All events resolved without any intervention. There were no serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This real-world, observational, PRO study demonstrates that hydroxyzine significantly improves symptoms of pruritus and quality of life in patients with chronic pruritus due to dermatological causes over 12 weeks. Despite the sedating potential of the drug, hydroxyzine is well tolerated in real-world settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CTRI/2017/06/008847.

FUNDING

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories.

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

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy/safety of bilastine in pruritus relief in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) or other pruritic skin diseases.Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, exploratory study (EudraCT No.: 2016-001505-17), 115 adults with CSU (n = 34), eczema/dermatitis (n = 30), prurigo (n = 25) or cutaneous pruritus (n = 26), received bilastine 20 mg once daily for 8 weeks, or in non-responder patients (<30% improvement in pruritus score at week 2), 40 mg/day from week 2.Results: The mean change in weekly pruritus severity score from baseline to week 8 (primary endpoint) was reduced with bilastine (overall and by disease group); overall, percentage and absolute reductions were 71.16% and 1.63 points, respectively (p < .001). Updosed non-responders (n = 31) had improved weekly pruritus severity scores from baseline to week 8; percentage and absolute reductions were 49.08% and 1.13 points, respectively (p < .001). Bilastine improved the Dermatology Life Quality Index at weeks 4 and 8 (p < .001) in all disease groups, and the 7-day Urticaria Activity Score in CSU patients (p < .001). Bilastine was well tolerated.Conclusions: Bilastine relieved pruritus associated with urticaria and other skin diseases, with a very good safety profile.

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).

Current therapeutical strategies for allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis is a common condition with increasing prevalence and is associated with several comorbid disorders such as bronchial asthma and atopic dermatitis. If allergen avoidance is not possible, allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causal treatment option.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on current treatments and the future outlook for allergic rhinitis. Pharmacotherapy includes mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, glucocorticosteroids (GCSs), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and nasal decongestants. Nasal GCSs are currently regarded as the most effective treatment and are considered first-line therapy together with non-sedating antihistamines. The new formulation MP29-02 combines the nasal GCS fluticasone propionate with azelastine in one single spray and has achieved greater improvements than those under monotherapy with modern GCSs or antihistamines. Furthermore, this review discusses allergen immunotherapy alone and in combination with modern monoclonal antibodies.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the variety of medications for allergic rhinitis, ranging from general symptomatic agents like GCSs or decongestants, to more specific ones like histamine receptor or leukotriene blockers, to causal therapy like immunotherapy, many patients still experience treatment failures or unsatisfactory results. The ultimate goal may be to endotype every downstream pathway separately in order to offer patients individualized, targeted therapy with specific antibodies against the respective pathway.

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.

Chronic Urticaria Patient Perspective (CUPP): The First Validated Tool for Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

There is a need for validated tools to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to validate the Chronic Urticaria Patient Perspective (CUPP) for assessment of patients with chronic urticaria (CU) in clinical practice.

METHODS

A provisional CUPP was developed from candidate items identified by following an iterative process in a retrospective analysis of 249 Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire questionnaires. The psychometric properties of the CUPP were then tested on a sample of patients enrolled in 13 Italian centers.

RESULTS

The study population in the validation phase comprised 152 patients. The 10-item version of the CUPP showed satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha values of 0.76 at visit 1 and 0.90 at visit 2), good criteria, and discriminative and convergent validity. Reliability was assessed in 34 patients with no changes in health (Global Rating Scale = 0 at visit 2) and was satisfactory (CCC [concordance correlation coefficient] = 0.9). Changes in CUPP scores were significantly associated with changes in Urticaria Activity Score (UAS)-Hive count (r = 0.36, P < .001), UAS-Itch severity (r = 0.48, P < .001), and UAS-Total score (r = 0.342, P < .001), all of which indicated good responsiveness. The minimal important difference was 1.5.

CONCLUSIONS

CUPP is a simple 10-question tool with good psychometric properties that provides a valid, reliable, and standardized measurement of HRQoL in patients with CU.

