Asian Experiences in Treating School-Age Children with Bilastine 10 mg Orodispersible Tablets: Cases from Clinical Practice

Since the discovery of histamine in the ®rst decade of the 20th century, there has been increasing evidence that this biogenic amine, synthesized predominantly in mast cells and basophils, is released in in ammatory processes and plays a key role in the pathogenesis of urticaria and allergic airway diseases, including asthma, rhinitis, and urticaria (1±3). Studies have demonstrated that histamine levels are signi®cantly increased in the bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) of symptomatic asthmatics, compared with asymptomatic asthmatics (4, 5), and that allergen challenge leads to a marked increase in the levels of histamine in asthmatics (6, 7). Similarly, studies have demonstrated that allergen challenge also leads to signi®cant increases in the levels of histamine in the nasal secretions of patients with allergic rhinitis (8±10). A comparison of patients with chronic urticaria and healthy subjects has also demonstrated that the former release greater amounts of histamine, both spontaneously and after antigen provocation (11±13). In addition, some studies have demonstrated that the responsiveness of the skin to histamine is slightly increased in patients with urticaria (11). Mechanistic studies have demonstrated that the action of histamine arises from its interaction with one of at least three speci®c histamine receptors, H1, H2, and H3, located on various histamine-responsive target tissues. Interaction of histamine with the H1 receptor leads primarily to smooth-muscle contraction, vasodilatation and hypotension, increased vascular permeability with formation of tissue oedema, increased respiratory mucus secretion, and parasympathetic nerve stimulation (14, 15). These effects can subsequently lead to bronchial obstruction in asthma; nasal blockage, sneezing, itching, and discharge in rhinitis; and itchy skin wheals/ ares in urticaria. At the cellular level, histamine may also act on in ammatory cells and lead to release of mediators, such as leukotrienes and cytokines, and increased expression of class II antigens (HLA-DR) and ICAM-1 on epithelial cells (16, 17), effects which could, in turn, exacerbate the pathology and symptoms of allergic disease. In contrast, effects attributable to H2 receptors include augmentation of gastric acid secretion and increases in gastric and respiratory mucus secretion (14). H3 receptors have been implicated in autocrine regulation of histamine synthesis and release from nerve tissue (14).

The importance of quality of life issues in health care practice and research is steadily growing. This growing interest fits into the definition of health as proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1948 (1). The WHO defines health as 'a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity'. The attention to health-related quality of life is reflected in the increase in the use of quality-of-life evaluation as a technique of clinical research since 1973, when only five articles listed 'quality of life' as a reference key word in the Medline data base; during the subsequent five-year periods there were 195, 273, 490, and 1252 such articles (2). Also in the field of allergy it has been recognized that allergic disease comprise more than the classical signs and symptoms being part of physical disorders such as allergic rhinitis, asthma and the atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome (AEDS) (3). In the last decades an increasing effort has been made to understand the socioeconomic burden of atopic disease in terms of effects on health-related quality of life (HRQL) and healthcare costs. It has been acknowledged in several consensus reports that rhinitis and asthma are associated with impairments in the patients' functioning in day-to-day life at home, at work and at school 4-8). With the introduction of questionnaires designed to measure asthma- 9-11) and rhinitis-associated impairments of quality of life (12) it is clear that patients may be bothered by sleep disorders, emotional problems, impairment in activities and social functioning. Also, in general terms, patients with asthma (13) and allergic rhinitis (14) are impaired in their physical and mental functioning, including vitality and the perception of general health. From daily medical practice it can be easily understood that AEDS has a major impact on HRQL. In a way, the use of questionnaires focused on skin disease 15-17) formally confirms this association. Quality of life, QOL, has divergent meanings for different people. Also, HRQL may be considered as ill-defined. More agreement has been reached about the four domains of QOL which are considered to be important: 1) physical status and functional abilities; 2) psychological status and well-being; 3) social functioning; 4) economic and/or vocational status and factors ( 18 ). As the true quality of life value cannot be measured directly, researchers and clinicians have to resort to series of questions (items) to measure this construct indirectly. Combinations of items yield scores referring to physical, mental and social domains. An HRQL instrument must meet several criteria. It should address each component (symptom, condition) that is important to the patient. Attributes of an instrument are described in Table 1. It will be clear that the construction of quality of life questionnaires is a complex task, drawing from the fields of clinimetrics, psychometrics and clinical decision-making (2). Differences in approach, for instance item selection using factor analysis vs the impact method which select items that are most frequently perceived as important by patients -- yields different questionnaires (19). In general two types of instruments, generic and specific, have been used in allergy research. Generic questionnaires measure physical, psychological and social domains in all health conditions irrespective of the underlying disease. A frequently used generic instrument is the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form 36 (SF-36) (20). The SF-36 was developed as part of the Medical Outcomes Study and analyzes health status using 36 questions to measure nine different health dimensions. It has been used to characterize patients with asthma. Bousquet (13) compared the FEV1 and a clinical score of asthma severity for 252 asthmatic patients. There was a significant positive correlation between all nine quality of life domains of the SF-36 and the clinical score of Aas. Eight of the nine domains also correlated with the FEV1. Also in perennial rhinitis there was a significant impairment in eight of nine QOL dimensions in patients compared with healthy subjects (14). Furthermore, the SF-36 is used to evaluate the effects of a nonsedating antihistamine on quality of life. In this study all of the nine quality of life dimensions improved significantly after one and six weeks of cetirizine treatment compared with placebo (21). Other generic instruments that have been used in allergy research are the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) (22) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) (23). The 136 items in 12 categories of the SIP describe activities of everyday living. This instrument has been used to evaluate the effect of salmeterol on asthma (24). Salmeterol led to significant improvements over salbutamol on virtually all clinical outcomes. Although all four quality of life instruments used in this study showed the same trend in favor of salmeterol, only the disease-specific Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and the Rating Scale utilities showed significantly greater improvement on salmeterol than on salbutamol. In severe AEDS it was shown, using the SIP, that cyclosporin improves quality of life significantly (25). In particular, the SIP has been used for comparison with disease-specific instruments (24, 26-28). The NHP, the only generic instrument derived entirely from lay people, has been used to validate a disease-specific instrument for patients with dermatitis and psoriasis (29). In asthma the NHP was not able to capture clinical improvement by treatment with pulmonary steroids (30). The latter observations underline the disadvantage that the generic instruments miss depth and therefore may not be responsive enough to detect changes in general health states in spite of important changes in disease-related problems (26). The advantage of generic instruments, however, is that the burden of illness across different disorders and patient populations can be compared. In a comparison between asthma and epilepsy the major finding was that children with epilepsy had a relatively more compromised quality of life in the psychological, social, and school domains (31. In contrast, children with asthma had a more compromised quality of life in the physical domain. These findings suggested that attention simply to seizure control in the clinical setting will not address the full range of quality of life problems in children with epilepsy. Specific instruments have been designed by asking patients what kind of problems they experience from their disease. Both the frequency and the importance of impairments are measured by means of the questionnaires. These instruments have the advantage that they describe the disease-associated problems of the patients. As stated above, they seem to be more responsive to changes in HRQL than do the generic instruments. Several instruments for patients with asthma have been developed. The Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire of Juniper is focused on symptoms, emotions, exposure to environmental stimuli, and activity limitation (32). Modifications of this questionnaire have been published recently (33, 34). When using HRQL outcome in clinical trials, the question arises whether a change in HRQL is of clinical importance. For the AQLQ, which uses a seven-point scale, the minimal important difference of quality of life score per item is considered to be very close to 0.5 (35). A change of 1.0 in the score represents a moderate change and a change in score of greater than 2.0 represents a large change in HRQL. The minimal important difference as described by Juniper is based upon patient opinions. Measures such as the standardized response mean or the effect size can be used to standardize changes. These measures are based solely upon the distribution of the observed data, in particular upon the variance (36). Recently, it has been shown that both the SF-36 and AQLQ were able to characterize a group of patients with moderate asthma very well, whereas the AQLQ domains were found to have the best discriminative properties (37. The Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire of Marks captures breathlessness, physical restrictions, mood disturbance and concerns for health (38). St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (11) is designed for patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder COPD. It can be applied in both reversible and fixed airway obstruction. In contrast to other questionnaires, the Living with Asthma Questionnaire (10) does not