Search

Background: Non-sedating H 1 -antihistamines (nsAH) are the most commonly used treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Many patients use them as on-demand (OD) therapy rather than a maintenance treatment. Here, we compared OD versus daily maintenance treatment with the nsAH rupatadine, assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing, and investigated potential long-term disease-modifying effects., Methods: This multicenter, randomized study consisted of 2 weeks of screening, 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, and 6 weeks of treatment-free follow-up (OD allowed). Adult patients were randomized to 10 mg rupatadine OD or 10 mg rupatadine daily. At Week 4, if patients did not have a complete response, they switched from 10 to 20 mg rupatadine daily or underwent sham updosing (patients on 10 mg rupatadine OD). The primary aim was to compare CSU disease activity at the end of follow-up between daily versus OD. Additionally, we assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing. Major outcomes were disease activity, CSU-related quality of life (QoL), and disease control., Results: At Week 4, disease activity and QoL significantly improved in daily versus OD-treated patients. Updosing of rupatadine did not improve the mean disease activity, but the number of complete responders increased during updosing from 5% to 22%. At the end of follow-up, the disease activity of patients treated OD versus daily was not significantly different., Conclusions: Daily rupatadine treatment significantly improved CSU disease activity and QoL during treatment versus OD treatment but not after discontinuation of rupatadine, indicating the benefits of a daily maintenance nsAH schedule., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This publication is the second part of the German-language S3 guideline on urticaria. It covers the management of urticaria and should be used together with Part 1 of the guideline on classification and diagnosis. This publication was prepared according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system conditions in German-speaking countries. Chronic urticaria has a high impact on the quality of life and daily activities of patients. Therefore, if causal factors cannot be eliminated, effective symptomatic treatment is necessary. The recommended first-line treatment is to administer new generation, non-sedating H1 antihistamines. If the standard dose is not sufficiently effective, the dose should be increased up to fourfold. For patients who do not respond to this treatment, the second-line treatment in addition to antihistamines in the treatment algorithm is omalizumab and, if this treatment fails, ciclosporin. Other low-evidence therapeutic agents should only be used if all treatments in the treatment algorithm agreed upon by the guideline group fail. Both the benefit-risk profile and cost should be considered. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their inevitable severe side effects., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft.)

The lifetime prevalence of urticaria, a severe allergic disease, is almost 20%. It not only limits the quality of life of those affected, but also their general performance at work and in their daily activities. This publication is the first section of the Urticaria Guideline. It covers the classification and diagnosis of urticaria, taking into account the major advances in research into its causes, triggering factors and pathomechanisms. It also addresses strategies for the efficient diagnosis of the different subtypes of urticaria. This is crucial for individual, patient-oriented treatment, which is covered in the second part of the guideline, published separately. This German-language guideline was developed according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system characteristics in the German-speaking countries. This first part of the guideline describes the classification of urticaria, distinguishing spontaneously occurring wheals (hives) and angioedema from forms of urticaria with inducible symptoms. Urticaria is defined as sudden onset of wheals, angioedema, or both, but is to be distinguished from conditions in which wheals occur as a short-term symptom, such as anaphylaxis. The diagnosis is based on (a limited number of) laboratory tests, but especially on medical history. In addition, validated instruments are available to measure the severity, activity and course of the disease., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft.)

