Activation of Mast-Cell-Expressed Mas-Related G-Protein-Coupled Receptors Drives Non-histaminergic Itch.

Classical itch studies have focused on immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated mast cell activation and histamine release. Recently, members of the Mas-related G-protein-coupled receptor (Mrgpr) family have been identified as mast cell receptors, but their role in itch is unclear. Here, we report that mast cell activation via Mrgprb2 evoked non-histaminergic itch in mice independently of the IgE-Fc epsilon RI (FcεRI)-histamine axis. Compared with IgE-FcεRI stimulation, Mrgprb2 activation of mast cells was distinct in both released substances (histamine, serotonin, and tryptase) and the pattern of activated itch-sensory neurons. Mrgprb2 deficiency decreased itch in multiple preclinical models of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), a pruritic inflammatory skin disorder, and both mast cell number and PAMP1-20 concentrations (agonist of the human Mrgprb2 homolog, MRGPRX2) were increased in human ACD skin. These findings suggest that this pathway may represent a therapeutic target for treating ACD and mast-cell-associated itch disorders in which antihistamines are ineffective.

Pruritus related to trastuzumab and pertuzumab in HER2 + breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP) as part of a taxane-based regimen has shown benefit in the adjuvant and metastatic HER2 + breast cancer setting. In the CLEOPATRA trial, pruritus was reported in 11-17.6% of patients. The clinical phenotype and potential treatment strategies for this event have not been reported. METHODS: A retrospective review of 2583 patients receiving trastuzumab and pertuzumab for the treatment of HER2 + breast cancer from 11/23/2011 to 6/21/2021 was performed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). Patient demographics, pruritus characteristics, and treatments as documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Of 2583 pts treated with HP, 122 (4.72%) with pruritus were identified. On average, patients experienced pruritus 319.0 days (8-3171) after initiation of HP. The upper extremities (67.4%), back (29.3%), lower extremities (17.4%), and shoulders (14.1%) were the most commonly affected regions. Grade 1/2 pruritus (97.6%) occurred in most cases. Patients responded primarily to treatment with topical steroids (52.2%), antihistamines (29.9%), emollients (20.9%), and gabapentinoids (16.4%). Of those with pruritus, 4 patients (3.3%) required treatment interruption or discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Pruritus is uncommon in patients on trastuzumab and pertuzumab, generally a chronic condition, with gabapentinoids or antihistamines representing effective therapies.

Targeting histamine receptor 4 in cholinergic urticaria with izuforant (LEO 152020): results from a phase IIa randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Cholinergic urticaria (CholU) is a common subtype of chronic inducible urticaria, where signs and symptoms (e.g. pruritic wheals and angioedema) are triggered by sweating due to physical exercise, passive warming and by other sweat-inducing situations. While guidelines recommend treatment with second-generation H1 antihistamines, approximately 90% of patients report uncontrolled disease. Targeting the histamine 4 receptor (H4R) has shown promise in preclinical/clinical studies of allergic/inflammatory diseases. Izuforant (LEO 152020) is a selective oral H4R antagonist with expected dual antipruritic and anti-inflammatory effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of izuforant in adults with CholU, a common type of chronic urticaria driven by histamine and characterized by high skin levels of H4R expression. METHODS: This was a phase IIa randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre crossover trial where patients with CholU with an inadequate response to ≥ 1 standard dose of H1 antihistamine received izuforant 100 mg twice daily or placebo (EUCTR2020-004961-38-DE; NCT04853992). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in Urticaria Activity Score. Exploratory endpoints included CholU activity score over 7 days, urticaria control test, Physician Global Assessment, patient global assessment of severity (PGA-S), provocation tests, Dermatology Life Quality Index and CholU quality of life (CholU-QoL). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters, and serum biomarkers were assessed, as well as safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were randomized and included in the full analysis set; 18 completed treatment [mean (SD) age 29.5 (9.8) years; mean (SD) CholU duration 8.0 (6.3) years]. The primary and most of prespecified exploratory endpoints were not met; there were significant improvements in PGA-S for izuforant vs. placebo (P = 0.02), and nonsignificant improvements for other endpoints in quality of life and histamine skin prick test. All adverse events (AEs) experienced with izuforant were considered mild. The most frequently reported (> 1 patient) were nausea (three patients) and upper abdominal pain (two patients), occurring more frequently with izuforant vs. placebo (one patient each). There were no treatment-related serious AEs and no patient receiving izuforant discontinued the study. Treatment with izuforant did not cause downregulation of H4R. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore the role of H4R as a therapeutic target in urticaria. Targeting H4R with izuforant was well tolerated but did not demonstrate significant improvements vs. placebo in the primary endpoint and all but one prespecified exploratory endpoint in CholU.