include impairments experienced as a direct consequence of asthma symptomatology. Other instruments are presented in Table 2. The properties of the most frequently used questionnaire are described in Table 3. Specific instruments have been developed for children and caregivers (Table 2). In addition, questionnaires have been constructed for different age-groups of patients with rhinitis (12, 39-41). A simple practical questionnaire technique for routine clinical use, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) has been introduced to characterize patients with skin disorders (15). This instrument has been used to compare patients with psoriasis and dermatitis (42). Also versions for children are available: the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) and the Infant's Dermatology Life Quality Index (IDLQI) (16). Other questionnaires are the Skindex (43) the Dermatology-Specific Quality of Life (DSQL) (17) and the patient-generated Dermatology Quality of Life Scales (DQOLS) (44). Recently, a questionnaire has been developed to measure HRQL in patients with allergy to insect stings. Subsequently, this instrument has been used in the evaluation of venom immunotherapy (45). It appeared that venom immunotherapy resulted in a statistically and clinically significant improvement in HRQL. Both in clinical practice and in research physicians and investigators rely on physiological and objective measures, whenever possible. However in asthma an increase in FEV1 or a decrease in PC20 histamine or methacholine may occur without any improvement experienced by the patient. Medical intervention may improve physiologic measures, whereas for instance side-effects of drugs or the cumbersome aspects of subcutaneous immunotherapy may unfavorably influence day-to-day life and compliance with treatment. It has been put forward that the classical outcome variables may only partially characterize the disease of the patient. From that point of view it has been advocated to measure HRQL along with the conventional clinical indices (46). In line with this reasoning is the weak association between classical asthma measures and the outcome of HRQL questionnaires. Comparison between de AQLQ of Marks with asthma symptoms and lung function variables revealed that a change in AQLQ score was weakly correlated with change in symptom score (r = 0.37, 95% CI 0.04–0.64) and change in BHR (r = 0.38, 95% CI 0.06–0.64). The association with change in peak flow variability was weak (r = 0.12, 95% CI 0.26–0.47) (27). Similar observations have been reported by others 47-50). An interesting study shows that the mere presence of respiratory symptoms or a (gradually) reduced lung function is insufficient reason for patients to seek medical help. Subjects are more likely to consult their general practitioner once their quality of everyday life is affected or they experience variability in lung function (51). Also, rhinitis related quality of life appears to be moderately correlated to the more classical outcome variables used in clinical trials, such as daily symptom scores and nasal hyperreactivity (52). Another argument to use quality of life instruments lies in the headstart with respect to the knowledge of their validation, reliability and responsiveness compared to the common symptom scores or visual analogue scores (VAS) scales used at clinical trials. In the field of nasal allergy, validation or standardization of symptom scores has rarely been the subject of research. In asthma, even quite recently introduced measures, such as the number of symptom-free days, merit more attention in terms of standardization and validation (53). Other reasons to assess quality of life are conceivable. Measurement of quality of life can also be useful for screening purposes or for evaluation of therapy. Quality of life may be a determinant of effectiveness or efficacy of treatment. Moreover, its assessment might be relevant to striving for optimal decision-making. As the perception of patients is clearly important in the management of disease and patient compliance (Fig. 1), measurement of this 'dimension' by HRQL questionnaires in clinical trials may be justified. The emphasis on quality of life has sometimes resulted in a routine inclusion of HRQL questionnaires in clinical trials. The inclusion of such an instrument is valuable only if the changes can be interpreted by clinicians and contributes to optimal medical decision-making. In an editorial, criticism has been directed to the routine inclusion of such instruments when the structure of the evaluation and its rationale appears ill-defined (54). A model representing the relationships between clinical aspects of therapy, HRQL and factors influencing HRQL (adapted from Cramer and Spilker (17)). Generally in clinical trials the effect of treatment or intervention on HRQL runs parallel with the effect on conventional medical outcome measures. However, in some studies differences can be found. In a study evaluating the combined effect of steroids and antihistamines no differences were demonstrated between patients treated with antihistamine and steroids vs steroids alone in terms of quality of life, whereas for some patient-rated symptoms the combination turned out to be superior (55). In a large multicenter study comparing budesonide and fluticasone it was found that both drugs were equally effective in suppressing symptoms (56), although budesonide had a better effect on general quality of life (57). This might indicate that patients perceive differences not captured by conventional symptom scores. The reverse situation, i.e. significant