Background: In the majority of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, most currently available therapies do not result in complete symptom control. Ligelizumab is a next-generation high-affinity humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody. Data are limited regarding the dose-response relationship of ligelizumab and the efficacy and safety of ligelizumab as compared with omalizumab and placebo in patients who have moderate-to-severe chronic spontaneous urticaria that is inadequately controlled with H 1 -antihistamines at approved or increased doses, alone or in combination with H 2 -antihistamines or leukotriene-receptor antagonists., Methods: In a phase 2b dose-finding trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive ligelizumab at a dose of 24 mg, 72 mg, or 240 mg, omalizumab at a dose of 300 mg, or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for a period of 20 weeks, or a single 120-mg dose of ligelizumab. Disease symptoms of hives, itch, and angioedema were monitored by means of weekly activity scores. The main objective was to determine a dose-response relationship for the complete control of hives (indicated by a weekly hives-severity score of 0, on a scale from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater severity); the primary end point of this response was assessed at week 12. Complete symptom control was indicated by a weekly urticaria activity score of 0 (on a scale from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater severity). Safety was analyzed throughout the trial., Results: A total of 382 patients underwent randomization. At week 12, a total of 30%, 51%, and 42% of the patients treated with 24 mg, 72 mg, and 240 mg, respectively, of ligelizumab had complete control of hives, as compared with 26% of the patients in the omalizumab group and no patients in the placebo group. A dose-response relationship was established. At week 12, a total of 30%, 44%, and 40% of the patients treated with 24 mg, 72 mg, and 240 mg, respectively, of ligelizumab had complete control of symptoms, as compared with 26% of the patients in the omalizumab group and no patients in the placebo group. In this small and short trial, no safety concerns regarding ligelizumab or omalizumab emerged., Conclusions: A higher percentage of patients had complete control of symptoms of chronic spontaneous urticaria with ligelizumab therapy of 72 mg or 240 mg than with omalizumab or placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477332.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Omalizumab, a recombinant anti-IgE antibody, effectively treats chronic spontaneous urticaria. Evidence is lacking in patients with chronic inducible urticarias (CIndUs), which are frequently H 1 -antihistamine resistant., Objective: From the current published literature, we aimed to determine the strength of evidence for omalizumab efficacy and safety in the treatment of CIndUs., Methods: We performed a PubMed search to identify evidence on omalizumab use in the following 9 CIndU subtypes: symptomatic dermographism, cold urticaria, delayed-pressure urticaria, solar urticaria, heat urticaria, vibratory angioedema, cholinergic urticaria, contact urticaria, and aquagenic urticaria., Results: Forty-three trials, case studies, case reports, and analyses were identified. Our review indicates that omalizumab has substantial benefits in patients with various CIndUs. The evidence is strongest for symptomatic dermographism, cold urticaria, and solar urticaria. Little/no evidence was available on vibratory angioedema and aquagenic and contact urticaria. Our review supports rapid onset of action demonstrated through early symptom control in most cases, sometimes within 24 hours. Many patients gained complete/partial symptom relief and substantially improved quality of life. Adverse events were generally low, with omalizumab being well tolerated by most patients, including children., Conclusions: A strong body of evidence supports the use of omalizumab in the treatment of patients with therapy-refractory CIndU. More data from randomized controlled studies are warranted., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neutrophilic urticarial dermatosis (NUD) comprises a particular autoinflammatory condition within the spectrum of aseptic neutrophilic dermatoses characterized by a distinct urticarial eruption clinically and a neutrophilic dermatosis histopathologically., Objective: In this study, we reviewed skin biopsies of lesional skin of patients seen in our outpatient clinic for autoimmune dermatoses and in allergy department from 1982 to 2014 that fulfilled these criteria., Methods: A total of 77 biopsies from 50 patients were analyzed histopathologically. Included were cases of Schnitzler syndrome, Still disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren syndrome, cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome, primary biliary cirrhosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and those that had signs of systemic inflammation not otherwise specified, that is, fever, arthritis, leukocytosis, and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate. A control cohort was defined as including a total of 70 biopsies from 50 patients comprising neutrophilic urticaria (pressure-induced and not pressure-induced), conventional urticaria, lupus erythematosus expressing neutrophils, and exanthematous drug reaction of macular type expressing neutrophils., Results: Skin biopsies of NUD revealed a perivascular and interstitial neutrophilic infiltrate focally extending into the epithelia of epidermis, hair follicles, sebaceous and sweat glands, a feature which we termed neutrophilic epitheliotropism. This neutrophilic epitheliotropism proved to be of high sensitivity (83.1%) and lower specificity (74.3%). The histological findings could be substantiated by immunohistochemical markers for leukocytes (elastase and myeloperoxidase), in particular in cases where neutrophils showed uncharacteristic band-like nuclei., Conclusions: Neutrophilic epitheliotropism is a new sensitive and specific histopathological clue for NUD, a histopathological reaction pattern within the spectrum of neutrophilic dermatoses that needs to be differentiated from conventional urticaria.

Background: Pressure urticaria as a subform of physical urticaria is rare and treatment is often difficult. Established therapeutic regimes include antihistamines (generally exceeding approved dosages in order to achieve a therapeutic benefit) or antihistamines combined with montelukast. Complete relief of symptoms is difficult., Patients and Methods: We used dapsone as an early therapeutic alternative in the event of treatment failure and established a standardized therapeutic regime at our clinic. We surveyed 31 patients retrospectively who had received dapsone between 2003-2009., Results: In 74 % of patients in whom symptoms persisted despite established therapies, the results of treatment with dapsone were good or very good. Longer-term pressure urticaria and the co-existence of a chronic spontaneous urticaria were associated with a smaller benefit (p<0.05). No significant effects were found related to age, gender, duration of therapy, side-effects, or Met-Hb elevation (a tendency toward a decreased benefit was associated with middle-age, male sex, shorter duration of therapy, observed side-effects, and Met-Hb elevation)., Conclusions: Therapy is well tolerated and results in a good therapeutic benefit which lasts after termination of therapy. With adequate monitoring, the use of dapsone in patients with pressure urticaria has such a good risk-benefit ratio that we support early treatment initiation., (© The Authors • Journal compilation © Blackwell Verlag GmbH, Berlin.)

