Oral H1-antihistamines Research Articles

Surveillance of First-Generation H1-Antihistamine Use for Older Patients with Dementia in Japan: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background This study aimed to investigate the rate of first-generation H1-antihistamines use for older adults with dementia in Japan. Methods The study design was retrospective cohort using claims data between fiscal years 2010 and 2013. Subjects were 75 years or older, diagnosed with dementia, and given H1-antihistamines orally during the study period after being diagnosed with dementia. We investigated the cumulative number of oral H1-antihistamines administered and the relationship between first-generation H1-antihistamine use and each explanatory variable using crude and adjusted odds ratio. Results The cumulative total for use of first-generation H1-antihistamine for older adults with dementia accounted for 32.1% of all antihistamine medication. The majority of first-generation H1-antihistamine prescriptions were indicated for cold treatment. Those with upper respiratory infection or asthma had a significantly positive relationship with first-generation H1-antihistamine use. ConclusionThe study showed that first-generation H1-antihistamine drugs were highly prescribed in older adults with dementia in Japan.

Treatment of allergic rhinitis using mobile technology with real-world data: The MASK observational pilot study.

Large observational implementation studies are needed to triangulate the findings from randomized control trials as they reflect "real-world" everyday practice. In a pilot study, we attempted to provide additional and complementary insights on the real-life treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) using mobile technology. A mobile phone app (Allergy Diary, freely available in Google Play and Apple App stores) collects the data of daily visual analog scales (VAS) for (i) overall allergic symptoms, (ii) nasal, ocular, and asthma symptoms, (iii) work, as well as (iv) medication use using a treatment scroll list including all medications (prescribed and over the counter (OTC)) for rhinitis customized for 15 countries. A total of 2871 users filled in 17 091 days of VAS in 2015 and 2016. Medications were reported for 9634 days. The assessment of days appeared to be more informative than the course of the treatment as, in real life, patients do not necessarily use treatment on a daily basis; rather, they appear to increase treatment use with the loss of symptom control. The Allergy Diary allowed differentiation between treatments within or between classes (intranasal corticosteroid use containing medications and oral H1-antihistamines). The control of days differed between no [best control], single, or multiple treatments (worst control). This study confirms the usefulness of the Allergy Diary in accessing and assessing everyday use and practice in AR. This pilot observational study uses a very simple assessment (VAS) on a mobile phone, shows novel findings, and generates new hypotheses.

Oral Antihistamines Alone vs in Combination with Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists for Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-analysis.

Objective To evaluate whether an adjuvant therapy of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) based on oral H1-antihistamines (H1) can increase efficacy of allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment. Data Sources The search involved databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception up to September 23, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared efficacy of LTRAs + H1 vs H1 alone were eligible. Review Methods Pooled comparative effects were measured using weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis comparing seasonal vs perennial AR was prespecified to explore the source of heterogeneity. The evidence quality of each outcome was assessed by the GRADE approach. Results A total of 8 RCTs were included (n = 1886), and all measured outcomes used scaled scores. Compared with H1 alone, H1 + LTRAs were superior to improve overall daytime (WMD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.03, high quality) and composite (WMD, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.01; low quality) nasal symptoms. Specifically, H1 + LTRAs had better efficacy against composite nasal rhinorrhea, sneezing, and daytime itching but not congestion. The effects were more pronounced in patients with perennial AR compared to those with seasonal AR. There were no significant differences in nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms between the 2 groups. Conclusion The current evidence suggests that LTRAs + H1 can increase the therapeutic efficacy against daytime and composite nasal symptoms, including rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching; however, it does not affect nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms. The patients with perennial AR may benefit more from the combination therapy.

The International Study of the Allergic Rhinitis Survey: outcomes from 4 geographical regions.

BackgroundAllergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health problem and is characterised by one or more symptoms, including sneezing, itching, nasal congestion and rhinorrhea.ObjectiveWe investigated the features of AR and the physician's approach to the management of AR patients in four geographical regions.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire survey concerning AR was completed by Honorary and Corresponding Members of the Italian Society of Rhinology from different countries among 4 world geographical regions—Asia, Europe, the Americas, and Africa.ResultsThe prevalence of AR was reported to be 15%–25%. Children and adolescents, as well as young adults, were the age groups more affected by AR with comorbidities of asthma, sinusitis, conjunctivitis, and nasal polyposis. Nasal symptoms of AR were more intense in the spring (51.92%) and autumn (28.85%). The most common aero-allergens were pollen and mites (67.31%), animal dander and pollutants (23.08%), and fungal allergens (21.15%). Allergen-specific immunotherapy was prescribed for both perennial and seasonal allergens (32.69%) via sublingual swallow (46.15%) and subcutaneous (32.69%) routes. For the AR patients, the most prescribed drugs were intranasal corticosteroids (86.54%) and oral H1-antihistamines (82.69%).ConclusionA network of experts can improve our knowledge concerning AR epidemiology, and together with guidelines, could assist practitioners and otolaryngologists in standardising the diagnosis and treatment of AR.

Real-World Characteristics and Treatment Patterns in Patients with Urticaria Initiating Omalizumab in the United States.

Omalizumab is indicated for the management of chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) in patients aged 12 years or older with persistent hives that are not adequately controlled by H1 antihistamines. While its safety and efficacy in CIU patients have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials, real-world use of omalizaumab in CIU has not been well characterized. To assess demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns of CIU patients who initiated omalizumab to better understand the usage of this agent in CIU management in the real world. This retrospective cohort study used medical and pharmacy claims data in the United States from the HealthCore Integrated Database to identify patients with CIU newly treated with omalizumab (≥ 4 omalizumab claims within 6 months of the initial claim) between March 21, 2014, and October 31, 2015 (study intake period). The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for omalizumab during the study intake period. Demographic and clinical characteristics were described for patients treated with omalizumab, as were treatment patterns associated with omalizumab and concomitant medications associated with CIU treatment. Descriptive and inferential statistics were reported. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to examine omalizumab treatment patterns. This study included 298 omalizumab-treated patients (mean [SD] age of 43.5 [13.64] years; 70.8% female); approximately 84% were seen by an allergist/immunologist. All patients had ≥ 12 months of continuous enrolment and a subset of 138 patients had ≥ 18 months of follow-up. For patients with ≥ 12 months of post-index follow-up, 12.1% (n = 36), 28.5% (n = 85), and 32.9% (n = 98) discontinued omalizumab within the 6-month, 12-month, and the entire post-index periods (mean 530 days), respectively; the mean number of days patients were continuously treated with omalizumab was 443.1 (95% CI = 425.0-461.3); the probabilities of continuous treatment (95% CI) were 0.879 (0.836-0.911), 0.711 (0.656-0.759), and 0.647 (0.585-0.703) for the 6-, 12-, and 18-month post-index periods, respectively. For the 98 patients who discontinued omalizumab during the entire post-index period, 28.6% restarted omalizumab after the first discontinuation within the post-index period (mean time from first discontinuation to first restart=329 days). Use of medications such as oral corticosteroids, montelukast, cyclosporine, and prescription H1 and H2 antihistamines decreased during the 1- to 6-month and 7- to 12-month post-index periods compared with those within the 6-month pre-index period. In this cohort of CIU patients who were newly prescribed omalizumab, the majority were treated by allergists/immunologists as expected, and approximately 60% of patients continued on therapy beyond 18 months. Concomitant medication use decreased after omalizumab initiation. These data on the real-world use of omalizumab for CIU may help to better inform decision-making processes for health care payers by quantifying omalizumab and concomitant medication treatment patterns over a longer time frame relative to previous studies. This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, which provided funding support for the conduct of the study. Kavati, Ortiz, and Paknis are employees of Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Ke, Wertz, Huang, Wang, Willey, and Stephenson are employees of HealthCore, an independent research organization that received funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals for the conduct of this study. Beck is an employee of the University of Rochester Medical Center, who was under contract with Novartis Pharmaceuticals to provide consulting services to this study, and reports grants from Genentech, outside the currently submitted work. Bernstein is affiliated with Bernstein Clinical Research Center, which was under contract with Novartis Pharmaceuticals to provide consulting services to this study, and reports receiving grants and personal fees from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, grants and personal fees from Genentech outside of the submitted work, and is an author on the Joint Task Force for Practice Parameters for Urticaria and the GALEN international guidelines for urticaria under preparation. Selected study data were presented in a poster at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 22nd Annual International Meeting on May 20-24, 2017, in Boston, MA. A poster based on this dataset was presented at the 2017 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) Annual Scientific Meeting on October 26-30, 2017, in Boston, MA.

Real-World Characteristics and Treatment Patterns in Patients with Urticaria Initiating Omalizumab in the United States.

Omalizumab is indicated for the management of chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) in patients aged 12 years or older with persistent hives that are not adequately controlled by H1 antihistamines. While its safety and efficacy in CIU patients have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials, real-world use of omalizaumab in CIU has not been well characterized. To assess demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns of CIU patients who initiated omalizumab to better understand the usage of this agent in CIU management in the real world. This retrospective cohort study used medical and pharmacy claims data in the United States from the HealthCore Integrated Database to identify patients with CIU newly treated with omalizumab (≥ 4 omalizumab claims within 6 months of the initial claim) between March 21, 2014, and October 31, 2015 (study intake period). The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for omalizumab during the study intake period. Demographic and clinical characteristics were described for patients treated with omalizumab, as were treatment patterns associated with omalizumab and concomitant medications associated with CIU treatment. Descriptive and inferential statistics were reported. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to examine omalizumab treatment patterns. This study included 298 omalizumab-treated patients (mean [SD] age of 43.5 [13.64] years; 70.8% female); approximately 84% were seen by an allergist/immunologist. All patients had ≥ 12 months of continuous enrolment and a subset of 138 patients had ≥ 18 months of follow-up. For patients with ≥ 12 months of post-index follow-up, 12.1% (n = 36), 28.5% (n = 85), and 32.9% (n = 98) discontinued omalizumab within the 6-month, 12-month, and the entire post-index periods (mean 530 days), respectively; the mean number of days patients were continuously treated with omalizumab was 443.1 (95% CI = 425.0-461.3); the probabilities of continuous treatment (95% CI) were 0.879 (0.836-0.911), 0.711 (0.656-0.759), and 0.647 (0.585-0.703) for the 6-, 12-, and 18-month post-index periods, respectively. For the 98 patients who discontinued omalizumab during the entire post-index period, 28.6% restarted omalizumab after the first discontinuation within the post-index period (mean time from first discontinuation to first restart=329 days). Use of medications such as oral corticosteroids, montelukast, cyclosporine, and prescription H1 and H2 antihistamines decreased during the 1- to 6-month and 7- to 12-month post-index periods compared with those within the 6-month pre-index period. In this cohort of CIU patients who were newly prescribed omalizumab, the majority were treated by allergists/immunologists as expected, and approximately 60% of patients continued on therapy beyond 18 months. Concomitant medication use decreased after omalizumab initiation. These data on the real-world use of omalizumab for CIU may help to better inform decision-making processes for health care payers by quantifying omalizumab and concomitant medication treatment patterns over a longer time frame relative to previous studies. DISCLOSURES This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, which provided funding support for the conduct of the study. Kavati, Ortiz, and Paknis are employees of Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Ke, Wertz, Huang, Wang, Willey, and Stephenson are employees of HealthCore, an independent research organization that received funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals for the conduct of this study. Beck is an employee of the University of Rochester Medical Center, who was under contract with Novartis Pharmaceuticals to provide consulting services to this study, and reports grants from Genentech, outside the currently submitted work. Bernstein is affiliated with Bernstein Clinical Research Center, which was under contract with Novartis Pharmaceuticals to provide consulting services to this study, and reports receiving grants and personal fees from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, grants and personal fees from Genentech outside of the submitted work, and is an author on the Joint Task Force for Practice Parameters for Urticaria and the GALEN international guidelines for urticaria under preparation. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Kavati, Ortiz, and Paknis, with assistance from the other authors. Huang, Wang, and Ke took the lead in data collection, with assistance from Wertz, Willey, and Stephenson. Data interpretation was performed by Ke, Wertz, and Willey, assisted by the other authors. The manuscript was written by Stephenson, Ke, and Wang, along with Willey, Wertz, and Huang, and revised by Bernstein and Beck, with assistance from the other authors. Selected study data were presented in a poster at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 22nd Annual International Meeting on May 20-24, 2017, in Boston, Massachusetts. A poster based on this dataset was presented at the 2017 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) Annual Scientific Meeting on October 26-30, 2017, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines—2016 revision

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update. We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment.

Therapy efficacy of hyperreative rhinitis by the combination of intranasal steroid and oral H1-antihistamine

Background Hyperreative rhinitis (HRR) is identified as rhinitis which has at least two symptoms such as sneeze, itches, watery secretion and nasal blockage. Little is known about the pathology of HRR, as well as its clinical features and treatment. Objective To investigate efficacy HRR by combined therapy with intranasal steroids and antihistamines Methods The age, gender, predisposing factors and clinical symptoms of 200 HRR patients were analyzed. Both intranasal steroids and antihistamines were applied for 8 weeks. Symptoms were assessed with VAS score before and after the treatment. Result: Before the therapy, 87% of HRR patients showed persistent symptoms; 69% complained about severe and persistent effects on the quality on the life; sneezing (96%) and rhinorrhea (78%) were the top 2 symptoms reported; All patients completed the 8-wk combined therapy with intranasal steroids and antihistamines; 96% patients were satisfied with the therapy, with all symptoms except wheezing have been clear relief (p <0.05); the remaining 4% reported the unsatisfied result of the therapy. Conclusion The combined therapy with intranasal steroids and antihistamines controlled most of clinical symptoms of HRR.

Histamine H4 receptor gene polymorphisms: a potential predictor of oral H1 antihistamine efficacy for allergic rhinitis.

Our study aimed to investigate the associations between Histamine H4 receptor (HRH4) gene polymorphisms (rs77485247, rs74604924, and rs77041280) and oral H1 antihistamine efficacy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. A total of 142 AR patients were selected as a case group and 160 healthy individuals were recruited as a control group. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the HRH4 gene were detected using direct sequencing. Serum immunoglobulin E (IgE), specific IgE, and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Clinical efficacy was evaluated by the visual analogue scale (VAS). The occurrence of adverse reaction was recorded. There were significant differences in the distribution frequencies of mutant genotype (TA + AA) and A allele of rs77485247, mutant genotype (AT + TT) and T allele of rs74604924, and mutant genotype (AT + TT) and T allele of rs77041280 between the case and control groups. AR patients with mutant genotype (TA + AA) of rs77485247 and AR patients with mutant genotype (AT + TT) of rs77041280 had higher specific IgE, ECP levels, and VAS scores after treatment and lower incidence of adverse reactions and total effective rate than those with TT genotype and those with AA genotype, respectively. However, for rs74604924, there were no differences was found between AR patients with mutant genotype (AT + TT) and those with AA genotype. Our findings provide evidence that HRH4 rs77485247 and rs77041280 polymorphisms may be associated with the risk of AR and the efficacy of H1 antihistamines for the treatment of AR patients.

Allergic Rhinitis Control Test questionnaire-driven stepwise strategy to improve allergic rhinitis control: a prospective study.

Allergic Rhinitis Control Test (ARCT) has been validated for assessing allergic rhinitis (AR) control and identifying severe AR. The aim of the study was to assess the ARCT questionnaire as a tool for stepwise pharmacotherapy. A standard pharmacotherapy regimen from Step 1 (oral second-generation H1 antihistamine as needed) to Step 5 (oral corticosteroid) was carried out prospectively in a Chinese AR population. The AR patients were initiated with Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) appropriate step treatment and assessed with ARCT every 15 days. If ARCT score was equal or above 20 (controlled AR) and maintained for 15 days, the patient would finish the study; if ARCT score was strictly <20 (uncontrolled AR), the patient would receive higher step treatment according to a predefined open design up to Step 5. The different AR control subgroups were compared. A total of 255 patients were enrolled in the study; 5 patients dropped out and 2 (0.8%) were controlled at day 0, 85 (34.0%) at day 15, 177 (70.8%) at day 30, 222 (88.8%) at day 45, 241 (96.4%) at day 60 and 242 (96.8%) at day 75. Only 8 (3.2%) patients remained uncontrolled at the endpoint of the study. Patients with ARIA moderate/severe or persistent symptoms, moderate/severe impaired quality of life, asthma history, rhinorrhea and cough symptoms always needed up to Step 4 (nasal corticosteroid plus antihistamine) and prolonged treatments to achieve disease control. The majority of AR can be controlled with standard stepwise treatment. ARCT offers an objective criterion for the stepwise pharmacotherapy of AR.