effects on classical outcomes (symptom scores, medication use, peak flow or FEV1) without important change in two generic and two specific HRQL measures has been described in a study on the effect of formoterol, a long-acting α2-agonist, in mild to moderate asthmatic patients (58). The latter discrepancies can be explained by a limited performance of HRQL measures in mild asthmatic patients. Alternatively, it is possible that the minor changes in symptom scores and lung function due to the intervention are not perceived by patients as relevant. Moreover, patients with a chronic condition may adapt themselves to their disease. The strength of HRQL questionnaires, that is the patient-centred approach, is also one of its weaknesses. Perceptions of quality of life experienced by persons may shift in time. It is easy to understand that a dramatic personal accident or a serious disease will not only cause deterioration in quality of life but will eventually also influence the patient's values and internal standards. For instance, in a study of quality of life after radiotherapy for laryngeal cancer, a temporary deterioration of physical functioning and symptoms was reported, mostly caused by side-effects of treatment. Despite physical deterioration, there was an improvement of emotional functioning and mood after treatment, probably as a result of psychological adaptation and coping processes (59). It is possible also that in less dramatic circumstances, disease and treatments will induce shifts in perception due to changes in the patient's values. Such subjective changes in patients' perception are known as response shift. Socioeconomic status is an additional important independent factor influencing HRQL. In a recent study with asthmatic patients it was shown that socioeconomic status attributes to HRQL. More importantly, in this study it was difficult to separate out the unique effects of socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity (60). Recently, a significant relationship between the mental health of children with asthma and family functioning has been shown (61). These findings suggest that the domains comprising the HRQL of children with asthma are related to both disease and non-disease factors. Psychological functioning influences the burden of a specific disease. A study designed to assess the effects of depressive symptoms on asthma patients' reports of functional status and health-related quality of life revealed that asthma patients with more depressive symptoms reported worse health-related quality of life than asthma patients with similar disease activity, but fewer depressive symptoms (62). Interestingly, these findings were seen not only in generic (SF-36) but also in specific (AQLQ) instruments. This means that a disease-specific instrument may be also influenced by phenomena such as fear and depression. Finally, patients may either intentionally or unconsciously mask their symptoms or trivialize their diseases. They may tend to ignore or discount those problems which they believe are unrelated to their illness. Others may tend to give socially desirable answers. Response shifts and illusory mental health (63) are not easily captured with HRQL instruments, but they will certainly influence the outcome of a clinical trial, when HRQL is chosen as the primary endpoint. In summary, one has to realize that the translation of clinical effects of treatment into perceived and reported changes in quality of life finds a place at the integration level of the patient and this is, in a way, a black box which is not easy to assess (Fig. 1). For these reasons it is strongly recommended to use HRQL outcome measures in parallel with conventional physiological outcome measures. Asthma, allergic rhinitis and AEDS often coexist. The question to what extent concomitant allergic disease affects quality of life has infrequently been addressed. In a recent study the SF-36 questionnaire from 850 subjects recruited in two French centers participating in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey was evaluated. Both asthma and allergic rhinitis were associated with impairment in quality of life. However, 78% of asthmatics also had allergic rhinitis. Subjects with allergic rhinitis but not asthma were more likely to report problems with social activities, difficulties with daily activities as a result of emotional problems, and low mental well-being than subjects with neither asthma nor rhinitis. Patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis experienced more physical limitations than patients with allergic rhinitis alone, but no difference was found between these two groups for concepts related to social/mental health (64). In another study focusing on asthma, rhinitis and AEDS, comprising 325 subjects allergic to house dust mites, it was found that patients did show impaired quality of life compared to irrespective of the of the atopic Patients with the of asthma did out in terms of physical In addition, asthma symptoms with a visual had a major effect on social functioning, emotional functioning and disorders, in patients with AEDS, appeared to be associated with physical functioning, social functioning, mental health and general health It is not only concomitant atopic disease that has an impact on quality of life. such as and and nasal may patients with rhinitis and asthma. the SF-36 and a quality of life measure it has been shown that HRQL is impaired and that may improve quality of life for patients that is a other specific instruments such as the Index and the have been The impact of on social life in