Bilastine: a new H1 -antihistamine with an optimal profile for updosing in urticaria

This review set out to examine published papers detailing the efficacy of bilastine in skin models and urticaria to assess whether it meets the optimal profile for updosing in urticaria, that is, strong clinical efficacy and freedom from unwanted side effects, particularly sedation. Bilastine is a highly effective H₁ -antihistamine even when used at the basic dose of 20 mg daily. Its facilitated uptake after oral dosage gives it a rapid onset and long duration of action. In both wheal and flare studies and in urticaria updosing fourfold showed increased effectiveness. With respect to somnolence, bilastine is a substrate for P-glycoprotein, a membrane pump which prevents it crossing the blood-brain barrier. Consequently, bilastine is a practically 'non-sedating' H₁ -antihistamine. In conclusion, the excellent profile of bilastine in both efficacy and safety make it the ideal H₁ -antihistamine for updosing the daily dose fourfold in difficult-to-treat urticaria as recommended by the EAACI/GA² LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the management of urticaria.

Efficacy and safety of bilastine in Japanese patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase II/III study

BACKGROUND

Bilastine, a novel non-sedating second-generation H₁-antihistamine, has been widely used in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria with a recommended dose of 20 mg once daily in most European countries since 2010. We evaluated its efficacy and safety in Japanese patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU).

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II/III study (trial registration No. JapicCTI-142574). Patients (age, 18-74 years) were randomly assigned to receive bilastine 20 mg, 10 mg or placebo once daily for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline (Day -3 to 0) in total symptom score (TSS) at 2 weeks (Day 8-14), consisting of the itch and rash scores.

RESULTS

A total of 304 patients were randomly allocated to bilastine 20 mg (101 patients), bilastine 10 mg (100 patients), and placebo (103 patients). The changes in TSS at 2 weeks were significantly decreased by bilastine 20 mg than did placebo (p < 0.001), demonstrating the superiority of bilastine 20 mg. Bilastine 10 mg also showed a significant difference from placebo (p < 0.001). The TSS changes for the bilastine showed significant improvement from Day 1, and were maintained during the treatment period. The Dermatology Life Quality Index scores were also improved in bilastine than in placebo. The bilastine treatments were safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-week treatment with bilastine (20 or 10 mg) once daily was effective and tolerable in Japanese patients with CSU, demonstrating an early onset of action.

Bilastine in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria: a practical approach to treatment decisions based on queries received by the medical information department

BACKGROUND

Bilastine is a safe and effective commonly prescribed non-sedating H1-antihistamine approved for symptomatic treatment in patients with allergic disorders such as rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. It was evaluated in many patients throughout the clinical development required for its approval, but clinical trials generally exclude many patients who will benefit in everyday clinical practice (especially those with coexisting diseases and/or being treated with concomitant drugs). Following its introduction into clinical practice, the Medical Information Specialists at Faes Farma have received many practical queries regarding the optimal use of bilastine in different circumstances.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

Queries received by the Medical Information Department and the responses provided to senders of these queries.

RESULTS

The most frequent questions received by the Medical Information Department included the potential for drug-drug interactions with bilastine and commonly used agents such as anticoagulants (including the novel oral anticoagulants), antiretrovirals, antituberculosis regimens, corticosteroids, digoxin, oral contraceptives, and proton pump inhibitors. Most of these medicines are not usually allowed in clinical trials, and so advice needs to be based upon the pharmacological profiles of the drugs involved and expert opinion. The pharmacokinetic profile of bilastine appears favourable since it undergoes negligible metabolism and is almost exclusively eliminated via renal excretion, and it neither induces nor inhibits the activity of several isoenzymes from the CYP 450 system. Consequently, bilastine does not interact with cytochrome metabolic pathways. Other queries involved specific patient groups such as subjects with renal impairment, women who are breastfeeding or who are trying to become pregnant, and patients with other concomitant diseases. Interestingly, several questions related to topics that are well covered in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), which suggests that this resource is not being well used.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this analysis highlights gaps in our knowledge regarding the optimal use of bilastine. Expert opinion based upon an understanding of the science can help in the decision-making, but more research is needed to provide evidence-based answers in certain circumstances.

