Dataset Information

Efficacy of Second-Line Treatments in Chronic Urticaria Refractory to Standard Dose Antihistamines.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The prevalence of chronic urticaria (CU) is increasing worldwide, and it imposes a major burden on patients. Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of second-line treatments of CU, particularly for patients being considered for costly third-line treatments such as omalizumab. We compared the efficacy and safety of second-line treatments of CU refractory to standard doses of nonsedating H₁-antihistamines (nsAHs).

Methods

This 4-week, prospective, randomized, open-label trial divided patients into 4 treatment groups: 4-fold updosing of nsAHs, multiple combination of 4 nsAHs, switching to other nsAHs, and adjunctive H₂-receptor antagonist. The clinical outcomes included urticaria control status, symptoms, and rescue medication use.

Results

This study included 109 patients. After 4 weeks of second-line treatment, urticaria was well-controlled, partly controlled, and uncontrolled in 43.1%, 36.7%, and 20.2% of patients, respectively. Complete control of CU was achieved in 20.4% of patients. Among the patients with high-dose nsAHs, the proportion with well-controlled status was higher compared to the patients who received standard doses (51.9% vs. 34.5%, P = 0.031). No significant difference was observed in the proportion of well-controlled cases between the updosing and combination treatment groups (57.7% vs. 46.4%, P = 0.616). However, increasing the dose of nsAHs 4-fold was associated with a higher rate of complete symptom control compared to multiple combination treatment with 4 nsAHs (40.0% vs. 10.7%, P = 0.030). Logistic regression analysis confirmed the higher efficacy of updosing of nsAHs for complete control of CU compared to the other treatment strategies (odds ratio, 0.180; P = 0.020).

Conclusions

In patients with CU refractory to standard doses of nsAHs, both updosing of nsAHs 4-fold and multiple combination treatment with 4 nsAHs increased the rate of well-controlled cases without causing significant adverse effects. Updosing of nsAHs is more effective for complete CU control than combination treatment.

SUBMITTER: Kim MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10359646 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of Second-Line Treatments in Chronic Urticaria Refractory to Standard Dose Antihistamines.

Kim Mi-Ae MA Choi Jeong-Hee JH Shin Yoo-Seob YS Park Hae-Sim HS Ye Young-Min YM

Allergy, asthma & immunology research 20230307 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>The prevalence of chronic urticaria (CU) is increasing worldwide, and it imposes a major burden on patients. Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of second-line treatments of CU, particularly for patients being considered for costly third-line treatments such as omalizumab. We compared the efficacy and safety of second-line treatments of CU refractory to standard doses of nonsedating H<sub>1</sub>-antihistamines (nsAHs).<h4>Methods</h4>This 4-week, prospective, randomized, ope ...[more]

PMID: 37153977

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAllergic diseases are on the rise in many parts of the world, including the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. Second-generation antihistamines are the first-line treatment option in the management of allergic rhinitis and urticaria. International guidelines describe the management of these conditions; however, clinicians perceive the additional need to tailor treatment according to patient profiles. This study serves as a consensus of experts from several countries in APAC (Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam), which aims to describe the unmet needs, practical considerations, challenges, and key decision factors when determining optimal second-generation antihistamines for patients with allergic rhinitis and/or urticaria.MethodsSpecialists from allergology, dermatology, and otorhinolaryngology were surveyed on practical considerations and key decision points when treating patients with allergic rhinitis and/or urticaria.ResultsClinicians felt the need for additional tools for diagnosis of these diseases and a single drug with all preferred features of an antihistamine. Challenges in treatment include lack of clinician and patient awareness and compliance, financial constraints, and treatment for special patient populations such as those with concomitant disease. Selection of optimal second-generation antihistamines depends on many factors, particularly drug safety and efficacy, impact on psychomotor abilities, and sedation. Country-specific considerations include drug availability and cost-effectiveness. Survey results reveal bilastine as a preferred choice due to its high efficacy and safety, suitability for special patient populations, and the lack of sedative effects.ConclusionsCompliance to the international guidelines is present among allergists, dermatologists and otorhinolaryngologists; however, this is lower amongst general practitioners (GPs). To increase awareness, allergy education programs targeted at GPs and patients may be beneficial. Updates to the existing international guidelines are suggested in APAC to reflect appropriate management for different patient profiles and varying symptoms of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

Project description:Standard doses of second-generation H1-antihistamines (sgAHs) as first-line treatment are not always effective in treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and hence an increase in the dose of sgAHs is recommended. However, literature evaluating the efficacy and safety of this treatment remains inconclusive, highlighting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-dose sgAHs compared with standard-dose sgAHs in treating CSU. A systematic literature search of double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCT) utilizing multiple doses of sgAHs was performed by searching the electronic databases Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane databases, and Web of Science. Bibliographies were also manually searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for assessing risk of bias was used to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias independently. The response rate, the number of adverse events, somnolence, and withdrawal due to adverse events were extracted from each article. The data were combined and analyzed to quantify the safety and efficacy of the treatment. RevMan (V5.3) software was used for data synthesis. A total of 13 studies were identified, seven of which met the eligibility criteria for the meta-analysis. Our pooled meta-analyses showed that high-dose sgAHs was associated with a significantly higher response rate than standard-dose (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26; P = 0.02). Conversely, high doses of sgAHs were associated with significantly higher somnolence rates than standard dose (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events between standard- and high-dose treatments. Our analyses showed that a high dose of sgAHs (up to two times the standard dose) might be more effective than a standard dose in CSU treatment. High-dose and standard-dose sgAHs showed similar adverse events, except for somnolence, where incidence was found to be dose-dependent in some studies. However, given the limited number of studies, our meta-analysis results should be interpreted with caution.

