Efficacy and safety of on-demand versus daily rupatadine in chronic spontaneous urticaria: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-sedating H1 -antihistamines (nsAH) are the most commonly used treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Many patients use them as on-demand (OD) therapy rather than a maintenance treatment. Here, we compared OD versus daily maintenance treatment with the nsAH rupatadine, assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing, and investigated potential long-term disease-modifying effects. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized study consisted of 2 weeks of screening, 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, and 6 weeks of treatment-free follow-up (OD allowed). Adult patients were randomized to 10 mg rupatadine OD or 10 mg rupatadine daily. At Week 4, if patients did not have a complete response, they switched from 10 to 20 mg rupatadine daily or underwent sham updosing (patients on 10 mg rupatadine OD). The primary aim was to compare CSU disease activity at the end of follow-up between daily versus OD. Additionally, we assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing. Major outcomes were disease activity, CSU-related quality of life (QoL), and disease control. RESULTS: At Week 4, disease activity and QoL significantly improved in daily versus OD-treated patients. Updosing of rupatadine did not improve the mean disease activity, but the number of complete responders increased during updosing from 5% to 22%. At the end of follow-up, the disease activity of patients treated OD versus daily was not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Daily rupatadine treatment significantly improved CSU disease activity and QoL during treatment versus OD treatment but not after discontinuation of rupatadine, indicating the benefits of a daily maintenance nsAH schedule.

S3 Guideline Urticaria. Part 1: Classification and diagnosis of urticaria - German-language adaptation of the international S3 Guideline.

The lifetime prevalence of urticaria, a severe allergic disease, is almost 20%. It not only limits the quality of life of those affected, but also their general performance at work and in their daily activities. This publication is the first section of the Urticaria Guideline. It covers the classification and diagnosis of urticaria, taking into account the major advances in research into its causes, triggering factors and pathomechanisms. It also addresses strategies for the efficient diagnosis of the different subtypes of urticaria. This is crucial for individual, patient-oriented treatment, which is covered in the second part of the guideline, published separately. This German-language guideline was developed according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system characteristics in the German-speaking countries. This first part of the guideline describes the classification of urticaria, distinguishing spontaneously occurring wheals (hives) and angioedema from forms of urticaria with inducible symptoms. Urticaria is defined as sudden onset of wheals, angioedema, or both, but is to be distinguished from conditions in which wheals occur as a short-term symptom, such as anaphylaxis. The diagnosis is based on (a limited number of) laboratory tests, but especially on medical history. In addition, validated instruments are available to measure the severity, activity and course of the disease.

S3 Guideline Urticaria. Part 2: Treatment of urticaria - German-language adaptation of the international S3 guideline.

This publication is the second part of the German-language S3 guideline on urticaria. It covers the management of urticaria and should be used together with Part 1 of the guideline on classification and diagnosis. This publication was prepared according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system conditions in German-speaking countries. Chronic urticaria has a high impact on the quality of life and daily activities of patients. Therefore, if causal factors cannot be eliminated, effective symptomatic treatment is necessary. The recommended first-line treatment is to administer new generation, non-sedating H1 antihistamines. If the standard dose is not sufficiently effective, the dose should be increased up to fourfold. For patients who do not respond to this treatment, the second-line treatment in addition to antihistamines in the treatment algorithm is omalizumab and, if this treatment fails, ciclosporin. Other low-evidence therapeutic agents should only be used if all treatments in the treatment algorithm agreed upon by the guideline group fail. Both the benefit-risk profile and cost should be considered. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their inevitable severe side effects.

S2k guideline diagnosis, prevention, and therapy of hand eczema.

The consensus-based guideline "Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema (HE)" provides concrete instructions and recommendations for diagnosis, prevention, and therapy of HE based on an evidence- and consensus-based approach. The guideline was created based on the German guideline "Management von Handekzemen" from 2009 and the current guideline of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) "Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema" from 2022. The general goal of the guideline is to provide dermatologists and allergologists in practice and clinics with an accepted, evidence-based decision-making tool for selecting and conducting suitable and sufficient therapy for patients with hand eczema. The guideline is based on two Cochrane reviews of therapeutic and preventive interventions for HE. The remaining chapters were mainly developed and consented based on non-systematic literature research by the expert group. The expert group consisted of members of allergological and occupational dermatological professional associations and working groups, a patient representative, and methodologists. The proposals for recommendations and key statements were consented by using a nominal group process during a consensus conference on September 15, 2022. The structured consensus-building process was professionally moderated. This guideline is valid until February 22, 2028.