Cholinergic urticaria (CholU) is a common subtype of an inflammatory skin condition called chronic inducible urticaria, where signs and symptoms (e.g. hives and swelling in the skin) are triggered by sweating caused by physical exercise, passive warming and other sweat-inducing situations. While guidelines recommend treatment with second-generation H1 antihistamines (a type of medication), approximately 90% of people with the condition report that these medications do not control the disease. Targeting the histamine 4 receptor (H4R) has shown promise in studies of allergic/inflammatory diseases. CholU is driven by histamine (a chemical released in the body) and characterized by high skin levels of H4R. Izuforant is a medication that may reduce itch and inflammation. In our study, which was carried out across multiple sites in Germany, we assessed the effects of izuforant 100 mg in 18 patients with CholU using a range of measures covering symptom control, disease severity, provocation response and quality of life. The primary endpoint (the main result measured at the end of the study to see if the treatment worked) was change from baseline in the post-provocation Urticaria Activity Score, where areas of skin were provoked and the time until common symptoms of CholU appeared (sweating and whealing (hives)) was measured. Overall, the primary endpoint and most of the exploratory endpoints were not met. There were significant improvements in patients' global assessment for izuforant versus placebo. This was the first study to explore the role of H4R as a therapeutic target in urticaria. Our findings suggest that targeting H4R with izuforant was well tolerated but did not demonstrate significant improvements versus placebo in the primary endpoint, and all but one prespecified exploratory endpoint in CholU.

Impact of antihistamine use on the survival outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced cancer patients.

Histamine and H1 receptors play a crucial role in the tumor microenvironment. Preclinical data showed that concomitant use of antihistamines and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) might increase the effect of ICIs. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of antihistamines on the oncological outcomes of ICIs. This retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary cancer center. Advanced cancer patients treated with ICIs were included in this study. A total of 133 patients receiving ICIs in the metastatic setting were included. Melanoma (33.1%) was the most common tumor type. The most common ICI was nivolumab (63.2%). Fifty-five (38.4%) patients received antihistamines concomitantly with ICIs. The most common antihistamine was pheniramine (85.5%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) (8.2 vs. 5.1 months, P  = 0.016) and overall survival (OS) (16.2 vs. 7.7 months, P  = 0.002) were longer in patients receiving antihistamines concomitantly with ICIs. In multivariate analysis, PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.40-0.98, P  = 0.042] and OS (HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.29-0.81, P  = 0.006) were also better in those patients after adjusting for confounding factors, such as performance status, bone or liver metastasis, and concurrent chemotherapy. This study suggested that antihistamines may enhance the efficacy of ICIs in patients with advanced cancer. If validated in prospective trials, antihistamines and ICIs combinations might be new options to improve oncological outcomes.

Allergic Conjunctivitis Management: Update on Ophthalmic Solutions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review, is to present an updated revision of topical management of SAC and PAC, based on the available scientific evidence and focused on the impact of ophthalmic solution formulations on eye surface. RECENT FINDINGS: Physicians treating ocular allergy should be aware of tear film and tear film disruption in SAC and PAC, and how eye drop composition and additives affect the physiology of the allergic eye. Seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis (SAC and PAC) are the most frequent causes of ocular allergy (OA), and both conditions are underdiagnosed and undertreated. SAC and PAC are immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated hypersensitivity reactions. The additional tear film disruption caused by the release of inflammatory mediators increases and exacerbates the impact of signs and symptoms and may trigger damage of the ocular surface. Comorbidities are frequent, and dry eye disease in particular must be considered. Clinical guidelines for the management of SAC and PAC recommend topical therapy with antihistamines, mast cells stabilizers or dualaction agents as first-line treatment, but care should be taken, as many medications contain other compounds that may contribute to ocular surface damage.

