Search

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically disrupts health care around the globe. The impact of the pandemic on chronic urticaria (CU) and its management are largely unknown., Aim: To understand how CU patients are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; how specialists alter CU patient management; and the course of CU in patients with COVID-19., Materials and Methods: Our cross-sectional, international, questionnaire-based, multicenter UCARE COVID-CU study assessed the impact of the pandemic on patient consultations, remote treatment, changes in medications, and clinical consequences., Results: The COVID-19 pandemic severely impairs CU patient care, with less than 50% of the weekly numbers of patients treated as compared to before the pandemic. Reduced patient referrals and clinic hours were the major reasons. Almost half of responding UCARE physicians were involved in COVID-19 patient care, which negatively impacted on the care of urticaria patients. The rate of face-to-face consultations decreased by 62%, from 90% to less than half, whereas the rate of remote consultations increased by more than 600%, from one in 10 to more than two thirds. Cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroids, but not antihistamines or omalizumab, are used less during the pandemic. CU does not affect the course of COVID-19, but COVID-19 results in CU exacerbation in one of three patients, with higher rates in patients with severe COVID-19., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic brings major changes and challenges for CU patients and their physicians. The long-term consequences of these changes, especially the increased use of remote consultations, require careful evaluation., (© 2020 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Anaphylaxis is an immediate hypersensitivity reaction. However, a biphasic course with the second onset of symptoms can occur hours after the initial phase. Little is known about the causes of biphasic anaphylaxis making the identification of patients at risk difficult., Objective: To identify factors predisposing for biphasic anaphylaxis for the better understanding of these reactions., Methods: Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry (from 11 countries) including 8736 patients with monophasic and 435 biphasic anaphylaxis were analyzed., Results: The rate of biphasic reactions in this large cohort was 4.7%. The identified risk factors were reaction severity (grade III/IV vs grade II: odds ratio [OR] = 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-1.62); multiorgan involvement; skin, gastrointestinal, severe respiratory, and cardiac symptoms; anaphylaxis caused by peanut/tree nut (OR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.38-2.23) or an unknown elicitor (OR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.41-2.72); exercise as a cofactor (OR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17-1.78); chronic urticaria as a comorbidity (OR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.19-3.78); a prolonged interval between the contact with the elicitor and start of primary symptoms (OR for >30 vs <30 min: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.08-1.76); and antihistamine treatment (OR = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.14-2.02)., Conclusion: A biphasic course of anaphylaxis occurs more frequently in severely affected patients with multiorgan involvement. However, we identified multiple additional predictors, suggesting that the pathogenesis of biphasic reactions is more complex than being a rebound of a severe primary reaction., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic urticaria (CU) is characterized by itchy recurrent wheals, angioedema, or both for 6 weeks or longer. CU can greatly impact patients' physical and emotional quality of life. Patients with chronic conditions are increasingly seeking information from information and communications technologies (ICTs) to manage their health. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency of usage and preference of ICTs from the perspective of patients with CU., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 1800 patients were recruited from primary healthcare centers, university hospitals or specialized clinics that form part of the UCARE (Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence) network throughout 16 countries. Patients were >12 years old and had physician-diagnosed chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) or chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU). Patients completed a 23-item questionnaire containing questions about ICT usage, including the type, frequency, preference, and quality, answers to which were recorded in a standardized database at each center. For analysis, ICTs were categorized into 3 groups as follows: one-to-one: SMS, WhatsApp, Skype, and email; one-to-many: YouTube, web browsers, and blogs or forums; many-to-many: Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn., Results: Overall, 99.6% of CU patients had access to ICT platforms and 96.7% had internet access. Daily, 85.4% patients used one-to-one ICT platforms most often, followed by one-to-many ICTs (75.5%) and many-to-many ICTs (59.2%). The daily ICT usage was highest for web browsers (72.7%) and WhatsApp (70.0%). The general usage of ICT platforms increased in patients with higher levels of education. One-to-many was the preferred ICT category for obtaining general health information (78.3%) and for CU-related information (75.4%). A web browser (77.6%) was by far the most commonly used ICT to obtain general health information, followed by YouTube (25.8%) and Facebook (16.3%). Similarly, for CU-specific information, 3 out of 4 patients (74.6%) used a web browser, 20.9% used YouTube, and 13.6% used Facebook. One in 5 (21.6%) patients did not use any form of ICT for obtaining information on CU. The quality of the information obtained from one-to-many ICTs was rated much more often as very interesting and of good quality for general health information (53.5%) and CU-related information (51.5%) as compared to the other categories., Conclusions: Usage of ICTs for health and CU-specific information is extremely high in all countries analyzed, with web browsers being the preferred ICT platform., Competing Interests: M Maurer is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: Allakos, Alnylam, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Biocryst, Blueprint, CSL Behring, FAES, Genentech, Kalvista Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Menarini, Moxie, MSD, Novartis, Pharming, Pharvaris, Roche, Sanofi, Shire/Takeda, UCB, and Uriach. K Weller is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: Biocryst, CSL Behring, Dr. Pfleger, FAES, Moxie, Novartis, Shire/Takeda, and Uriach. M Magerl is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from Biocryst, CSL Behring, Kalvista Pharmaceuticals, Moxie, Novartis, Pharming, and Shire/Takeda. RR Maurer has no conflicts of interest. E Vanegas has no conflicts of interest. M Felix has no conflicts of interest. A Cherrez has no conflicts of interest. VL Mata has no conflicts of interest. A Kasperska-Zajac has no conflicts of interest. A Sikora has no conflicts of interest. D Fomina is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Glaxo SmithKline, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Shire/Takeda. E Kovalkova has no conflicts of interest. K Godse has no conflicts of interest. N Dheeraj Rao has no conflicts of interest. M Khoshkhui has no conflicts of interest. S Rastgoo has no conflicts of interest. RFJ Criado has no conflicts of interest. M Abuzakouk has no conflicts of interest. D Grandon has no conflicts of interest. M van Doorn is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen Cilag, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Genzyme. S Valle has no conflicts of interest. E Magalhães de Souza Lima has no conflicts of interest. SF Thomsen is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. GD Ramón has no conflicts of interest. EE Matos Benavides has no conflicts of interest. A Bauer has no conflicts of interest. Ana M Giménez-Arnau has held roles as a Medical Advisor for Sanofi and Uriach, and has research grants supported by Instituto Carlos III- FEDER, Novartis, and Uriach; she also participates in educational activities for Almirall, Genentech, Glaxo SmithKline, LEO Pharma, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Uriach. E Kocatürk is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for Bayer, Novartis, and Sanofi. C Guillet has no conflicts of interest. JI Larco is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for: FAES, Novartis, and Sanofi. Z-T Zhao has no conflicts of interest. M Makris is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Glaxo SmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi. C Ritchie has no conflicts of interest. P Xepapadak reports personal fees from Galenica Greece, Glaxo SmithKline, Nestle, Novartis, Nutricia, and Uriach, outside the submitted work. LF Ensina is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. S Cherrez has no conflicts of interest. I Cherrez-Ojeda has no conflicts of interest., (© 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of World Allergy Organization.)