Project description:ImportanceThe comparative benefits and harms of all available treatments for H1 antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) have not been established.ObjectiveTo evaluate different treatment effects of pharmacologic treatments among patients with H1 antihistamine-refractory CSU.Data sourcesSearches were conducted of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL from inception to April 19, 2021, with no language restrictions. Gray literature from Google Scholar, ongoing trial registers, and preprint reports was added to the searches of electronic databases.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials using validated measurement tools that investigated the benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments among adolescent or adult patients with CSU who had an inadequate response to H1 antihistamines were screened for inclusion independently by 2 investigators.Data extraction and synthesisTwo investigators independently extracted study data according to the predefined list of interests. A random-effects model was used to calculate the network estimates reported as standardized mean differences and odds ratios with corresponding 95% CIs.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes that reflect the patient's perspective included changes in urticaria symptoms from baseline and unacceptability of treatment (all-cause dropouts).ResultsTwenty-three randomized clinical trials with 2480 participants that compared 18 different interventions or dosages and placebo were included. The standardized mean differences for change in urticaria symptoms were -1.05 (95% CI, -1.37 to -0.73) for ligelizumab, 72 mg; -1.07 (95% CI, -1.39 to -0.75) for ligelizumab, 240 mg; -0.77 (95% CI, -0.91 to -0.63) for omalizumab, 300 mg; and -0.59 (95% CI, -1.10 to -0.08) for omalizumab, 600 mg. No significant differences in treatment unacceptability were observed. With respect to benefits and harms, the network estimates illustrated that the most efficacious treatments were achieved with ligelizumab, 72 or 240 mg (large beneficial effect) and omalizumab, 300 or 600 mg (moderate beneficial effect).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings in this meta-analysis suggest that the biologic agents ligelizumab, 72 or 240 mg, and omalizumab, 300 or 600 mg, can be recommended as effective treatments for patients with CSU who have had an inadequate response to H1 antihistamines. Head-to-head trials with high methodologic quality and harmonized design and outcome definitions are needed to help inform subsequent international guidelines for the management of CSU.

Project description:ASTERIA I was a 40-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous omalizumab as add-on therapy for 24 weeks in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria/spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU) who remained symptomatic despite H1 antihistamine treatment at licensed doses. Patients aged 12-75 years with CIU/CSU who remained symptomatic despite treatment with approved doses of H1 antihistamines were randomized (1:1:1:1) in a double-blind manner to subcutaneous omalizumab 75 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 24 weeks followed by 16 weeks of follow-up. The primary end point was change from baseline in weekly itch severity score (ISS) at week 12. Among randomized patients (N=319: placebo n=80, omalizumab 75 mg n=78, 150 mg n=80, 300 mg n=81), 262 (82.1%) completed the study. Compared with placebo (n=80), mean weekly ISS was reduced from baseline to week 12 by an additional 2.96 points (95% confidence interval (CI): -4.71 to -1.21; P=0.0010), 2.95 points (95% CI: -4.72 to -1.18; P=0.0012), and 5.80 points (95% CI: -7.49 to -4.10; P<0.0001) in the omalizumab 75-mg (n=77), 150-mg (n=80), and 300-mg groups (n=81), respectively. The omalizumab 300-mg group met all nine secondary end points, including a significant decrease in the duration of time to reach minimally important difference response (⩾5-point decrease) in weekly ISS (P<0.0001) and higher percentages of patients with well-controlled symptoms (urticaria activity score over 7 days (UAS7) ⩽6: 51.9% vs. 11.3%; P<0.0001) and complete response (UAS7=0: 35.8% vs. 8.8%; P<0.0001) versus placebo. During the 24-week treatment period, 2 (2.9%), 3 (3.4%), 0, and 4 (5.0%) patients in the omalizumab 75-mg, 150-mg, 300-mg, and placebo groups, respectively, experienced a serious adverse event. Omalizumab 300 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks reduced weekly ISS and other symptom scores versus placebo in CIU/CSU patients who remained symptomatic despite treatment with approved doses of H1 antihistamines.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of Second-Line Treatments in Chronic Urticaria Refractory to Standard Dose Antihistamines.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Efficacy of Second-Line Treatments in Chronic Urticaria Refractory to Standard Dose Antihistamines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets