Effectiveness and safety of antihistamines up to fourfold or higher in treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with second-generation antihistamines is recommended in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Some patients remain unresponsive even after up-dosing up to fourfold. Many third line treatment options have limited availability and/or give rise to significant side effects. We investigated effectiveness and safety of antihistamine treatment with dosages up to fourfold and higher. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of patients' records was performed in adult CSU patients suffering wheals and/or angioedema (AE). Demographic, clinical, and therapeutic data was extracted from their medical records. We recorded the type, maximum prescribed dosage, effectiveness, and reported side effects of antihistamine treatment. RESULTS: Of 200 screened patients, 178 were included. Treatment was commenced with a once daily dose of antihistamines. Persisting symptoms meant that up-dosing up to fourfold occurred in 138 (78%) of patients, yielding sufficient response in 41 (23%). Up-dosing antihistamines was necessary in 110 (80%) patient with weals alone or weals with angioedema and 28 (64%) with AE only (p = 0.039). Of the remaining 97 patients with insufficient response, 59 were treated with dosages higher than fourfold (median dosage 8, range 5-12). This was sufficient in 29 patients (49%). Side effects were reported in 36 patients (20%), whereof 30 (17%) experienced somnolence. Side effects after up-dosing higher than fourfold were reported in six out of 59 patients (10%). CONCLUSION: Up-dosing antihistamines higher than fourfold dosage seems a feasible therapeutic option with regards to effectiveness and safety. The need for third line therapies could be decreased by 49%, with a very limited increase of reported side effects.

Results of a cosmetovigilance survey in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Cosmetic products contribute considerably to the incidence of contact dermatitis. In response to a resolution of the Council of Europe, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) in The Netherlands set up a pilot project to report undesirable effects attributed to cosmetic products. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of undesirable effects attributed to cosmetic products and to identify the ingredients involved. The information could contribute to the assessment of whether current EU legislation on cosmetics provides adequate protection. PATIENTS/METHODS: General practitioners, dermatologists and consumers in The Netherlands completed questionnaires on reported undesirable effects of cosmetics. Dermatologists also carried out patch tests and, where necessary, tests with specific batch ingredients of the associated cosmetic product. A website and a public awareness campaign were launched to encourage consumers to report undesirable effects. RESULTS: Between July 2009 and May 2011, the RIVM received more than 1600 reports. Severe undesirable effects were claimed in 1-4% of the cases. The most frequently reported cosmetic products were make-up and moisturisers, and the most frequently identified allergens were isothiazolinones and fragrance ingredients. Three patients tested positive for co-polymers/cross-polymers. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigations are recommended on the prevalence of isothiazolinone-induced allergic contact dermatitis and the allergenic potential of co-polymers/cross-polymers.