children during the four of life is not easily can be by use of a specific which measures the quality of life is a chronic disease of the respiratory which is frequently associated with respiratory compared the HRQL in patients with nasal with those of patients with perennial rhinitis and healthy It appeared that nasal impaired HRQL more than perennial allergic rhinitis The impairment of HRQL was greater when nasal was associated with asthma In addition, of nasal symptoms, and pulmonary function were after the evaluation in patients with nasal These demonstrated that nasal treatment either with nasal steroids or significantly improved both nasal symptoms and QOL without significant changes in pulmonary may a if the or is in one particular disease. A recent study the effects of on the of QOL measures an analysis of data from clinical trials with asthma, and The study suggest that conditions significantly and patients' scores on generic QOL measures and of treatment whereas their influence on disease-specific QOL scores and of treatment effect is although not These findings have significant practical for the of true treatment control of and the of QOL trials. The that atopic disease may have an effect on daily functioning has been by studies focused on school and in children with asthma may school and as as work by In a study it was shown that of children with recent symptoms of asthma, reported school absence for at one during the 12 compared with in children without respiratory absence of respiratory illness was reported for and use for respiratory problems for of the children with recent symptoms of asthma In another study reported in their activities and reported of work and school of asthma or nasal symptoms are not in patients with allergic rhinitis they may to problems during school either by direct or of sleep and allergic rhinitis may be associated with reduced to with will these problems, whereas treatment with nonsedating will only partially reverse the limitations in Recently, in a study out over in children with allergic perennial rhinitis and children with perennial rhinitis, it was shown that or the from on school on school and sleep In of the of a large it has been demonstrated that in asthma with increasing disease severity The of the effect of asthma on work the effect of work on asthma. The of asthma and of asthma is increasing It has been that of asthma can be to of asthma at work more on the of of underlying asthma than on the of possible asthma. It can be that patients with asthma may have a more severe impairment in quality of life of the between work and disease. In a study designed to address this question a statistically significant difference was seen in the scores of the AQLQ from a group of patients with asthma and a control group of subjects with asthma of The mean difference in the score was on a of limitation or of the to limitation or all the at the of the patient with asthma The difference between both groups was other more generic instruments focused on detect more showed that both asthma and rhinitis work with asthma are less likely to be at those rhinitis is a more determinant of work effectiveness In the allergic rhinitis in school days, and reduced activity per These data are derived from persons allergic rhinitis in with persons medical treatment. These data indicate that allergic rhinitis may have an important impact on and Patients are bothered by with performance and at and and may and only disease but also may influence work It has been that of treated their allergic rhinitis with antihistamines at for per Patients these antihistamines are more likely to The of include and With the antihistamines these problems have been significantly reduced studies have the for treatment of allergic rhinitis, asthma and associated In asthma in the for an A comparison of asthma in developed suggested an burden from to per of the asthma were to direct medical For the it has been that the when allergic was the primary were in The when allergic was a to other disorders such as asthma and was at The of allergic asthma and rhinitis and concerns about health care the increasing interest for only does the efficacy of treatment have to be but also its In these studies measures must be in to across patient populations and for different It is, however, difficult to the generic SF-36 or disease-specific HRQL scores into For this utilities such as the have been which measure the value that patients themselves place on their health some utilities measure the value that on health are the and Health An advantage of utilities is their to life associated with different medical can easily be into instruments are mostly A recent rhinitis specific the has been developed as a patient outcome for clinical trials and for studies comparing medical treatments for rhinitis The same group introduced an asthma specific the Asthma Index Also, disease-specific versions of the and have been developed for patients with asthma The interest in quality of life for patients with allergy that allergy is by a significant socioeconomic the introduction of HRQL outcome measures physicians were that patients cannot be by physiological measures. In a way, HRQL outcome measures of the from the with which clinicians are in their day-to-day The of these in the HRQL questionnaires it possible to include the patient in clinical trials and the in this field will improve medical decision-making and management of disease. of these outcome measures in the evaluation and management of patients be the However, HRQL questionnaires are in the of being in terms of and introduction of of instruments of QOL data is based on the that there are no measurement in the of is an technique for and which measurement into An important of is that it of whether a model fits the observed With this it has been shown that some changes in the of the SF-36 are when it is applied to evaluation of QOL for patients with or disease and with experienced criticism has been the of instruments and the to the measurement of quality of life It has been that attention has to be to better for of and of measures, these instruments will be for use in clinical practice and for use as primary in clinical trials Also, in the field of allergy the number of outcome measures is growing. For the and it will be difficult to select the of questionnaires. A a clinical is in of an disease-specific questionnaire with a whereas a at the level of health a generic instrument differences between subjects at a point in and utilities to assess of In not to patients with outcome measures research is to between In research to be focused on the selection and of a limited number of and instruments in to better understand the patient with allergy and better the of clinical trials. from the of Medical and for of the and

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in children is mostly spontaneous in onset (57%). Treatment comprises long-term antihistaminic therapy without need for elaborate investigations. A subset of such patients don't respond to conventional treatment and novel therapies to help reduce pill burden is the need of the hour. To determine the efficacy and safety of autologous serum therapy (AST) in pediatric patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria. All pediatric patients, aged between 6-16 years, attended to our OPD from March 2019 to March 2020 were recruited. Clinico-demographic data and baseline investigations of all patients were performed. Two-weekly AST therapy was given for 8 visits with levocetrizine tablet 5mg on an on-demand basis. Urticaria activity score (UAS) sheet was provided to record and return every 2 weeks. Statistical analysis was done using the IBM SPSS 26 software package. Autologous serum skin test (ASST) was positive in 63% patients. Both the ASST positive and ASST negative group showed significant reduction in UAS7 score at week 14 compared to baseline. The reduction in mean UAS7 score was associated with a decreased pill burden and positive response in the patient and physician global assessment scale. No statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of mean UAS7 reduction was found. This study has explored the efficacy and safety of autologous serum therapy in the pediatric CSU patients. Both ASST positive and ASST negative group respond to AST therapy.

There have been recent advances in the classification and management of chronic urticaria. The new term chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) has replaced chronic idiopathic urticaria and chronic autoimmune urticaria. In addition, chronic inducible urticaria (CINDU) has replaced physical urticaria and includes other forms of inducible urticaria, such as cholinergic and aquagenic urticaria. Furthermore, novel research has resulted in a new understanding with guidelines being revised in the past year by both the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)/Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN)/European Dermatology Forum (EDF)/World Allergy Organization (WAO). There are some differences in the recommendations, which will be discussed, but the core updates are common to both groups. The basic treatment for chronic urticaria involves second-generation non-sedating non-impairing H1 antihistamines as first-line treatment. This is followed by up to a 4-fold increase in the licensed dose of these H1 antihistamines. The major therapeutic advance in recent years has been in third-line treatment with omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E (anti-IgE) antibody that prevents binding of IgE to the high-affinity IgE receptor. Several multicenter randomized controlled trials have shown safety and efficacy of omalizumab for CSU. There are also some small studies showing efficacy of omalizumab in CINDU. While there were previously many treatment options which were lacking in strong evidence, we are moving into an era where the treatment algorithm for chronic urticaria is simplified and contains more evidence-based, effective, and less toxic treatment options.

BackgroundNon-allergic Chronic Urticaria (CU), which includes both Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (CSU) and Chronic Inducible Urticaria (CIU), is a condition characterised by wheals, erythema and pruritus. It is often associated with...

Urticaria is one of the most common skin disorders in children. We define acute urticaria when it persists for less than 6 weeks, and chronic urticaria (CU), when it persists longer. Urticaria affects 25 % of the population; in most cases, it is acute urticaria. CU represents 0.1 %, with higher prevalence in women (60 %). CU is subclassified in chronic inducible urticaria when there is a specific external trigger and chronic spontaneous urticaria if it is not present. Although the pathophysiology is complex, mast cell degranulation is recognized as a key event. Second-generation H1 antihistamines are the first line of treatment in both, acute urticaria and CU. In unresponsive patients, other therapies will be considered. We will emphasize in CU due to the difficulty in its diagnosis, the increase in its prevalence and the severe impairment it causes in children´s quality of life.