Oral H1 antihistamines as ‘add-on’ therapy to topical treatment for eczema

Oral H1 antihistamines as ‘add-on’ therapy to topical treatment for eczema

Écoute et compréhension des patients atteints de rhinite allergique en France : observatoire OPERA

To analyze how French patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and their physicians perceive this disease, the OPERA Observatory carried out a study based on the response to a “physician questionnaire” and a self-administered “patient questionnaire”. The study included a sample of 372 randomly selected General Practitioners (GPs) and 1817 patients, with a median age 41 years, 53.2% women, and the mean duration of the AR 7.9 ± 8.1 years. The aim of the study was to identify the patients’ expectations and their level of satisfaction with the therapeutic care they received. According to the ARIA classification, 62.6% had persistent AR and 37.4% had intermittent AR. Moderate to severe AR was diagnosed in 85.7% of the patients. The most troublesome symptoms in order of frequency were rhinorrhea (94.8%), nasal obstruction (93.4%) and sneezing (92.9%). The most frequently prescribed treatments were oral H1 antihistamines (87.7%), followed by intranasal corticosteroids (56.7%) and to a lesser extent the nasal H1 anti-histamines (20.8%) and decongestants (20.2%). Oral H1anti-histamines and corticosteroids were more frequently prescribed in patients with moderate to severe AR, respectively, 88.6% and 14.2% compared to 82.2% and 5.8% in patients suffering from mild AR (P = 0.004 for the antihistamines and P < 0.001 for the corticosteroids). The majority of patients reported being satisfied with their treatment, with rapid relief of symptoms (66.3%) and good tolerance to the drugs (84.2%). The physician/patient relationship was considered satisfactory, although some patients said they would like more information on the management of their symptoms, their treatments and the potential side effects. This survey showed that the AR associated with persistent moderate to severe symptoms was the most commonly AR observed in general practice.

Ragweed-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: current and emerging treatment options.

Ragweed (Ambrosia spp.) is an annually flowering plant whose pollen bears high allergenic potential. Ragweed-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis has long been seen as a major immunologic condition in Northern America with high exposure and sensitization rates in the general population. The invasive occurrence of ragweed (A. artemisiifolia) poses an increasing challenge to public health in Europe and Asia as well. Possible explanations for its worldwide spread are climate change and urbanization, as well as pollen transport over long distances by globalized traffic and winds. Due to the increasing disease burden worldwide, and to the lack of a current and comprehensive overview, this study aims to review the current and emerging treatment options for ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis. Sound clinical evidence is present for the symptomatic treatment of ragweed-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with oral third-generation H1-antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists. The topical application of glucocorticoids has also been efficient in randomized controlled clinical trials. Combined approaches employing multiple agents are common. The mainstay of causal treatment to date, especially in Northern America, is subcutaneous immunotherapy with the focus on the major allergen, Amb a 1. Beyond this, growing evidence from several geographical regions documents the benefit of sublingual immunotherapy. Future treatment options promise more specific symptomatic treatment and fewer side effects during causal therapy. Novel antihistamines for symptomatic treatment are aimed at the histamine H3-receptor. New adjuvants with toll-like receptor 4 activity or the application of the monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, omalizumab, are supposed to enhance conventional immunotherapy. An approach targeting toll-like receptor 9 by synthetic cytosine phosphate–guanosine oligodeoxynucleotides promises a new treatment paradigm that aims to modulate the immune response, but it has yet to be proven in clinical trials.

How an online survey on the treatment of allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) detected specialty-specific knowledge-gaps

Background To enhance the dissemination of the ARIA document (Allergic rhinitis (AR) and its impact on asthma) in Mexico, a Working Group composed of 35 specialists of 8 professional medical societies developed a transculturized ARIA México 2014 guideline. The ARIA guidelines use the GRADE system, which builds recommendations and suggestions around clinical questions (CQ).Methods As part of the dissemination strategy and to detect the physicians’ view and knowledge-gaps concerning the treatment of AR an online survey was sent out to members of participating societies containing the CQ of ARIA México. Replies were analyzed per specialty against the ARIA México 2014 experts’ recommendations/suggestions; differences between specialties were analyzed with Pearson’s Chi-squares.Results 807 surveys were returned, 657 completed (81%). We analyze replies from 158 alergists, 188 ENTs, 64 pulmonologists, 220 pediatricians and 177 GPs/family doctors. More than half of the surveyed physicians of all specialties would give an allergen reduced diet to pregnant/lactating women and avoid pets at home, which is against ARIA experts’ suggestions. ARIA experts suggest intranasal antihistamines can be part of the AR treatment: 46-63% of the ENTs, pulmonologists and pediatricians disagree; and experts prefer oral H1-antihistamines over leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) for the treatment of AR: 52-36% of the pulmonologists, pediatricians and GPs prefer LTRAs. Concerning glucocorticosteroids (GCS): GPs are more reluctant to use intranasal GCS (p < 0.001) and 47% prefers oral H1-antihistamines. As for the treatment of recalcitrant AR ARIA experts suggest the use of oral, but not intramuscular, GCS: a quarter of pulmonologists, pediatricians and GPs considers they should not be used. Contrarily, 40% of ENTs favors intramuscular GCS. In patients with AR and comorbid asthma several physicians of all specialties –except pulmonologists- erroneously considers antihistamines, intranasal GCS and LTRAs useful for the treatment of asthma, while first-line recommended asthma treatment is inhaled GCS.Conclusion On certain issues in the treatment of AR the physicians’ opinion diverges from the recommendations/suggestions of ARIA experts. Moreover, physicians’ opinions depend on their specialty. As such, an online survey can help to detect knowledge-gaps and guide the development of more focused and specialty-specific postgraduate learning tools.