Premedication strategy in cetuximab rechallenge after Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions.

INTRODUCTION: Cetuximab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is utilized in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and squamous cell head and neck cancers. Due to the risk of hypersensitivity reactions, standard premedication with a histamine-1 (H-1) antagonist is recommended prior to administration, however, there is less guidance for premedication strategies to assist with rechallenge after infusion reactions. Here, we describe two cases of successful cetuximab treatment after Grade 2 reactions, in addition to risk factors and proposed premedication strategies for successful rechallenge. CASE REPORT: Two patients who experienced Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions were both successfully rechallenged with increased premedications 1-2 weeks after initial infusions. The first patient was a 56-year-old male diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab as part of a clinical trial. The second patient was a 73-year-old male diagnosed with head and neck cancer receiving cetuximab as part of standard of care concurrent with radiation. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Each patient was rechallenged with an increased premedication strategy including dexamethasone, famotidine, diphenhydramine, and acetaminophen in addition to reducing the infusion rate. Both patients either continued treatment or successfully completed therapy, without any additional infusion-related reactions. DISCUSSION: We aimed to review risk factors related to cetuximab infusion reactions and propose a premedication strategy for rechallenge postreaction. Known risk factors include male sex and the accumulation of cetuximab-specific IgE. These may be mitigated by the addition of increased premedication with dexamethasone and famotidine with concurrent reduced infusion rate.

Nonprescription Treatment Options.

The pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD) is complex and multifactorial. However, recent advancements in the genetics and pathophysiology of AD suggest that epidermal barrier dysfunction is paramount in the development and progression of the condition (Boguniewicz M, Leung DYM, Immunol Rev 242(1):233-246, 2011). In addition to standard therapy for AD, there are a plethora of nonprescription treatment modalities which may be employed. Over-the-counter treatments for atopic dermatitis can come in the form of topical corticosteroids, moisturizers/emollients, and oral antihistamines. Though these treatments are beneficial, prescription treatments may be quicker acting and more efficacious in patients with moderate to severe disease or during flares. OTC agents are best used for maintenance between flares and to prevent progression of mild disease. Alternative and complementary treatments lack strong efficacy evidence. However, wet wraps, bleach baths, and other treatments appear to be promising when used in conjunction with conventional treatments. With the financial burden of atopic dermatitis ranging from 364 million to 3.8 billion dollars each year in the United States, we suspect this topic will gain further research attention.

Atopic Dermatitis: Managing the Itch.

Atopic dermatitis has a substantial impact on sleep, appearance, psychological well-being, and other qualities of life. The visual appearance of lichenification, cheilitis, hyperpigmentation, ichthyosis, and erythema can be socially stigmatizing, and treatment of these symptoms is challenging. In managing pruritus in patients, practitioners should assess and document pruritus through questionnaires at each routine visit. Initially, practitioners should advise patients to employ nonpharmaceutical treatments such as emollients with wet wraps, elimination of triggers, changing scratching habits, and psychological interventions. If these methods of treatment are not successful or if the disease presentation is severe, pharmacological therapies should be employed. This chapter describes the therapeutic ladder for pruritus in atopic dermatitis and discusses each treatment modality in further detail for practitioners to advise their patients.First-line topical pharmaceutical agents include topical glucocorticoids and topical calcineurin inhibitors. Second-line topical agents include coal tar, menthol, capsaicin, or doxepin. After the use of topical agents has been exhausted, primary systemic agents can be applied. These include sedating antihistamines, nonsedating antihistamines, oral glucocorticoids, or cyclosporine A. Finally, neuromodulating or immunomodulating agents can be attempted, including SSRI/SNRIs, TCAs, immunosuppressants, neural modulators, and opioid receptor modulators. Outside of pharmacological treatments, phototherapy has been shown to provide a dramatic improvement of pruritus in atopic dermatitis and can be used at any stage of treatment including as a first-line agent.

