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.

Development and validation of the Urticaria Control Test: a patient-reported outcome instrument for assessing urticaria control.

BACKGROUND: Chronic urticaria is a frequent and debilitating skin disease. Its symptoms commonly fluctuate considerably from day to day. As of yet, the only reliable tool to assess disease activity is the Urticaria Activity Score, which prospectively documents the signs and symptoms of urticaria for several days. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop and validate a novel patient-reported outcome instrument to retrospectively assess urticaria control, the Urticaria Control Test (UCT). METHODS: Potential UCT items were developed by using established methods (literature research and expert and patient involvement). Subsequently, item reduction was performed by using a combined approach, applying impact and regression analysis. The resulting UCT instrument was then tested for its validity, reliability, and screening accuracy. RESULTS: A 4-item UCT with a recall period of 4 weeks was developed based on 25 potential UCT items tested in 508 patients with chronic urticaria. A subsequent validation study with the 4-item UCT in 120 patients with chronic urticaria demonstrated that this new tool exhibits good convergent and known-groups validity, as well as excellent test-retest reliability. In addition, the screening accuracy to identify patients with urticaria with insufficiently controlled disease was found to be high. CONCLUSIONS: The UCT is the first valid and reliable tool to assess disease control in patients with chronic urticaria (spontaneous and inducible). Its retrospective approach and simple scoring system make it an ideal instrument for the management of patients with chronic urticaria in clinical practice.