Efficacy and safety of switching to bilastine, an H1-antihistamine, in patients with refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (H1-SWITCH): a multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group comparative study.

Background: For treating patients with refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) resistant to standard doses of 2nd generation H1-antihistamines (H1AH) the International and Japanese guidelines recommend increasing H1AH dose. The latter also recommends switching to a different H1AH. This study explored if the efficacy of the standard dose of bilastine 20 mg is non-inferior to that of double-dose of H1AH in patients with refractory CSU. Methods: This phase IV, multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of switching treatment to bilastine compared to treatment with a 2-fold dose of H1AH in patients with CSU refractory to standard dose H1AH. The primary endpoint was the mean total symptom score (TSS) at Day 5-7 after the start of administration. Results: Treatment efficacy and safety were evaluated in 128 patients (bilastine, n=64; 2-fold dose of H1AH, n=64). The mean TSS at Day 5-7 after the start of administration was smaller than the non-inferiority margin of 0.8, demonstrating non-inferiority of the bilastine switching group to the double-dose H1AH group (0.17 (95% CI -0.32, 0.67)). No difference in Japanese version of Epworth Sleepiness Scale (JESS), DLQI, and urticaria activity score over 7 consecutive days (UAS7) was observed between the two groups. There were no serious adverse events in either group. H1AH-related adverse events occurred in 5 subjects (8 cases) and 2 subjects (3 cases) in the double-dose H1AH and bilastine groups, respectively. Conclusions: Switching treatment to bilastine demonstrated non-inferiority to a double-dose of H1AH in terms of efficacy in patients with CSU refractory to standard dose H1AH with a favorable safety profile. Clinical trial registration: https://jrct.niph.go.jp/latest-detail/jRCTs051180105, identifier jRCTs051180105.

Comparative inhibition by oral bilastine, parenteral dexchlorpheniramine, and a new bilastine parenteral (i.v. and i.m.) formulation of histamine-induced wheal and flare response: A randomised phase I trial.

BACKGROUND: Bilastine is a well-known non-sedating second-generation antihistamine authorised worldwide for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (seasonal and perennial) and urticaria with proven efficacy and good safety and tolerability profile. When the oral route is not suitable or a rapid onset of action is preferred, parenteral formulations represent an effective treatment option. However, the parenteral formulations currently available are sedating antihistamines. The objective of this research was to compare the peripheral anti-H1 activity of different bilastine formulations (i.v., i.m. and oral) and dexchlorpheniramine among them also versus placebo. METHODS: This was a single-dose, randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase I clinical study performed on 25 adult healthy volunteers that compared the peripheral antihistaminic activity of a single dose of bilastine 12 mg i.v., bilastine 12 mg i.m., bilastine 20 mg oral tablets and dexchlorpheniramine 5 mg i.m. among them and versus placebo by inhibiting the histamine-induced wheal and flare (W&F) response. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: All bilastine formulations showed a rapid onset of action (15 min for parenteral and 30 min for the oral formulation), and the maximum effect in both wheal (i.v. 74.44 %; i.m.:74.29 %; oral 70,27 %) and flare area reduction (i.v. and i.m. 80.63 %; oral 77.67 %), was significantly larger compared to dexchlorpheniramine i.m. (25.85 % for wheal and 28.65 % for flare) and placebo (1.35 % for wheal and 4.02 % for flare). A more pronounced reduction in itching score was reached for bilastine oral, followed by i.m. and i.v. formulations. No serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported during the study, and 8 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 5 subjects, all resolved without sequelae. For psychomotor assessments, dexchlorpheniramine i.m. showed a fast onset of drowsiness, as well as decreased attention and coordination when compared to all bilastine formulations and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: All bilastine formulations showed a peripheral H1-blocking effect inducing a significantly greater inhibition of the wheal and flare response as compared to dexchlorpheniramine i.m. or placebo and provided a greater reduction of the itching sensation score. This study reconfirmed that bilastine has no sedative effect, even in a parenteral formulation. These results suggest that new bilastine parenteral formulation (i.v. or i.m.) may represent a suitable alternative for patients requiring immediate treatment of histamine-mediated type I hypersensitivity reactions, such as acute urticaria, or in those cases where oral administration is not possible.