Oral Prescription Management.

The treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) with oral treatments has been limited in the past due to the increased risk of adverse effects associated with oral agents. However, in recent years, a shift toward the minimization of adverse effects has been explored. Although existing treatment options like oral corticosteroids and Immunosuppressive therapies have been utilized for acute flare-ups of AD, their long-term use is limited by adverse effects and the need for lab monitoring. New systemic treatment options such as Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are emerging as a promising therapy, due to their quick onset and antipruritic features. However, the black box warning associated with this medication class requires careful selection of appropriate candidates and patient education despite early favorable safety profiles seen in AD trials. Discussion of other oral agents, like antibiotics and antihistamines, and their role in AD management are also clarified.

Omalizumab in the treatment of Morbihan syndrome in an adolescent girl - case report and literature review.

Morbihan syndrome (MS) is characterized by solid facial edema, usually related to rosacea or acne vulgaris. The facial edema deforms the patient's features, can impair peripheral vision, and affects quality of life. Its pathophysiology remains unclear. The disease usually has a slow and chronic course. MS most commonly affects middle-aged Caucasian men with rosacea and is rare in people below 20 years of age. MS is a diagnosis of exclusion. There is no standard treatment for MS, though systemic isotretinoin and antihistamines are mainly used. We present the case of an adolescent girl with MS nonresponding to 19 months of isotretinoin treatment with add-on antihistamines. Therapy with monthly administration of omalizumab (anti-IgE) for 6 months was an effective therapeutic option, improving the quality of life. Our case is the second description of omalizumab use in Morbihan syndrome, the first in an adolescent.

Evaluation of treatment and long-term management of anaphylaxis in pediatric departments of Greece: a 2-year nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis proportions of incidence are increasing globally. However, limited data are available regarding anaphylaxis in the pediatric population of Greece. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate management of anaphylaxis in Greek pediatric departments. METHODS: We performed a questionnaire-based study of children aged less than 16 years presenting with anaphylaxis in 10 national pediatric hospitals over a period of 2 years. Management of anaphylaxis was assessed prior to and after an informative intervention. RESULTS: In all, 127 cases of anaphylaxis were identified. Epinephrine was administered in almost half of all cases (51.2%), predominantly through intramuscular route (88.5%), while the majority of anaphylaxis patients were treated with antihistamines (92.9%) and corticosteroids (70.1%). Epinephrine was more likely administered by physicians if the elicitor was a drug (P < 0.003). Regarding long-term management, an epinephrine auto-injector was prescribed in 66.9% of patients. Follow-up information was available for most of the patients (92.9%), the majority of whom (76.3%) were referred to an allergist. More than half of these patients (63.6%) had a documented allergy follow-up, which identified a causative allergen in 53.3% of cases. No statistically significant differences were recorded prior to and after the intervention regarding management of anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide study highlighted the necessity of further improvement in terms of anaphylaxis treatment and secondary prevention measures. This presupposes appropriate education and training of healthcare professionals, thus contributing to proper and comprehensive care of the pediatric population.

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.