Anti-CD20 or anti-IgE therapy for severe chronic autoimmune urticaria

Histamine is the primary mediator involved the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria, and this explains the prominent role that histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists have in the treatment of these disorders. However, histamine is clearly not the only mediator involved in the inflammatory cascade. There is an emerging view that drugs which can inhibit a broader range of inflammatory processes may prove to be more effective in providing symptomatic relief in both allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. This is an important consideration of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative which provides a scientific basis for defining what are the desirable properties of an 'ideal' antihistamine. In this review of rupatadine, a newer dual inhibitor of histamine H(1)- and PAF-receptors, we evaluate the evidence for a mechanism of action which includes anti-inflammatory effects in addition to a powerful inhibition of H(1)- and PAF-receptors. We assess this in relation to the clinical efficacy (particularly the speed of onset of action) and safety of rupatadine, and importantly its longer term utility in everyday life. In clinical trials, rupatadine has been shown to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). It has a fast onset of action, producing rapid symptomatic relief, and it also has an extended duration of clinical activity which allows once-daily administration. In comparative clinical trials rupatadine was shown to be at least as effective as drugs such as loratadine, cetirizine, desloratadine and ebastine in reducing allergic symptoms in adult/adolescent patients with seasonal, perennial or persistent allergic rhinitis. Importantly, rupatadine demonstrated no adverse cardiovascular effects in preclinical or extensive clinical testing, nor negative significant effects on cognition or psychomotor performance (including a practical driving study). It improved the overall well-being of patients with allergic rhinitis or CIU based on findings from quality of life questionnaires and patient global rating scores in clinical trials. Thus, rupatadine is a recently introduced dual inhibitor of histamine H(1)- and PAF-receptors, which has been shown to be an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. It possesses a broader profile of anti-inflammatory properties inhibiting both inflammatory cells and a range of mediators involved in the early- and late-phase inflammatory response, but the clinical relevance of these effects remain to be clarified.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Chronic Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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.CUis 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.

Clinical utility of the Chronic Urticaria Index

Objective — to study and analyze thematic publications on aspects of etiopathogenesis and modern approaches to the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria in adult patients.Materials and methods. A study and analysis of current domestic and foreign publications was conducted on aspects of the etiopathogenesis and treatment of chronic urticaria, including the recommendations of the National Health Service of the United Kingdom (NHS, 2020) for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria in adult patients, based on principles of evidence­based medicine.Results and discussion. According to domestic and foreign publications, urticaria affects about 15—20 % of the population, while in recent years the number of chronic forms of dermatosis resistant to treatment (registered in about 2 % of the population) is increasing, which reduces the capability for work and quality of life of patients. In more than half of the patients the probable cause of chronic urticaria cannot be determined, which indicates the development of a spontaneous (idiopathic) form of dermatosis. First­line drugs for the treatment of chronic urticaria are non­sedative H1­antihistamines of the second generation, which, however, in many patients do not provide a positive clinical effect in standard doses. In the European recommendations, to increase the effectiveness of treatment of patients with torpid forms of chronic urticaria, it is proposed to increase the daily dose of antihistamines by 4 times. According to NHS recommendations (2020), created on evidence­based medicine, adult patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria are recommended to use a cost­ and clinically effective second­generation antihistamine cetirizine as first­line therapy which is prescribed step by step with increasing daily dose by 2—4 times.Conclusions. Chronic urticaria is a serious medical and social problem today. More than half of patients with chronic urticaria are those having spontaneous (idiopathic) form of dermatosis. H1­antihistamines of the second generation are the first­line therapy for chronic urticaria, but due to the lack of a positive effect in some patients when using their standard doses, it is recommended to increase their daily doses by 4 times. According to NHS recommendations (2020), adult patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria are recommended an efficient and cost­effective second­generation antihistamine cetirizine as first­line (dose­increasing) therapy.