Current insights on gut microbiome and chronic urticaria: progress in the pathogenesis and opportunities for novel therapeutic approaches.

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a prevalent skin disorder greatly impacting the patients' life quality, in which immune dysregulation mediated by gut microbiome plays a significant role. Several studies have found the gut dysbiosis exists in patients with CU. In addition, infection may also be one of the causes of CU. The primary treatment currently used for CU is the second-generation non-sedating H1-antihistamines (nsAH). However, there are some limitations in current therapies. Based on the latest evidence, this review provides an updated overview of how the gut dysbiosis influences CU development, explores potential therapeutic approaches based on the gut microbiota and summarizes the interaction between gut microbiota and current treatment.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists as add-on therapy to antihistamines for urticaria: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of adding antileukotrienes to H1 antihistamines (AHs) for the management of urticaria (hives, itch, and/or angioedema) remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the treatment outcomes of antileukotrienes in combination with AHs versus AHs alone for acute and chronic urticaria. METHODS: As part of updating American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters urticaria guidelines, we searched Medline, Embase, Central, LILACS, WPRIM, IBECS, ICTRP, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to December 18, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antileukotrienes and AHs versus AHs alone in patients with urticaria. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects models pooled effect estimates for urticaria activity, itch, wheal, sleep, quality of life, and harms. The GRADE approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. The study was registered at the Open Science Framework (osf.io/h2bfx/). RESULTS: Thirty-four RCTs enrolled 3324 children and adults. Compared to AHs alone, the combination of a leukotriene receptor antagonist with AHs probably modestly reduces urticaria activity (mean difference, -5.04; 95% confidence interval, -6.36 to -3.71; 7-day urticaria activity score) with moderate certainty. We made similar findings for itch and wheal severity as well as quality of life. Adverse events were probably not different between groups (moderate certainty); however, no RCT reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events. CONCLUSION: Among patients with urticaria, adding leukotriene receptor antagonists to AHs probably modestly improves urticaria activity with little to no increase in overall adverse events. The added risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events in this population with leukotriene receptor antagonists is small and uncertain.

Effect of Switching the Histamine-1 Receptor Antagonist Clemastine to Cetirizine in Paclitaxel Premedication Regimens: The H1-Switch Study.

PURPOSE: Premedication, including a histamine-1 receptor (H1) antagonist, is recommended to all patients treated with paclitaxel chemotherapy to reduce the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). However, the scientific basis for this premedication is not robust, which provides opportunities for optimization. Substitution of intravenously administered first-generation H1 antagonist for orally administered second-generation H1 antagonist could reduce side effects, and improve efficiency and sustainability. This study investigates the efficacy and safety of substituting intravenous clemastine for oral cetirizine as prophylaxis for paclitaxel-induced HSRs. METHODS: This single-center, prospective, noninferiority study compares a historic cohort receiving a premedication regimen with intravenous clemastine to a prospective cohort receiving oral cetirizine. Primary end point of the study is HSR grade ≥3. The difference in incidence was calculated together with the 90% CI. We determined that the two-sided 90% CI of HSR grade ≥3 incidence in the oral cetirizine cohort should not be more than 4% higher (ie, the noninferiority margin) compared with the intravenous clemastine cohort. RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve patients were included in the oral cetirizine cohort (June 2022 and May 2023) and 183 in the intravenous clemastine cohort. HSR grade ≥3 incidence was 1.6% (n = 3) in the intravenous clemastine cohort and 0.5% (n = 1) in the oral cetirizine cohort, resulting in a difference of -1.2% (90% CI, -3.4 to 1.1). CONCLUSION: Premedication containing oral cetirizine is as safe as premedication containing intravenous clemastine in preventing paclitaxel-induced HSR grade ≥3. These findings could contribute to optimization of care for patients and improve efficiency and sustainability.