Clinical efficacy of Zhiyang Xiaozhen granules combined with second-generation antihistamine in the treatment of chronic urticaria. / 止痒消疹颗粒联合第2ä»£æŠ—ç»„èƒºè¯æ²»ç–—æ ¢æ€§è¨éº»ç–¹çš„ä¸´åºŠç–—æ•ˆ.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic urticaria presents a chronic process of recurrent attacks, and its first-line treatment is second-generation antihistamine with limited treatment options. The efficacy of antihistamine varies among individuals and cannot meet the needs of all patients. This study aims to explore the clinical efficacy and safety of Zhiyang Xiaozhen granules combined with antihistamine in the treatment of chronic urticaria patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients with chronic urticaria who visited the Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from April 2020 to March 2021. The patients who received conventional second-generation antihistamine treatment were selected as a control group, while the patients who received combined treatment with Zhiyang Xiaozhen granules on the basis of conventional second-generation antihistamine treatment were selected as an observation group. The differences in the Weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) between the 2 groups before and 4 weeks after treatment were compared. The Symptom Score Reduce Index (SSRI) was used to evaluate and compare the efficacy of the 2 treatment regimens. RESULTS: After 4 weeks of treatment, the UAS7 levels in both groups were significantly reduced (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). The effective rates of the control group and the observation group were 61.11% and 59.38%, respectively when converting UAS7 to SSRI for efficacy evaluation, and there was no statistically significant difference in efficacy between the 2 groups (P>0.05); however, when converting DLQI to SSRI for efficacy evaluation, the effective rates of the control group and the observation group were 33.33% and 46.88%, respectively, and the difference in efficacy between the 2 groups was statistically significant (P<0.001). There were 3 patients with adverse drug reactions related to drowsiness in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of Zhiyang Xiaozhen granules and second-generation antihistamine can effectively improve disease activity in patients with chronic urticaria, and the improvement in quality of life is better than that with the second-generation antihistamine alone.

Consecutive injections of low-dose interleukin-2 improve symptoms and disease control in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria.

PURPOSE: To describe the effectiveness and tolerability of low-dose interleukin (IL)-2 in treating patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) refractory to H1-antihistamines. METHODS: This retrospective study included CSU patients who received treatment with at least one cycle of IL-2, injected intramuscularly at a dose of 1.0 million international units daily for 7 consecutive days, after failing treatment with H1-antihistamines. Patients were followed up for ≥12 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 15 patients, 7 (46.7%) and 11 (73.3%) achieved complete response at Week 2 and Week 12, respectively. The mean change of urticaria control test (UCT) and weekly urticaria activity score (UAS7) from baseline was 6.6 (95% CI, 4.2 to 8.9) and - 16.9 (95% CI, -24.0 to -9.8), respectively, at Week 12. Local injection-site reactions were the most common adverse events. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Low-dose IL-2 treatment improves symptoms and disease control for CSU patients refractory to H1-antihistamines.

Trial of Nemolizumab and Topical Agents for Atopic Dermatitis with Pruritus.

BACKGROUND: Nemolizumab is a subcutaneously administered humanized monoclonal antibody against interleukin-31 receptor A, which is involved in pruritus and inflammation in atopic dermatitis. In phase 2 studies, nemolizumab lessened the severity of atopic dermatitis. METHODS: In a 16-week, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned Japanese patients with atopic dermatitis and moderate-to-severe pruritus and an inadequate response to topical agents in a 2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous nemolizumab (60 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks until week 16, with concomitant topical agents. The primary end point was the mean percent change in the visual-analogue scale (VAS) score for pruritus (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse pruritus) from baseline to week 16. Secondary end points included the time course of change in the VAS score for pruritus up to week 4, the change in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score (range, 0 to 72, with higher scores indicating greater severity), a score of 4 or less on the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI; range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating a greater effect on daily life), a score of 7 or less on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI; range, 0 to 28, with higher scores indicating greater severity), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were randomly assigned to receive nemolizumab and 72 to receive placebo. The median VAS score for pruritus at baseline was 75. At week 16, the mean percent change in the VAS score was -42.8% in the nemolizumab group and -21.4% in the placebo group (difference, -21.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -30.2 to -12.7; P<0.001). The mean percent change in the EASI score was -45.9% with nemolizumab and -33.2% with placebo. The percentage of patients with a DLQI score of 4 or less was 40% in the nemolizumab group and 22% in the placebo group; the percentage of patients with an ISI score of 7 or less was 55% and 21%, respectively. The incidence of injection-related reactions was 8% with nemolizumab and 3% with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this 16-week trial, the use of subcutaneous nemolizumab in addition to topical agents for atopic dermatitis resulted in a greater reduction in pruritus than placebo plus topical agents. The incidence of injection-site reactions was greater with nemolizumab than with placebo. Longer and larger trials are necessary to determine whether nemolizumab has a durable effect and is safe for atopic dermatitis. (Funded by Maruho; JapicCTI number, 173740.).

In Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria, Complete Response to Antihistamine Treatment Is Linked to Low Disease Activity.