Chronic urticaria (CU) is characterised by the recurrence of hives/angioedema for >6 weeks. It affects children and adults and has a worldwide distribution. In children, CU is substantially less common than acute urticaria but is associated with larger decrease in quality of life. The current classification divides CU into two groups: 1) chronic spontaneous urticaria, which includes idiopathic urticaria (by far the most common type), autoimmune urticaria, and those associated with drugs, food, or additives allergies; and 2) chronic inducible urticaria, constituted by cholinergic urticaria and physical urticarias. Diagnosis of CU is based on the history and characteristics of the lesions. Although laboratory and specific testing could establish the diagnosis of some subtypes of CU, frequently the aetiology is never found; therefore, an extensive workup is not recommended. Once the trigger has been identified, it must be avoided. Specific treatment may be tried, but unfortunately this is not always possible. Currently, the first-line treatment for children with CU are second generation H1-antihistamines (SG-H1AH), such as cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, and rupatadine, among others. If, after 2–4 weeks, the patient has not improved, an increment from 2 to 4-times the regular dose is recommended. Patients that fail to respond to this treatment may be switched to another SG-H1AH or a second agent, such as H2-antihistamines (e.g., cimetidine, ranitidine), ketotifen, cyclosporine, or a leukotriene receptor inhibitor (e.g., montelukast), may be added to the H1-antihistamine therapy. Recently, omalizumab, an anti-immunoglobin-E monoclonal antibody has been approved in several jurisdictions for patients 12 years or older with recalcitrant CU; however, its high cost has limited its use.

Introduction: Omalizumab is indicated for the treatment of severe allergic bronchial asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria, although number of studies confirmed the efficacy of this therapy also on other IgE-mediated diseases. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of anti-IgE therapy on comorbid allergic diseases in patients treated with omalizumab for severe allergic asthma. Methods: In the study there were enrolled 310 patients with severe asthma treated with omalizumab between 2006–2015 in specialized centers for severe asthma treatment in the Czech Republic. The effect on clinical symptoms of asthma and other comorbidities - allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food allergy and chronic urticaria was evaluated after 12 months of treatment with omalizumab. Results: After 12 months of treatment with omalizumab, patients experienced significant improvement in asthma control, reduction of systemic corticosteroids for asthma exacerbations and decreased average daily dose of systemic corticosteroids. The positive effect of treatment with omalizumab was observed in 82.2% of patients with allergic rhinitis, in 85.7% of patients with chronic urticaria, in 82.1% of patients with atopic dermatitis, and in 67.3% of patients with food allergy. Conclusions: Patients with severe asthma treated with omalizumab showed positive effect of anti-IgE therapy not only on the clinical symptoms of asthma, but also on other allergic comorbidities. Most patients with allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, chronic urticaria and food allergy experienced either improvement or complete remission of symptoms of these diseases.

The effects of urticaria are predominantly mediated by histamine release; therefore, H1-antihistamines are the mainstay of treatment. Second-generation H1-antihistamines, compared with their first-generation counterparts, have demonstrated improved peripheral H1-receptor selectivity and decreased lipophilicity (which minimizes CNS adverse effects), and antiallergic properties in addition to being histamine inverse agonists. Evidence of clinical efficacy and tolerability of second-generation H1-antihistamines available in the US for the treatment of chronic urticaria (CU) was analyzed using the GRADE system to develop the strength of recommendations for particular therapies. The evidence for the safety and efficacy of the majority of second-generation H1-antihistamines available in the US is of high quality and leads to a strong recommendation for their use in CU. There is a limited amount of data of variable quality comparing the efficacy between various second-generation H1-antihistamines in CU leading to weak recommendations for using cetirizine over fexofenadine and levocetirizine over desloratadine. Limited data of variable quality exist for the efficacy of higher doses of second-generation H1-antihistamines in CU patients not responsive to standard doses. These limited data lead to a strong recommendation that higher than recommended doses of fexofenadine do not offer greater efficacy in control of CU and a weak recommendation that higher doses of levocetirizine and desloratadine are more effective in CU unresponsive to standard doses. More studies of higher quality are required to make any firm recommendations regarding second-generation H1-antihistamines in the treatment of physical urticarias. All second-generation H1-antihistamines appear to be very well tolerated in CU patients, with rare reports of adverse effects. Due to the relatively large gaps in the quantity and quality of evidence, particularly for choice of H1-antihistamines, use of higher doses, and use in physical urticarias, greater emphasis in management decisions should be based on the risk/benefit ratio and the patient's personal values and preferences (including cost) in clinical decision making.