Cumulative Dose Effects of H1 Antihistamine Use on the Risk of Dementia in Patients With Allergic Rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: H1 antihistamines (AHs), categorized as first-generation antihistamines (FGAs) or second-generation antihistamines (SGAs), possess anticholinergic properties linked to heightened dementia risk. OBJECTIVES: To explore dementia risk in patients with allergic rhinitis using AHs. METHODS: Taiwanese patients with new-onset allergic rhinitis (2011-2017) constituted the study population (677,971 with FGAs or SGAs, 36,081 without AHs). AH use was measured in cumulative defined daily dose (cDDD). Patients were grouped by cDDD (nonuser, <60 cDDD, 60-120 cDDD, and >120 cDDD). A Cox proportional hazard model assessed the AH-dementia association. Sensitivity analysis explored AH effects on dementia risk across subgroups and associations between specific AHs and dementia types. RESULTS: FGAs in patients with allergic rhinitis were associated with elevated dementia risk. At less than 60 cDDD, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.09-1.17); at 60 to 120 cDDD, aHR was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.21-1.38); and at more than 120 cDDD, aHR was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.42-1.62). SGAs also raised dementia risk. At less than 60 cDDD, aHR was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.17); at 60 to 120 cDDD, aHR was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.12-1.26); and at more than 120 cDDD, aHR was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.19-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with allergic rhinitis on FGAs or SGAs face an escalating dementia risk with increasing cumulative dosage. Moreover, FGAs exhibit a higher dementia risk compared with SGAs. Nevertheless, extensive clinical trials are imperative for confirming the association between FGA use, SGA use, and dementia risk.

A Pilot Study of Ketotifen in Patients Aged 8-17 Years with Functional Dyspepsia Associated with Mucosal Eosinophilia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Mast cells have been implicated in abdominal pain-associated disorders of gut-brain interaction, such as functional dyspepsia. As such, ketotifen, a second-generation antihistamine and mast cell stabilizer, could represent a viable treatment option in these conditions. The primary aim of the current pilot study was to assess clinical response to ketotifen and assess pharmacokinetics in youth with functional dyspepsia. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial of ketotifen in 11 youth with functional dyspepsia and duodenal mucosal eosinophilia with 4 weeks of active treatment at a dose of 1 mg twice daily. Global clinical response was graded on a 5-point Likert Scale. A single plasma sample was obtained at steady state for pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: Ketotifen was not superior to placebo with regard to global clinical response. Only 18% of patients demonstrated a complete or near-complete clinical response. The estimated half-life was 3.3 h. CONCLUSIONS: While ketotifen was not superior to placebo, this study highlights several important challenges for developing drug trials for youth with chronic abdominal pain. Recommendations are made for designing a larger treatment trial for ketotifen in this patient group. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02484248.

Update on Urticaria and Angioedema.

Urticaria and angioedema are caused by immunoglobulin E- and non-immunoglobulin E-mediated release of histamine and other inflammatory mediators from mast cells and basophils. Diagnosis is made clinically, and anaphylaxis must be ruled out if urticaria or angioedema is present. A limited nonspecific laboratory workup should be considered unless elements of the history or physical examination suggest specific underlying conditions. The mainstay of treatment is avoidance of triggers when and if triggers are identified. The first-line pharmacotherapy is second-generation H1 antihistamines, which can be titrated to greater than standard doses.

Advances in clinical application of H1 antihistamines in the treatment of skin diseases. / H1æŠ—ç»„èƒºè¯åœ¨çš®è‚¤ç— æ²»ç–—ä¸­çš„ä¸´åºŠåº”ç”¨è¿›å±•.