Ligelizumab for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.

BACKGROUND: In the majority of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, most currently available therapies do not result in complete symptom control. Ligelizumab is a next-generation high-affinity humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody. Data are limited regarding the dose-response relationship of ligelizumab and the efficacy and safety of ligelizumab as compared with omalizumab and placebo in patients who have moderate-to-severe chronic spontaneous urticaria that is inadequately controlled with H1-antihistamines at approved or increased doses, alone or in combination with H2-antihistamines or leukotriene-receptor antagonists. METHODS: In a phase 2b dose-finding trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive ligelizumab at a dose of 24 mg, 72 mg, or 240 mg, omalizumab at a dose of 300 mg, or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for a period of 20 weeks, or a single 120-mg dose of ligelizumab. Disease symptoms of hives, itch, and angioedema were monitored by means of weekly activity scores. The main objective was to determine a dose-response relationship for the complete control of hives (indicated by a weekly hives-severity score of 0, on a scale from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater severity); the primary end point of this response was assessed at week 12. Complete symptom control was indicated by a weekly urticaria activity score of 0 (on a scale from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater severity). Safety was analyzed throughout the trial. RESULTS: A total of 382 patients underwent randomization. At week 12, a total of 30%, 51%, and 42% of the patients treated with 24 mg, 72 mg, and 240 mg, respectively, of ligelizumab had complete control of hives, as compared with 26% of the patients in the omalizumab group and no patients in the placebo group. A dose-response relationship was established. At week 12, a total of 30%, 44%, and 40% of the patients treated with 24 mg, 72 mg, and 240 mg, respectively, of ligelizumab had complete control of symptoms, as compared with 26% of the patients in the omalizumab group and no patients in the placebo group. In this small and short trial, no safety concerns regarding ligelizumab or omalizumab emerged. CONCLUSIONS: A higher percentage of patients had complete control of symptoms of chronic spontaneous urticaria with ligelizumab therapy of 72 mg or 240 mg than with omalizumab or placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477332.).

Management of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Systemic allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. In this study we assessed the management and outcome of suspected SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hypersensitivity. METHODS: Totally, 334 individuals underwent an allergy work up regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (group A: 115 individuals suspected to be at increased risk for vaccine-related reactions before vaccination and group B: 219 patients with reactions after COVID vaccination). The large majority of the SPT/IDT with the vaccines were negative; however, we identified in 14.1% (n = 47) a possible sensitization to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and/or its ingredients defined as one positive skin test. Of the 219 individuals (group B) who experienced symptoms suspicious for a hypersensitivity reaction after vaccination, 214 were reported after the first vaccination with a mRNA vaccine (157 mRNA (Comirnaty®, 38 Spikevax®) and 18 with a vector vaccine (Vaxzevria®), 5 cases were after the second vaccination. RESULTS: The symptom profile in group B was as follows: skin symptoms occurred in 115 cases (n = 59 angioedema, n = 50 generalized urticaria and n = 23 erythema/flush. Seventy individuals had cardiovascular, 53 respiratory and 17 gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the overall 334 individuals, 78 patients tolerated (re)-vaccination (out of skin test positive/negative 7/19 from group A and 17/35 from group B). CONCLUSION: Proven IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is extremely rare and not increased in comparison with reported hypersensitivity to other vaccines. The value of skin tests is unclear and nonspecific reactions, in particular when intradermal testing is applied, should be considered.

Contact sensitization to essential oils: IVDK data of the years 2010-2019.