Background: A Worldwide Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Urticaria (CU) patient Evaluation (AWARE) is a non-interventional, multicenter study including patients from Europe, Central and Latin America, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East. AWARE describes real-world evidence for CU, including clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and the impact on quality of life., Methods: Over the 2-year study, therapy changes, angioedema occurrence, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded over 9 visits, including dermatology life quality index (DLQI) and 7-day urticaria activity score (UAS7). Data were stratified into subgroups: chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU), or CSU + CIndU., Results: Out of 4838 patients analyzed, 9.9% were receiving no treatment for their CU symptoms at baseline, and 20.4% were receiving first-line non-sedating H 1 -antihistamine at approved doses. The predominant baseline therapy was up-dosed non-sedating H 1 -antihistamines (25.5%). By Visit 2, omalizumab was the overall most commonly used therapy (29.6%), increasing to 30.1% by the end of the study. Baseline DLQI scores for patients with CSU, CIndU and CSU + CIndU were 8.3, 7.6 and 9.1, respectively; scores decreased over the study for CSU and CSU + CIndU patients, but fluctuated for CIndU patients. Baseline angioedema occurrence was higher in CSU and CSU + CIndU patients, reported in 45.4% and 45.5% of patients, respectively, compared to 17.0% in CIndU patients. By the final visit, angioedema had decreased to 11.9% and 11.2% for CSU and CSU + CIndU, respectively, and 9.6% for CIndU., Conclusion: CU patients are undertreated at baseline; after entering the AWARE study, more patients received appropriate treatment. However, over two thirds are not escalated to third-line treatments., Competing Interests: M. Maurer has received grant/research support and/or honoraria for consulting or lectures from Aralez, Allakos, FAES, Genentech, Merckle Recordati, Moxie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, MSD, UCB, Uriach. A. Giménez-Arnau has served as medical advisor for Uriach Pharma, Genentech, Novartis, FAES, GSK, Sanofi, and received research grants supported by Uriach Pharma, Novartis, Grants from Instituto Carlos III- FEDER and has been involved in educational activities for Uriach Pharma, Novartis, Genentech, Menarini, LEO Pharma, GSK, MSD, Almirall and Sanofi. LF Ensina has received advisory board, speaker and investigator fees from Novartis, and speaker fees from Takeda. C–Y Chu is a clinical trial investigator for Novartis and has received travel support, consulting fees and payment for lectures from Novartis. X. Jaumont and P. Tassinari are employees of Novartis., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Purpose of Review: We reviewed in this article, the recent advances in CSU physiopathology and potential clinical and laboratory biomarkers in CSU., Recent Findings: In addition to the central role of mast cells in urticaria physiopathology, increased interest in basophils has arisen. Recent data corroborate the autoimmunity pathway as one of the main pathways in mast cell activation. The association of inflammatory cytokines, heat shock proteins and staphylococcal infection with CSU are also reviewed. C-reactive protein, D-dimers, autologous serum skin test, IgE levels and FcεRI expression in basophils have shown their potential as biomarkers for disease duration, activity, severity and/or response to treatment., Summary: A comprehensive understanding of chronic spontaneous urticaria mechanisms is essential to find novel biomarkers and treatments. The use of these biomarkers in clinical practice will guide us in choosing the best treatment option for our patients.

Background: Updated urticaria guidelines recommend that patients should be assessed for disease activity, severity, control, and quality of life at baseline and follow up. Regarding treatment, guidelines consider second generation antihistamines as the cornerstone in therapy for chronic urticaria (CU), while other drugs, such as omalizumab, are conceived as second-line alternatives. In regards to omalizumab, despite advances in the management of CU, there are still open questions about timing, dosing, and objective measures for clinical response. This study was designed to portray the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in chronic urticaria management, as well as the effectiveness and treatment patterns of omalizumab in CU, as seen in a real-life setting in Latin America., Methods: This is a retrospective observational study, involving 72 Latin American patients with chronic urticaria treated with omalizumab. Patient reported outcomes and treatment patterns, response, quality of life improvement and discontinuation were analyzed., Results: From the 72 patients, 91.7% (n = 66) were assessed through PROs, where urticaria control test (UCT) was the most used (79.2%; n = 57). Overall, 80.0% (n = 44) responded to omalizumab at some point of the treatment. Omalizumab 300 mg was associated with earlier response compared to lower doses. Regardless of dosage, most patients assessed with CU-Q2oL improved quality of life (80.8%; n = 21). With respect to omalizumab discontinuation, 20.8% (n = 15) patients interrupted omalizumab before the 3rd month of treatment (p = .000)., Conclusions: The present study highlights how the use of PROs and omalizumab in Latin America differ from guidelines' recommendations and clinical trials. Even though most patients were initiated under omalizumab 300 mg, most of them finished with lower doses. Regardless of dosage, most patients responded to omalizumab and improved quality of life at some point during treatment. However, such features were seen earlier with omalizumab 300 mg. Regarding treatment discontinuation, one-fifth of patients interrupted omalizumab before the third month.