Histamine receptors are classified into 4 types: H1, H2, H3, and H4, each mediating distinct physiological effects and possessing its corresponding antagonistshat that can be used for the prevention and treatment of various diseases. Among them, H1 antihistamines are the fundamental medications in dermatology and are widely used in many diseases such as urticaria and atopic dermatitis. In recent years, with the emergence of novel antihistamines and the discovery of new potential indications for traditional H1 antihistamines, the clinical application of antihistamines is facing new challenges. Further investigation of the novel mechanism for H1 antihistamines, the use of multiple doses of common drugs and potential indications will furnish vital insights for practical clinical application.

The socio-economic burden of H1-antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria in Germany.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Data from the AWARE study (A Worldwide Antihistamine-Refractory chronic urticaria patient Evaluation) illustrate a substantial disease burden in German patients with H1-antihistamine (-H1-AH)-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Detrimental effects on patients' quality of life, poor disease control and impairment in the ability to work and perform other daily activities are reported. Based on these findings, this study aims to quantify the epidemiological and socio-economic burden of H1-AH-refractory CSU in Germany. METHODS: To determine the epidemiological burden of H1-AH-refractory CSU, the age- and gender-specific prevalence of CSU and the proportion of H1-AH-refractory patients in Germany anonymized data from the InGef research database have been used. In a second step, the socio-economic burden in terms of lost numbers of hours in paid and unpaid work was calculated by extrapolating the age- and gender-specific work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) observed in AWARE to the H1-AH-refractory CSU population in Germany. Finally, productivity losses in paid and unpaid work were monetized using the human capital and the friction cost approach respectively. Moreover, socio-economic burden was calculated depending on symptom control of the patients (measured by urticaria control test [UCT]). RESULTS: In Germany, over 203,000 patients (20 years or older) had H1-AH-refractory CSU in 2018. The avoided lost paid and unpaid work hours attributable to H1-AH-refractory CSU summed up to over 100 million. Overall, the socio-economic burden of H1-AH-refractory CSU in monetary terms was evaluated at € 2.2 billion and the majority of this was due to unpaid work loss. Patients with poor disease control, as indicated by UCT score < 12, were more likely to suffer from high impairment than patients with controlled disease, resulting in a higher socio-economic burden. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our analyses picture the substantial socio-economic burden of H1-AH-refractory CSU and therefore the tremendous impact it has on daily lives of individuals and society overall.

Diphenhydramine and Migraine Treatment Failure in Pediatric Patients Receiving Prochlorperazine.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives are to determine whether diphenhydramine coadministered with prochlorperazine versus prochlorperazine only is associated with a difference in the risk of migraine treatment failure, as measured by the need for additional therapy, hospitalization rates, and 72-hour return rates, and to compare extrapyramidal adverse effects between groups. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients aged 7 to 18 years treated in the emergency department for migraines using prochlorperazine with or without diphenhydramine between 2013 and 2019. Patients were included if they had International Classification of Diseases, Ninth or Tenth Revision, codes for migraine or unspecified headache and were treated with prochlorperazine as part of their initial migraine therapy. Data collected included demographics, medications administered, pain scores, neuroimaging, disposition, return visits, and documentation of extrapyramidal adverse effects. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between diphenhydramine coadministration and each of the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1683 patients were included. Overall, 13% required additional therapy with a 16.7% admission rate and a 72-hour return rate of 5.3%. There was no association between initial treatment with diphenhydramine and the odds of additional therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.74 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.53-1.03]), admission rates (aOR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.89-1.67]), or return visit rates (aOR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.55-1.51]). Extrapyramidal adverse effects occurred in 2.4% of patients in the prochlorperazine group and 0% in the prochlorperazine with diphenhydramine group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no association between diphenhydramine coadministration and the need for additional therapy, 72-hour return visit rates or admission rates. Extrapyramidal effects did not occur in patients treated with diphenhydramine.

Clinical Characteristics, Investigations and Treatment in Children with Chronic Urticaria: An Observational Study.