INTRODUCTION: The use of predictors of response to a specific treatment in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) can improve disease management, help prevent unnecessary healthcare costs, and save time. In this study, we aimed to identify predictors of complete response to standard-dosed and higher than standard-dosed antihistamine treatments in patients with CSU. METHODS: Medical records of 475 CSU patients, 120 of them <18 years old, from 3 different centers were analyzed. We used 15 machine learning (ML) models as well as traditional statistical methods to predict complete response to standard-dosed and higher than standard-dosed antihistamine treatment based on 17 clinical parameters. RESULTS: CSU disease activity, which was assessed by urticaria activity score (UAS), was the only clinical parameter that predicted complete response to standard-dosed and higher than standard-dosed antihistamine treatment, with ML models and traditional statistics, for all age groups. Based on ROC analyses, optimal cut-off values of disease activity to predict complete response were UAS <3 and UAS <4 for standard-dosed (area under the ROC curve [AUC] = 0.69; p = 0.001) and higher than standard-dosed (AUC = 0.79; p = 0.001) antihistamine treatments, respectively. Also, ML models identified lower total IgE (<150 IU/mL) as a predictor of complete response to a standard-dosed antihistamine and lower CRP (<3.4 mg/mL) as a predictor of complete response to higher than standard-dose antihistamine treatment. DISCUSSION: In this study, we showed that patients with UAS <3 are highly likely to have complete response to standard-dosed AH and those with a UAS <4 are highly likely to have complete response to higher than standard-dosed AH treatment. Low CSU disease activity is the only universal predictor of complete response to AH treatment with both ML models and traditional statistics for all age groups.

Efficacy and safety of nemolizumab in paediatric patients aged 6-12†years with atopic dermatitis with moderate-to-severe pruritus: results from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, inflammatory skin condition affecting up to one-quarter of children. Uncontrolled pruritus associated with childhood AD, and the accompanying scratching, negatively impacts quality of life (QoL), sleep and development. The humanized monoclonal antibody nemolizumab, used concomitantly with topical agents, was shown to reduce pruritus and improve QoL in patients with AD aged ≥ 13 years. However, data relating to its efficacy and safety in younger children (aged < 13 years) have been lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nemolizumab, administered concomitantly with topical agents, in Japanese paediatric patients (aged 6-12 years) with AD and inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe pruritus. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, 16-week, phase III study. Patients aged ≥ 6 and < 13 years, with confirmed AD, and an inadequate pruritic response despite treatment with topical agents and oral antihistamines were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive nemolizumab 30 mg or placebo every 4 weeks (Q4W). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the weekly mean 5-level itch score from baseline to week 16; secondary efficacy endpoints were related to pruritus, indicators for AD and QoL. Safety was assessed via adverse events (AEs) and laboratory test results. RESULTS: In total, 89 patients were enrolled, received either nemolizumab 30 mg (n = 45) or placebo (n = 44) Q4W, and completed the study. The mean patient age was 9.1 (SD 1.9) years, and mean duration of AD was 8.5 (2.7) years. The change in 5-level itch score from baseline to week 16 showed a statistically significant difference in the nemolizumab treatment group (-1.3) compared with placebo (-0.5; least-squares mean difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval -1.1 to -0.5; P < 0.0001). Improvements with nemolizumab were observed from the second day of administration. Secondary endpoints were in favour of nemolizumab. No AEs resulted in discontinuation, and the overall safety profile in patients aged 6-12 years was comparable with that in older patients (aged ≥ 13 years) with AD. CONCLUSIONS: Nemolizumab is a potential new treatment option for paediatric patients with AD whose pruritus has not been sufficiently improved with topical treatments and antihistamines.