Self-Medication in Persistent Rhinitis: Overuse of Decongestants in Half of the Patients

Patients with rhinitis often self-medicate with over-the-counter drugs, however this self-treating population has remained largely unstudied. To characterize individuals self-medicating persistent rhinitis and to determine the prevalence of and risk factors for intranasal decongestant overuse within this population. A cross-sectional observational study of individuals self-medicating persistent rhinitis (defined according to the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines). Participants (n= 895) completed a self-administered questionnaire to assess current symptoms, rhinitis medication, and previous physician diagnosis. Intranasal decongestant overuse was defined as daily use for at least 1 year. The vast majority of subjects (95%) had moderate-to-severe rhinitis. Nasal congestion was the predominant symptom (median visual analog scale, 6.6 cm; interquartile range, 3.4 cm). Sixty-five percent had had their current nasal problems for more than 5 years. Approximately 80% had a physician diagnosis (mainly allergic rhinitis or rhinosinusitis). The prevalence of intranasal decongestant overuse was high (49%), despite the fact that most of the patients (80%) were educated about the limit on duration of use. Use of intranasal glucocorticosteroids was inversely related to being an overuser (odds ratio 0.24 [95% CI, 0.17-0.35]). The risk of intranasal decongestant overuse also was reduced by use of other medications (oral H1 antihistamines and decongestants), use of nasal saline solution, and more symptoms of itchy and/or runny eyes or colored mucus. Risk was increased by a more severely blocked nose, longer duration of symptoms, the presence of sleep disturbance, higher body mass index, and previous advice to limit the duration of intranasal decongestant use. Half of the individuals self-medicating persistent rhinitis overused intranasal decongestants, despite the fact that they were educated about the limit on duration of use.

No high level evidence to support the use of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema: a summary of a Cochrane systematic review

BackgroundThe most important symptom as well as one of the major diagnostic criteria for eczema is itch. Although oral antihistamines continue to be prescribed for people with eczema, it is unclear if they are effective and safe in relieving itch and skin lesions. We sought to evaluate the available evidence on effectiveness of oral antihistamines (H1 antagonists) as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema.MethodsSearches included 10 databases and trial registers as well as conference proceedings (January 2014). Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy in children and adults with eczema were included.ResultsOur searches retrieved 757 references, but no randomised controlled trial met our inclusion criteria. Most studies allowed concomitant treatments, making the assessment of the individual effects of oral H1 antihistamines impossible.ConclusionsThere is currently no high-level evidence to support or refute the efficacy or safety of oral H1 antihistamines used as monotherapy for eczema. A further review of studies that assesses the effects of oral H1 antihistamines as ‘add-on’ therapy together with concomitant treatments is warranted to determine the beneficial effects of this group of medications in the treatment of eczema.

