Search

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: Concern about disease exacerbations and fear of reactions after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations are common in chronic urticaria (CU) patients and may lead to vaccine hesitancy., Objective: We assessed the frequency and risk factors of CU exacerbation and adverse reactions in CU patients after COVID-19 vaccination., Methods: COVAC-CU is an international multicenter study of Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs) that retrospectively evaluated the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in CU patients aged ≥18 years and vaccinated with ≥1 dose of any COVID-19 vaccine. We evaluated CU exacerbations and severe allergic reactions as well as other adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccinations and their association with various CU parameters., Results: Across 2769 COVID-19-vaccinated CU patients, most (90%) received at least 2 COVID-19 vaccine doses, and most patients received CU treatment and had well-controlled disease. The rate of COVID-19 vaccination-induced CU exacerbation was 9%. Of 223 patients with CU exacerbation after the first dose, 53.4% experienced recurrence of CU exacerbation after the second dose. CU exacerbation most often started <48 hours after vaccination (59.2%), lasted for a few weeks or less (70%), and was treated mainly with antihistamines (70.3%). Factors that increased the risk for COVID-19 vaccination-induced CU exacerbation included female sex, disease duration shorter than 24 months, having chronic spontaneous versus inducible urticaria, receipt of adenovirus viral vector vaccine, having nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug/aspirin intolerance, and having concerns about getting vaccinated; receiving omalizumab treatment and Latino/Hispanic ethnicity lowered the risk. First-dose vaccine-related adverse effects, most commonly local reactions, fever, fatigue, and muscle pain, were reported by 43.5% of CU patients. Seven patients reported severe allergic reactions., Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination leads to disease exacerbation in only a small number of CU patients and is generally well tolerated., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and urticarial vasculitis (UV) share several clinical features including the occurrence of wheals. As of yet, the criteria for differentiating the 2 disorders are not clearly defined., Objective: Here, we aimed to identify differences, similarities, and the likelihood for specific clinical features in patients with UV versus those with CSU., Methods: Across 10 Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence, 106 patients with skin biopsy-confirmed UV and 126 patients with CSU were prospectively recruited to complete a questionnaire on the clinical features, course, and response to treatment of their disease., Results: As compared with CSU, patients with UV more often experienced postinflammatory skin hyperpigmentation, wheals of ≥24-hour duration, eye inflammation, and fever (6.9, 4.0, 3.6, and 2.4 times, respectively). Clinical features that increased the risk for UV diagnosis when present at the onset of disease included wheals of ≥24-hour duration (7.3-fold), pain of the skin (7.0-fold), postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (4.1-fold), and fatigue (3.1-fold). The diagnostic delay was markedly longer for normocomplementemic UV as compared with hypocomplementemic UV and CSU (21 vs 5 vs 6 months, respectively). Oral corticosteroids and omalizumab were the most effective treatments in patients with UV and CSU, respectively. Patients with UV showed a higher need for immunosuppressive and anti-inflammatory therapies than patients with CSU., Conclusions: Long wheal duration, skin pain and hyperpigmentation, and systemic symptoms point to UV rather than CSU as the underlying disease and should prompt further diagnostic workup including a skin biopsy., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the current knowledge of UV, there is a lack of consensus among diagnostic criteria and management. In general, antihistamine therapy is regularly used for the symptomatic management of pruritus but does not control inflammation or alter the course of the disease. Monoclonal antibodies such as omalizumab (anti-IgE) have been proposed as a potential treatment for urticarial vasculitis. A few studies have reported the benefits of omalizumab in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Herein we describe a female patient with urticarial vasculitis who was treated with omalizumab. We discuss the response to treatment and possible implications of PROMs in guiding the management of the disease., Case Presentation: We describe the case of a 57-year-old woman with a diagnosis of urticarial vasculitis. Due to lack of response to first-line treatment and the severity of the disease, treatment with omalizumab was initiated. Omalizumab 150 mg was administered every four weeks for three months. Second-generation antihistamines were used as needed. Both CU-Q2oL and UAS 7 improved. After three-month therapy with omalizumab, disease severity improved from moderate severity (UAS7 = 19) to well controlled (UAS7 = 6). However, 5 months after the last administration of omalizumab, the patient complained of worsening symptoms and active disease with quality of life impairment. A single dose of omalizumab (150 mg) was prescribed with corticosteroids. Thereafter, the patient presented a disease activity and quality of life with a fluctuating pattern that was controlled with additional doses of omalizumab., Conclusion: In chronic urticaria, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important for assessing disease status and the impact of symptoms on patients' lives. However, to our knowledge, there is no validated tool to measure such outcomes in UV patients. Although UAS7 and CU-Q2oL were not designed for UV assessment, they might be useful in the clinical setting as objective measures to determine treatment efficacy. However, some domains in the CU-Q2oL questionnaires do not correlate well with UAS7, which might serve as a relative indication to continue treatment despite disease severity improvement. Based on our observations, we believe omalizumab 150 mg might be a feasible therapeutic alternative when first-line treatment is unsuccessful.

Purpose of Review: Since omalizumab has been approved for urticaria, numerous randomized and real-life observational trials have been published. We reviewed the period January 2017-February 2018., Recent Findings: Omalizumab is effective for the control of urticaria recalcitrant to antihistamines in different populations globally. The ratio of total serum IgE 4-week/baseline ≥2 can predict response with a high likelihood. In observational real-life trials, doses have been adjusted on an individual basis: in some populations, up to two-thirds of the patients can be controlled with 150 mg/month; however, others are still not controlled with 300 mg/month. In these, 150 mg bimonthly could be tried, before up-dosing to 450 mg/month. On the long run (up to 3 years) omalizumab kept its efficacy. In many patients, dosing intervals could be augmented (6-8 weeks, some even more). After a 12-month treatment, about 20% showed long-term remission without relapse. Some biomarkers are being detected. Adjusting omalizumab doses in urticaria patients could enhance efficacy (shortening dosing interval and/or augmenting dose) and save costs (after 12 months: extending dosing interval and/or reducing dose).

Background: The purpose of this study was to identify chronic urticaria (CU) etiologies and treatment modalities in Ecuador. We propose that the sample distribution fits the expected one, and that there is an association between the etiology and its treatment. Methods: We performed a retrospective study involving 112 patients diagnosed with CU using a Checklist for a complete chronic urticaria medical history. Demographic and clinical variables were collected. The etiology of CU was classified using the EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF/WAO guideline. Descriptive analyses were performed for demographical and clinical variables. Chi square tests were applied to analyze the fit of distribution and the independence of variables. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Among all the patients, 76.8% were diagnosed with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), of which 22.3% had a known etiology or possible exacerbating condition. Food allergy was identified as the most common accompanying condition in patients with CSU (10.7%) (p < 0.01).. On the other hand, 23.2% inducible urticarias (CIndU) were indentified; dermographism was the most common (10.7%) (p < 0.01). Regarding treatment regimens, sg-H1-antihistamines alone represented the highest proportion (44.6%). The combination of any H1-antihistamine plus other drug was a close second (42.0%) (p < 0.01). Almost 48% of CSUs of unknown etiology were treated with any antihistamine plus another drug. In patients with known etiology, sg-antihistamines alone (44.0%) was the most common management. In addition, 53.8% of CIndUs were treated with sg-antihistamines alone. Though, these associations were not statistically significant. Conclusion: CSU is the most frequent subtype of CU. Modern non-sedating antihistamines in licensed doses are the drug of choice. Nevertheless, a great proportion of patients require the addition of another type of medication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]