Background: A subgroup of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CU) exhibits IgE antibodies directed against autoantigens, such as thyroperoxidase (TPO). We conducted this study to investigate whether such patients with CU with IgE against TPO benefit from treatment with omalizumab, a humanized anti-IgE mAb licensed for the treatment of severe persistent allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma., Objectives: We sought to assess the efficacy of omalizumab treatment in patients with CU with IgE autoantibodies against TPO., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study patients with CU (male/female, 18-70 years of age) with IgE autoantibodies against TPO who had persistent symptoms (wheals and pruritus) despite standard antihistamine therapy were randomized to receive either omalizumab (75-375 mg, dose determined by using the approved asthma dosing table) or placebo subcutaneously once every 2 or 4 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in mean weekly urticaria activity score after 24 weeks of treatment, as calculated from patients' diaries. The safety and tolerability of omalizumab were also assessed., Results: Of the 49 randomized patients (omalizumab, n = 27; placebo, n = 22), 42 completed the study. At week 24, patients demonstrated a mean reduction in the weekly urticaria activity score from baseline of 17.8 with omalizumab and 7.9 with placebo (P = .0089). Complete protection from wheal development was observed in 19 (70.4%) patients in the omalizumab group compared with only 1 (4.5%) patient in the placebo group. The rate of adverse events was similar in both groups., Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that omalizumab is an effective treatment option for patients with CU with IgE autoantibodies against TPO who are refractory to conventional treatment., (Copyright © 2011 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Systemic allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. In this study we assessed the management and outcome of suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine hypersensitivity. Methods: Totally, 334 individuals underwent an allergy work up regarding SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination (group A: 115 individuals suspected to be at increased risk for vaccine‐related reactions before vaccination and group B: 219 patients with reactions after COVID vaccination). The large majority of the SPT/IDT with the vaccines were negative; however, we identified in 14.1% (n = 47) a possible sensitization to the SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine and/or its ingredients defined as one positive skin test. Of the 219 individuals (group B) who experienced symptoms suspicious for a hypersensitivity reaction after vaccination, 214 were reported after the first vaccination with a mRNA vaccine (157 mRNA (Comirnaty®, 38 Spikevax®) and 18 with a vector vaccine (Vaxzevria®), 5 cases were after the second vaccination. Results: The symptom profile in group B was as follows: skin symptoms occurred in 115 cases (n = 59 angioedema, n = 50 generalized urticaria and n = 23 erythema/flush. Seventy individuals had cardiovascular, 53 respiratory and 17 gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the overall 334 individuals, 78 patients tolerated (re)‐vaccination (out of skin test positive/negative 7/19 from group A and 17/35 from group B). Conclusion: Proven IgE‐mediated hypersensitivity to SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines is extremely rare and not increased in comparison with reported hypersensitivity to other vaccines. The value of skin tests is unclear and nonspecific reactions, in particular when intradermal testing is applied, should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Omalizumab, a humanized recombinant monoclonal anti‐IgE antibody, proved to be effective in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), including severe and treatment‐refractory CSU. Here, we report omalizumab's effect on gene expression in skin biopsies from CSU patients enrolled in a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Methods: Chronic spontaneous urticaria patients (18‐75 years) were randomized to either 300 mg omalizumab (n = 20) or placebo (n = 10) administered s.c. every 4 weeks for 12 weeks (NCT01599637). Lesional and nonlesional skin biopsies were collected from the same area of consenting patients and assessed at baseline and on Day 85 compared with skin biopsies from the same area of 10 untreated healthy volunteers (HVs). Gene expression data were generated using Affymetrix HG‐U133Plus2.0 microarrays. Statistical analyses were performed using R packages. Results: At baseline, 63 transcripts were differentially expressed between lesional and nonlesional skin. Two‐thirds of these lesional signatures were also differentially expressed between lesional and HV skin. Upon treatment with omalizumab, >75% of lesional signatures changed to reflect nonlesional skin expression levels (different vs placebo, P < 0.01). Transcripts upregulated in lesional skin (vs nonlesional and/or HV skin) suggested increased mast cell/leukocyte infiltration (FCER1G, C3AR1, CD93, S100A8, and S100A9), increased oxidative stress, vascularization (CYR61), and skin repair events (KRT6A, KRT16). Lesional signatures were not modulated by treatment in nonresponders (defined based on UAS7 longitudinal changes ≥16). Conclusion: Omalizumab, in treatment responders, reverted transcriptional signatures associated with CSU lesion phenotype to reflect nonlesional/HV expression levels; this is consistent with observed omalizumab‐mediated clinical improvement observed in patients with CSU. The gene expression of the lesional skin of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria shows a distinct signature when compared to their nonlesional skin and the skin of healthy volunteers. The pattern of gene expression in the lesional skin of omalizumab‐treated patients are different than before treatment, but not in their nonlesional skin. In treatment responders, omalizumab treatment shows reverted transcriptional signatures associated with CSU lesion phenotype to reflect nonlesional/healthy volunteer expression levels consistent with observed clinical improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]