Background and Objectives: The guidelines for chronic urticaria in children contain recommendations that are often based on adult studies. The diagnostic pathway has not been standardized and the effectiveness of anti-H1, omalizumab, montelukast, and systemic glucocorticoids is rarely reported in the pediatric population. There is a wide variation in the rate of remission of chronic urticaria between studies. The aim of this study is to enhance our understanding of pediatric chronic urticaria. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 37 children with chronic urticaria aged from 0 to 18 years. Demographic parameters, medical history, clinical features, laboratory data and treatment information were collected. Children were treated with the recommended dosage of second-generation H1-antihistamines, which was increased by up to twofold. Omalizumab was added for refractory anti-H1 patients. A three-day course with systemic glucocorticoids was administered for severe exacerbations. Montelukast was administered to some children. Results: Wheals without angioedema were common. Chronic urticaria was spontaneous in 32 children (86.48%), inducible in 2 (5.41%), induced by a parasite in 1 and vasculitic in 2. Treatment of the potential causes of chronic urticaria was of no benefit, except for eradication of Dientamoeba fragilis. Chronic urticaria was resolved within three years in 45.9% of cases. Allergic diseases were present in nine children (24.32%) and autoimmune diseases were present in three (8.11%). All children were treated with anti-H1 at the licensed dose or at a higher dose. A partial or complete response to anti-H1 was observed in 29 (78.38%) patients. Montelukast showed no benefit. All children treated with omalizumab responded. Systemic glucocorticoids were successfully used to treat exacerbations. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that laboratory tests should not be routinely performed in children with chronic urticaria without clinical suspicion. However, comorbidities such as thyroid autoimmune disease and coeliac disease are suggested to be monitored over the chronic urticaria course. These clinical conditions could be diagnosed from the diagnostic framework of chronic urticaria. Increasing the dosage of anti-H1 and omalizumab was effective in children resistant to standard treatment but we still need further studies to generate a standard patient-centered treatment.

Blockade of histamine receptor H1 augments immune checkpoint therapy by enhancing MHC-I expression in pancreatic cancer cells.

BACKGROUND: Although immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy has proven to be extremely effective at managing certain cancers, its efficacy in treating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been limited. Therefore, enhancing the effect of ICB could improve the prognosis of PDAC. In this study, we focused on the histamine receptor H1 (HRH1) and investigated its impact on ICB therapy for PDAC. METHODS: We assessed HRH1 expression in pancreatic cancer cell (PCC) specimens from PDAC patients through public data analysis and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. The impact of HRH1 in PCCs was evaluated using HRH1 antagonists and small hairpin RNA (shRNA). Techniques including Western blot, flow cytometry, quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and microarray analyses were performed to identify the relationships between HRH1 and major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC-I) expression in cancer cells. We combined HRH1 antagonism or knockdown with anti-programmed death receptor 1 (αPD-1) therapy in orthotopic models, employing IHC, immunofluorescence, and hematoxylin and eosin staining for assessment. RESULTS: HRH1 expression in cancer cells was negatively correlated with HLA-ABC expression, CD8+ T cells, and cytotoxic CD8+ T cells. Our findings indicate that HRH1 blockade upregulates MHC-I expression in PCCs via cholesterol biosynthesis signaling. In the orthotopic model, the combined inhibition of HRH1 and αPD-1 blockade enhanced cytotoxic CD8+ T cell penetration and efficacy, overcoming resistance to ICB therapy. CONCLUSIONS: HRH1 plays an immunosuppressive role in cancer cells. Consequently, HRH1 intervention may be a promising method to amplify the responsiveness of PDAC to immunotherapy.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists as adjuvant therapy of antihistamines in chronic urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Certain guidelines recommend a second-generation H1-antihistamine (AH) as first-line treatment for patients with chronic urticaria (CU). However, some patients show insufficient response to a standard dose of this therapy and might benefit from adding leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTA). Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LTA plus antihistamines with antihistamines alone. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing LTA plus AH treatment to AH alone in patients with CU. Statistical analysis was performed using R Studio 4.3.2. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Three studies comprising 234 patients with urticaria were included. The mean age was 37.23 years in the leukotriene antagonist + antihistamines (LTA + AH) group and 39.14 years in the antihistamines (AH) group. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 18 months between studies. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of TSS level (SMD: -74.82; 95% CI: -222.66 to 73.02; P = 0.32; I2 = 98%), neither in terms of pruritus (MD: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.42 to 0.28; P = 0.70; I2 = 74%). After sensitivity analysis, with the systematic exclusion of each study from the grouped estimates, the result for TSS level did not change. These findings suggest that leukotriene receptor antagonists with antihistamines do not have better outcomes than antihistamines alone regarding TSS and pruritus in patients with CU.