Efficacy and safety of bilastine in Japanese patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III study

BACKGROUND

Bilastine, a novel non-sedating second-generation H₁ antihistamine, has been approved in most European countries since 2010. This study aimed to evaluate the superiority of bilastine over placebo in Japanese patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III study (trial registration number JapicCTI-142600) evaluated the effect of a 2-week treatment period with bilastine (20 mg once daily), fexofenadine (60 mg twice daily), or a matched placebo (double dummy) in patients with PAR. All patients were instructed to record individual nasal and ocular symptoms in diaries daily. The primary endpoint was the mean change in total nasal symptom scores (TNSS) from baseline to Week 2 (Days 10-13).

RESULTS

A total of 765 patients were randomly allocated to receive bilastine, fexofenadine, or placebo (256, 254, and 255 patients, respectively). The mean change in TNSS from baseline at Week 2 was significantly decreased by bilastine (-0.98) compared to placebo (-0.63, P = 0.023). Bilastine and fexofenadine showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint. However, the mean change in TNSS from baseline on Day 1 was more significantly decreased by bilastine (-0.99) than by placebo (-0.28, P < 0.001) or fexofenadine (-0.62, P = 0.032). The active drugs also improved instantaneous TNSS 1 h after the first and before the second drug administration on Day 1 (P < 0.05). The study drugs were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

After 2-week treatment period, bilastine 20 mg once daily was effective and tolerable in Japanese patients with PAR, and exhibited a rapid onset of action.

One-year safety and efficacy study of bilastine treatment in Japanese patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria or pruritus associated with skin diseases

A number of second-generation non-sedating antihistamines are used in clinical practices over the world. However, long-term safety and efficacy have not been proved high level evidence based medicine. We have performed an open-label, multicenter, phase III study to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of bilastine, a novel non-sedating H₁ -antihistamine for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) or pruritus associated with skin diseases (trial registration no. JapicCTI-142528). Patients aged 18-74 years were treated with bilastine 20 mg once daily for up to 52 weeks. Safety and tolerability were assessed on the basis of adverse events (AE), bilastine-related AE, laboratory tests and vital signs. Efficacy was assessed based on rash score, itch score, overall improvement and quality of life. One hundred and ninety-eight patients enrolled, 122 of whom (61.6%) completed the 52-week treatment period. AE were reported in 64.5% and bilastine-related AE in 2.5% of patients throughout the 52-week treatment period. All AE were mild to moderate in severity. AE associated with the nervous system occurred in 10 patients (5.1%) including seven patients (3.6%) with headache. Somnolence reported in two of these patients (1.0%) was related to bilastine. All efficacy variables improved during treatment with bilastine. In conclusion, long-term treatment with bilastine 20 mg once daily for 52 weeks is safe and well tolerated in Japanese patients with CSU or pruritus associated with skin diseases. Bilastine improved disease symptoms of both conditions early in treatment, and the efficacy was maintained throughout the treatment.

Safety and tolerability of bilastine 10 mg administered for 12 weeks in children with allergic diseases

BACKGROUND

Regulations on medicinal products for paediatric use require that pharmacokinetics and safety be characterized specifically in the paediatric population. A previous study established that a 10-mg dose of bilastine in children aged 2 to <12 years provided an equivalent systemic exposure as 20 mg in adults. The current study assessed the safety and tolerability of bilastine 10 mg in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria.

METHODS

In this phase III, multicentre, double-blind study, children were randomized to once-daily treatment with bilastine 10-mg oral dispersible table (n = 260) or placebo (n = 249) for 12 weeks. Safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory tests, cardiac safety (ECG recordings) and somnolence/sedation using the Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ).

RESULTS

The primary hypothesis of non-inferiority between bilastine 10 mg and placebo was demonstrated on the basis of a near-equivalent proportion of children in each treatment arm without TEAEs during 12 weeks' treatment (31.5 vs. 32.5%). No clinically relevant differences between bilastine 10 mg and placebo were observed from baseline to study end for TEAEs or related TEAEs, ECG parameters and PSQ scores. The majority of TEAEs were mild or moderate in intensity. TEAEs led to discontinuation of two patients treated with bilastine 10 mg and one patient treated with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilastine 10 mg had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of placebo in children aged 2 to <12 years with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or chronic urticaria.