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).

Introduction: A combination of antihistamines and oral corticosteroids is often used to treat acute symptoms of allergic rhinitis., Objective: To evaluate safety and efficacy of desloratadine plus prednisolone in the treatment of acute symptoms of children (2-12 years) with allergic rhinitis, and to compare it to dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone., Methods: Children with moderate/severe persistent allergic rhinitis and symptomatic (nasal symptoms score [0-12]≥6) were allocated in a double-blind, randomized fashion to receive dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone (n=105; three daily doses) or desloratadine plus prednisolone (n=105; single dose followed by two of placebo) for 7 days. At the beginning and end of the evaluation, the following were obtained: nasal symptoms score, extra nasal symptoms score, peak nasal inspiratory flow, blood biochemistry, and electrocardiogram. Ninety-six children of the dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone group and 98 of the desloratadine plus prednisolone group completed the protocol., Results: The two groups were similar regarding initial and final nasal symptoms scores, extra nasal symptoms scores and peak nasal inspiratory flow. A drop of 76.4% and 79.1% for nasal symptoms score, 86.0% and 79.2% for extra nasal symptoms score, as well as an increase of 25.2% and 24.3% for peak nasal inspiratory flow occurred for those treated with desloratadine plus prednisolone and dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone, respectively. There were no significant changes in blood chemistry. Sinus tachycardia was the most frequent electrocardiogram change, but with no clinical significance. Drowsiness was reported significantly more often among those of dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone group (17.14%×8.57%, respectively)., Conclusion: The desloratadine plus prednisolone combination was able to effectively control acute symptoms of rhinitis in children, improving symptoms and nasal function. Compared to the dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone combination, it showed similar clinical action, but with a lower incidence of adverse events and higher dosing convenience., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.)

Background: Epidemiologic drug allergy data from Latin America are scarce, and there are no studies on specific procedures focusing on this topic in Latin America., Objective: To assess the clinical characteristics and management of hypersensitivity drug reactions in different Latin American countries., Methods: An European Network of Drug Allergy questionnaire survey was implemented in 22 allergy units in 11 Latin American countries to report on consecutive patients who presented with a suspected hypersensitivity drug reaction. Each unit used its own protocols to investigate patients., Results: Included were 868 hypersensitivity drug reactions in 862 patients (71% of adults and elderly patients were women and 51% of children were girls, P = .0001). Children presented with less severe reactions than adults and elderly patients (P < .0001). Urticaria and angioedema accounted for the most frequent clinical presentations (71%), whereas anaphylaxis was present in 27.3% of cases. There were no deaths reported. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (52.3%), β-lactam antibiotics (13.8%), and other antibiotics (10.1%) were the drugs used most frequently. Skin prick tests (16.7%) and provocation tests (34.2%) were the study procedures most commonly used. A large proportion of patients were treated in the emergency department (62%) with antihistamines (68%) and/or corticosteroids (53%). Only 22.8% of patients presenting with anaphylaxis received epinephrine., Conclusion: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics were the drugs used in at least 75% of patients. More than half the reactions were treated in the emergency department, whereas epinephrine was administered in fewer than 25% of patients with anaphylaxis. Dissemination of guidelines for anaphylaxis among primary and emergency department physicians should be encouraged., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Antibiotics are used extensively in the treatment of various infections. Consequently, they can be considered among the most important agents involved in adverse reactions to drugs, including both allergic and non-allergic drug hypersensitivity [J Allergy Clin Immunol 113:832-836, 2004]. Most studies published to date deal mainly with reactions to the beta-lactam group, and information on hypersensitivity to each of the other antimicrobial agents is scarce. The present document has been produced by the Special Committee on Drug Allergy of the World Allergy Organization to present the most relevant information on the incidence, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, possible mechanisms, and management of hypersensitivity reactions to non beta-lactam antimicrobials for use by practitioners worldwide.