Allergic Rhinitis: A Review.

Importance: Allergic rhinitis affects an estimated 15% of the US population (approximately 50 million individuals) and is associated with the presence of asthma, eczema, chronic or recurrent sinusitis, cough, and both tension and migraine headaches. Observations: Allergic rhinitis occurs when disruption of the epithelial barrier allows allergens to penetrate the mucosal epithelium of nasal passages, inducing a T-helper type 2 inflammatory response and production of allergen-specific IgE. Allergic rhinitis typically presents with symptoms of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drainage, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. In an international study, the most common symptoms of allergic rhinitis were rhinorrhea (90.38%) and nasal congestion (94.23%). Patients with nonallergic rhinitis present primarily with nasal congestion and postnasal drainage frequently associated with sinus pressure, ear plugging, muffled sounds and pain, and eustachian tube dysfunction that is less responsive to nasal corticosteroids. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis typically have physical examination findings of edematous and pale turbinates. Patients with perennial allergic rhinitis typically have erythematous and inflamed turbinates with serous secretions that appear similar to other forms of chronic rhinitis at physical examination. Patients with nonallergic rhinitis have negative test results for specific IgE aeroallergens. Intermittent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring less than 4 consecutive days/week or less than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Persistent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring more often than 4 consecutive days/week and for more than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Patients with allergic rhinitis should avoid inciting allergens. In addition, first-line treatment for mild intermittent or mild persistent allergic rhinitis may include a second-generation H1 antihistamine (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine) or an intranasal antihistamine (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), whereas patients with persistent moderate to severe allergic rhinitis should be treated initially with an intranasal corticosteroid (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) either alone or in combination with an intranasal antihistamine. In contrast, first-line therapy for patients with nonallergic rhinitis consists of an intranasal antihistamine as monotherapy or in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid. Conclusions and Relevance: Allergic rhinitis is associated with symptoms of nasal congestion, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. Patients with allergic rhinitis should be instructed to avoid inciting allergens. Therapies include second-generation H1 antihistamines (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine), intranasal antihistamines (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), and intranasal corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) and should be selected based on the severity and frequency of symptoms and patient preference.

UCOMB-real life data: treatment strategies for chronic urticaria patients with comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of real-life safety data on treatment options for chronic urticaria in the presence of comedication and comorbidities. METHODS: We present a single-center UCARE pilot study of 212 outpatients with chronic urticaria. Patients were divided into three groups according to different CU therapies according to international guidelines. RESULTS: Of 212 patients, 108 (mean age 48.9 years, 71.3% female) had 59 comorbidities, including cardiovascular, autoimmune and malignant diseases. Patients were followed for a mean of 24.6 months (SD ± 21.3). Urticaria therapies were divided into three groups: A: 105 (97.2%) with omalizumab and 2nd generation antihistamines), B: 16 patients (14.8%): dual therapy with antihistamines and cyclosporine in 10 (9.3%), montelukast in five (4. 6%), dapsone in four (3.7%), hydroxychloroquine in one patient (0.9%), C: 12 (11.1%) patients received a third drug for 4.9 months (SD ± 3.2) and one quadruple therapy (2.1 months). 10 out of 12 (83.3%) patients received montelukast, two (16.7%) cyclosporine, two (16.7%) dapsone and one (8.3%) hydroxychloroquine as a third drug for chronic urticaria. CONCLUSIONS: Combining treatment modalities for chronic urticaria and comorbidities are available and feasible with a good safety profile.