BACKGROUND: Essential oils (EOs) are widely used in cosmetics, perfumes, massage fluids, aroma therapy and natural medicine. Some EOs contain contact sensitizers. OBJECTIVES: To describe the frequency of sensitization to EOs in dermatitis patients presenting in skin clinics including concomitant reactions, to evaluate the EO patch test preparations and to identify patient groups with an increased risk of EO sensitization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2010-2019. RESULTS: Twelve EOs were patch tested in an aimed manner in 10 930 patients, of whom 908 (8.3%) reacted to at least 1 EO. Only 6 EOs elicited more than 1% positive patch test reactions: ylang ylang (I + II) oil (3.9%), lemongrass oil (2.6%), jasmine absolute (1.8%), sandalwood oil (1.8%), clove oil (1.6%) and neroli oil (1.1%). Concomitant reactions among EOs or to EOs and fragrances were frequent. Among EO-positive patients, women, leg dermatitis patients, patients aged 40 years or more, masseurs and cosmeticians were over-represented. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitization to EOs occurs, albeit infrequently in most cases. Masseurs and cosmeticians have an increased risk of sensitization to EOs.

German S1 guideline: Contact dermatitis.

Contact dermatitis is an inflammation of the epidermis and dermis at the site of exposure triggered by external agents. The two main forms are irritant and allergic contact dermatitis, which cause significant health and socioeconomic costs in addition to a marked reduction in quality of life. The anamnesis and the clinical picture are decisive for the necessary diagnostic measures. The most accurate possible diagnostic classification of contact dermatitis by means of allergological testing is important for disease management, since not only classical eczema therapy but also avoidance of the exogenous triggering factors are of great importance here. The choice of therapy should be based on the acuity, clinical severity, morphology of the lesions and localization of the contact dermatitis. A combination of basic therapy, topical, physical, and systemic therapy adapted to the patient's needs is required, whereby not all forms of therapy must be carried out simultaneously but can be used in a varying manner. Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies aim at the recognition of the triggering noxae or allergens with subsequent contact avoidance or minimization. The present S1-guideline on contact dermatitis is primarily intended to provide dermatologists, allergologists and physicians working in allergology and occupational dermatology with a decision-making aid for the selection and implementation of suitable and sufficient diagnostics, therapy, and prevention.

COVID-19 pandemic: Practical considerations on the organization of an allergy clinic-An EAACI/ARIA Position Paper.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has evolved into a pandemic infectious disease transmitted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Allergists and other healthcare providers (HCPs) in the field of allergies and associated airway diseases are on the front line, taking care of patients potentially infected with SARS-CoV-2. Hence, strategies and practices to minimize risks of infection for both HCPs and treated patients have to be developed and followed by allergy clinics. METHOD: The scientific information on COVID-19 was analysed by a literature search in MEDLINE, PubMed, the National and International Guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library, and the internet. RESULTS: Based on the diagnostic and treatment standards developed by EAACI, on international information regarding COVID-19, on guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations, and on previous experience, a panel of experts including clinicians, psychologists, IT experts, and basic scientists along with EAACI and the "Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)" initiative have developed recommendations for the optimal management of allergy clinics during the current COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations are grouped into nine sections on different relevant aspects for the care of patients with allergies. CONCLUSIONS: This international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients while ensuring the necessary safety measures in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Omalizumab normalizes the gene expression signature of lesional skin in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab, a humanized recombinant monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, proved to be effective in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), including severe and treatment-refractory CSU. Here, we report omalizumab's effect on gene expression in skin biopsies from CSU patients enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. METHODS: Chronic spontaneous urticaria patients (18-75 years) were randomized to either 300 mg omalizumab (n = 20) or placebo (n = 10) administered s.c. every 4 weeks for 12 weeks (NCT01599637). Lesional and nonlesional skin biopsies were collected from the same area of consenting patients and assessed at baseline and on Day 85 compared with skin biopsies from the same area of 10 untreated healthy volunteers (HVs). Gene expression data were generated using Affymetrix HG-U133Plus2.0 microarrays. Statistical analyses were performed using R packages. RESULTS: At baseline, 63 transcripts were differentially expressed between lesional and nonlesional skin. Two-thirds of these lesional signatures were also differentially expressed between lesional and HV skin. Upon treatment with omalizumab, >75% of lesional signatures changed to reflect nonlesional skin expression levels (different vs placebo, P < 0.01). Transcripts upregulated in lesional skin (vs nonlesional and/or HV skin) suggested increased mast cell/leukocyte infiltration (FCER1G, C3AR1, CD93, S100A8, and S100A9), increased oxidative stress, vascularization (CYR61), and skin repair events (KRT6A, KRT16). Lesional signatures were not modulated by treatment in nonresponders (defined based on UAS7 longitudinal changes ≥16). CONCLUSION: Omalizumab, in treatment responders, reverted transcriptional signatures associated with CSU lesion phenotype to reflect nonlesional/HV expression levels; this is consistent with observed omalizumab-mediated clinical improvement observed in patients with CSU.