Efficacy and safety of the probiotic Lactobacillus paracasei LP-33 in allergic rhinitis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (GA2LEN Study)

An imbalance between Th1 and Th2 cells is involved in allergic rhinitis (AR) that may be improved by probiotics. To test the efficacy of the probiotic Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei LP-33, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial was carried out in patients with AR to grass pollen treated with loratadine and presenting altered quality of life. Subjects with persistent AR, symptomatic during the grass pollen season, and a positive skin test or specific immunoglobulin E to grass pollens were included by general practitioners (GPs). All received loratadine for 5 weeks. The primary end point was the improvement in Rhinitis Quality of Life (RQLQ) global score at the fifth week of LP-33 consumption compared with placebo (in addition to loratadine). Secondary end points included nasal and ocular symptoms (individual and total symptom scores), visual analogue scale and time of first exacerbation of the symptoms when loratadine was stopped. A total of 425 subjects were included. Using intent-to-treat analysis, the RQLQ global score decreased significantly more in the LP-33 group than in the placebo group (P=0.0255, difference=-0.286 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.536; -0.035)). No significant differences were noted for the change of the rhinitis total symptom score 5 global score between groups (P=0.1288, difference=-0.452 (95% CI: -1.036; 0.132)). Significant differences in ocular symptoms (RQLQ) were observed between groups (P=0.0029, difference=-0.4087 (95% CI: -0.6768; -0.1407)). This study performed by GPs shows that LP-33 improves the quality of life of subjects with persistent AR who are currently being treated with an oral H1-antihistamine. Whereas nasal symptoms had not changed, ocular symptoms had consistently improved.

Allergic contact dermatitis in children: Culpable factors, diagnosis and management

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is not uncommon in children. Prevalence of ACD was previously thought to be low in children and adolescents, but of late increased prevalence has been reported. Actual increase in the prevalence could be due to increased recognition of the disease or due to other factors such as changes in lifestyle. Various factors such as age, gender, atopy, social and cultural practices, habits of parents and caregivers, and geographical changes may influence the prevalence and pattern of ACD in children. It can significantly affect the quality of life among children. ACD can affect various sites, including hands, face, neck, axillae, trunk, anogenital region, thigh, feet, and others, depending on the site of exposure to allergen. Common allergens implicated in childhood ACD include nickel, cobalt, potassium dichromate, mercury, aluminium, skin care products, fragrances, neomycin, dyes, preservatives, rubber, and so on. Identification of the implicated allergen is vital as the patient may experience recurrent episodes of dermatitis in the absence of avoidance of allergen. Patch testing is by far the commonly used method of identification of the causative allergen. The only etiologic treatment is elimination of the contact allergen. The patients/parents should be informed about the identity of the offending agent and the possible sources of the sensitizer. Topical steroids used in the acute stage and topical calcineurin inhibitors along with oral H1-antihistamines to alleviate itching are the mainstay of treatment. In widespread and severe cases, systemic corticosteroids may be indicated for a short period of time. The prognosis of ACD is dependent on its cause and the feasibility of avoiding repeated or continued exposure to the causative allergen.

Chronic pruritus associated with dermatologic disease in infancy and childhood: Update from an interdisciplinary group of dermatologists and pediatricians

An effective treatment strategy for chronic pruritus in children with dermatologic disorders should consider the multidimensional aspects of pruritus, the unique challenges associated with treating pruritic skin disorders in the pediatric population, and evidence-based therapies with demonstrated antipruritic benefits and clinically relevant effects on patient/family quality of life (QoL). The Course of Advanced Learning for the Management of ITch (CALM-IT) Task Force is an interdisciplinary group of experts specializing in core aspects of pruritus treatment, integrating pediatrics, dermatology, psychotherapy, pruritus management, and sleep. CALM-IT recently convened to provide updated guidance on managing chronic pruritus associated with dermatologic diseases in pediatric patients, with a special focus on atopic dermatitis (AD) and chronic spontaneous urticaria (csU). This review highlights the updated concepts and best practices, which were built upon international PRACTALL consensus and modified for children and infants with AD and csU. CALM-IT supports the routine use of basic skin therapy and the escalation of topical medications, according to severity and focused on rapid itch control. Anti-inflammatory agents should be appropriate for infants and children (i.e., with an optimized therapeutic index) and have proven antipruritic properties, such as those demonstrated by methylprednisolone aceponate. New experimental findings do not support the use of non-sedating oral antihistamines as adjuvant antipruritic therapy for AD. In csU, oral H1 -antihistamine use is justified, consistent with the distinct pathophysiologic mechanisms of itch underlying AD and csU. All encompassing QoL assessments should consider the burden of both patient and caregiver and should address outstanding unmet clinical needs of pediatric patients. Future research areas include integrated QoL assessments and multidisciplinary treatment programs with pediatric-targeted pruritic therapies providing rapid itch control.

Oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema

Oral H1 antihistamines as monotherapy for eczema