Differences between adult and pediatric chronic spontaneous urticaria from a cohort of 751 patients: Clinical features, associated conditions and indicators of treatment response.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common disease both in the pediatric and in the adult population. However, there are differences between the two patient populations with respect to etiological factors, comorbidities, and treatment responses. Our aim was to determine differences between pediatric and adult CSU in terms of clinical characteristics, laboratory parameters, comorbidities, response to treatment, and indicators of response. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of CSU patients was performed. Data regarding differences between pediatric and adult CSU patients were analyzed. Indicators of treatment response were determined separately in both pediatric and adult patients. RESULTS: Of 751 CSU patients (162 pediatrics and 589 adults), female dominancy (48.8% vs. 69.6%) and rate of angioedema (19.1% vs. 59.8%) were lower, and disease duration (5 months vs. 12 months) was shorter in pediatric patients. Anti-TPO positivity (24.7% vs. 9%), elevated CRP (46.5% vs. 11.1%), eosinopenia (38.5% vs. 18.1%), and skin prick test positivity (39.3% vs. 28.8%) were significantly more frequent in adult patients. Response to antihistamines was higher in the pediatric group, and only 7% used omalizumab versus 20.8% in the adults. The comparisons were also performed between <12-year and ≥12-year patients and yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: Pediatric CSU shows distinct characteristics such as lower incidence of angioedema and antithyroid antibodies, and it responds better to antihistamines. These suggest that CSU becomes more severe and refractory in adolescents and adults. Adolescent CSU shows features similar to adult CSU rather than pediatric CSU.

Evidence-based use of antihistamines for treatment of allergic conditions.

Available since the 1940s, H1 antihistamines are mainstay treatments for allergic conditions such as allergic rhinitis and urticaria. They function as inverse agonists that bind to the H1 receptor to inhibit histamine-induced inflammation. The older, first-generation drugs are no longer recommended for patient use because of their well-documented negative adverse effect profile. Evidence has been accumulating to support a newer generation of H1 antihistamines in oral and intranasal formulations, including in combination with intranasal corticosteroids. The literature is replete with large meta-analyses and systematic reviews establishing the safety and efficacy of second-generation H1 antihistamines in adult and pediatric allergic rhinitis populations, including combination nasal spray agents (eg, MP29-02 or MP-AzeFlu). Although intraclass differences do exist, patient preference, access, and costs should be the priority. Robust data on the regular, not as needed use of H1 antihistamines for urticaria have been published, including in the management of children and pregnant or lactating women. In addition, H1 antihistamines can be used in other related allergic conditions, such as the secondary symptoms of anaphylaxis, to provide patients with greater comfort, including in allergic asthma, depending on the individual.

The rising cost of rhinologic medications.

BACKGROUND: The high prescription drug cost in the United States may negatively affect patient prognosis and treatment compliance. OBJECTIVE: To fill the knowledge gap and inform clinicians regarding rhinology medications price changes by evaluating trends in price changes of highly used nasal sprays and allergy medications. METHODS: The 2014-2020 Medicaid National Average Drug Acquisition Cost database was queried for drug pricing information for the following classes of medications: intranasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines, antileukotrienes, intranasal antihistamines, and intranasal anticholinergics. Individual medications were identified by Food and Drug Administration-assigned National Drug Codes. Per unit, drug prices were analyzed for average annual prices, average annual percentage price changes, and inflation-adjusted annual and composite percentage price changes. RESULTS: Beclometasone (Beconase AQ, 56.7%, QNASL, 77.5%), flunisolide (Nasalide, -14.6%), budesonide (Rhinocort Aqua, -1.2%), fluticasone (Flonase, -6.8%, Xhance, 11.7%), mometasone (Nasonex, 38.2%), ciclesonide (Omnaris, 73.8%), combination azelastine and fluticasone (Dymista, 27.3%), loratadine (Claritin, -20.5%), montelukast (Singulair, 14.5%), azelastine (Astepro, 21.9%), olopatadine (Patanase, 27.3%), and ipratropium bromide (Atrovent, 56.6%) had an overall change in inflation-adjusted per unit cost between 2014 and 2020 (% change). Of 14 drugs evaluated, 10 had an increase in inflation-adjusted prices, for an average increase of 42.06% ± 22.27%; 4 of 14 drugs had a decrease in inflation-adjusted prices, for an average decrease of 10.78% ± 7.36%. CONCLUSION: The rising cost of highly used medications contributes to increased patient acquisition costs and may pose barriers of drug adherence to particularly vulnerable populations.