Treatment of acute urticaria: A systematic review.

There are only a few clinical trials which address the treatment of acute urticaria (AU). Especially, the added value of systemic corticosteroids to antihistamines is unclear in treatment of severe AU. To review the existing evidence-based approaches for AU treatment. A systematic electronic search was done in PubMed and Web of Science to retrieve all studies on the treatment of patients with AU. A descriptive synthesis was conducted based on the PRISMA statement. Quality assessment was independently performed by both reviewers ('Cochrane risk-of-bias tool' for RCTs). Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 857 participants) were included. Four studies assessed corticosteroid effectiveness added to antihistamines and six studies compared the efficacy of H1 and/ or H2-antihistamines. The addition of corticosteroid (prednisone) to an antihistamine (levo)cetirizine did not improve symptoms of AU compared to antihistamine alone in two out of three RCTs. The combination of diphenhydramine (50 mg, IV) and ranitidine (50 mg, IV) or cimetidine (300 mg, IV) was most efficient for relief of urticaria in two out of five studies. Most frequent adverse effects were sedation and drowsiness. Recent guidelines on urticaria treatment mainly focus on chronic urticaria rather than on AU. Moreover, only few, small RCTs provide evidence for the management of AU. Thus, the state-of-the-art management of this frequent condition remains unclear. The addition of corticosteroids to an antihistamine as treatment for AU needs to be further investigated. Well-designed, high-quality interventional trials are needed to establish evidence-based treatment guidelines for AU.

Shedding light on dermographism: a narrative review.

Dermographism is a common subtype of chronic urticaria. It generally manifests as a linear wheal after scratching or friction, with or without angioedema. The pathophysiology is not clear, but currently, we believe that the stimulation of the skin by mechanical stress leads to the activation of mast cells, which provoke the release of histamine and pro-inflammatory mediators, ultimately forming wheal along the stressed area. The gold standard for diagnosis is a medical history and provocation test or dermatographic test. As one of the subtypes of chronic urticaria, the Urticaria Control Test (UCT), Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life questionnaire (CU-Q2oL), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) are also effective tools for evaluating disease control in dermographism patients. In addition to avoiding triggers, nonsedating H1 antihistamines are the first-line medications recommended by EAACI and other guidelines; for those who do not respond to standard doses, the recommended dosage can be increased up to 4 times. When necessary, the off-label use of omalizumab can be considered, and some drugs with potential therapeutic effects are still being explored. However, there is still a lack of biomarkers for predicting disease severity, efficacy, and prognosis. Here, we review what we know about dermographism and some points that need exploration in the future.

Discovery of the novel and potent histamine H1 receptor antagonists for treatment of allergic diseases.

Desloratadine, a second-generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist, has established itself as a first-line drug for the treatment of allergic diseases. Despite its effectiveness, desloratadine exhibits an antagonistic effect on muscarinic M3 receptor, which can cause side effects such as dry mouth and urinary retention, ultimately limiting its clinical application. Herein, we describe the discovery of compound Ⅲ-4, a novel H1 receptor antagonist with significant H1 receptor antagonistic activity (IC50 = 24.12 nM) and enhanced selectivity towards peripheral H1 receptor. In particular, Ⅲ-4 exhibits reduced M3 receptor inhibitory potency (IC50 > 10,000 nM) and acceptable hERG inhibitory activity (17.6 ± 2.1 µM) compare with desloratadine. Additionally, Ⅲ-4 exhibits favorable pharmacokinetic properties, as well as in vivo efficacy and safety profiles. All of these reveal that Ⅲ-4 has potential to emerge as a novel H1 receptor antagonist for the treatment of allergic diseases. More importantly, the compound Ⅲ-4 (HY-078020) has recently been granted clinical approval.