Omalizumab treatment in patients with chronic inducible urticaria: A systematic review of published evidence.

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab, a recombinant anti-IgE antibody, effectively treats chronic spontaneous urticaria. Evidence is lacking in patients with chronic inducible urticarias (CIndUs), which are frequently H1-antihistamine resistant. OBJECTIVE: From the current published literature, we aimed to determine the strength of evidence for omalizumab efficacy and safety in the treatment of CIndUs. METHODS: We performed a PubMed search to identify evidence on omalizumab use in the following 9 CIndU subtypes: symptomatic dermographism, cold urticaria, delayed-pressure urticaria, solar urticaria, heat urticaria, vibratory angioedema, cholinergic urticaria, contact urticaria, and aquagenic urticaria. RESULTS: Forty-three trials, case studies, case reports, and analyses were identified. Our review indicates that omalizumab has substantial benefits in patients with various CIndUs. The evidence is strongest for symptomatic dermographism, cold urticaria, and solar urticaria. Little/no evidence was available on vibratory angioedema and aquagenic and contact urticaria. Our review supports rapid onset of action demonstrated through early symptom control in most cases, sometimes within 24 hours. Many patients gained complete/partial symptom relief and substantially improved quality of life. Adverse events were generally low, with omalizumab being well tolerated by most patients, including children. CONCLUSIONS: A strong body of evidence supports the use of omalizumab in the treatment of patients with therapy-refractory CIndU. More data from randomized controlled studies are warranted.

A Case of Severe Anaphylaxis to Polyhexanide: Cross-Reactivity between Biguanide Antiseptics.

We present the case of a 77-year-old female patient who suffered from severe anaphylaxis during wound care. Allergologic evaluation yielded specific IgE antibodies to chlorhexidine, but anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine was not congruent with the patient history and dermal provocation tests. However, skin prick tests provided evidence for a sensitization to polyhexanide that was further supported by the detection of specific IgE antibodies to polyhexanide, the results of basophil activation tests and IgE inhibition analysis. We presume cross-reactive IgE antibodies binding to both biguanide antiseptics and identified polyhexanide as the likely cause of the anaphylactic reaction. We recognize polyhexanide as an emerging allergen that has to be considered as a cause of anaphylaxis.

Neutrophilic Epitheliotropism is a Histopathological Clue to Neutrophilic Urticarial Dermatosis.

BACKGROUND: Neutrophilic urticarial dermatosis (NUD) comprises a particular autoinflammatory condition within the spectrum of aseptic neutrophilic dermatoses characterized by a distinct urticarial eruption clinically and a neutrophilic dermatosis histopathologically. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we reviewed skin biopsies of lesional skin of patients seen in our outpatient clinic for autoimmune dermatoses and in allergy department from 1982 to 2014 that fulfilled these criteria. METHODS: A total of 77 biopsies from 50 patients were analyzed histopathologically. Included were cases of Schnitzler syndrome, Still disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren syndrome, cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome, primary biliary cirrhosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and those that had signs of systemic inflammation not otherwise specified, that is, fever, arthritis, leukocytosis, and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate. A control cohort was defined as including a total of 70 biopsies from 50 patients comprising neutrophilic urticaria (pressure-induced and not pressure-induced), conventional urticaria, lupus erythematosus expressing neutrophils, and exanthematous drug reaction of macular type expressing neutrophils. RESULTS: Skin biopsies of NUD revealed a perivascular and interstitial neutrophilic infiltrate focally extending into the epithelia of epidermis, hair follicles, sebaceous and sweat glands, a feature which we termed neutrophilic epitheliotropism. This neutrophilic epitheliotropism proved to be of high sensitivity (83.1%) and lower specificity (74.3%). The histological findings could be substantiated by immunohistochemical markers for leukocytes (elastase and myeloperoxidase), in particular in cases where neutrophils showed uncharacteristic band-like nuclei. CONCLUSIONS: Neutrophilic epitheliotropism is a new sensitive and specific histopathological clue for NUD, a histopathological reaction pattern within the spectrum of neutrophilic dermatoses that needs to be differentiated from conventional urticaria.