Dataset Information

Expert consensus on practical aspects in the treatment of chronic urticaria.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chronic urticaria (CU) is a common disease which represents a considerable burden for many patients. The current urticaria guideline describes the evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of CU. In addition, however, questions often arise in everyday practice that are not addressed by the guideline.

Methods

In May 2020, a digital meeting with German urticaria experts was held, in which practical aspects of CU treatment were discussed and supporting aids for everyday clinical treatment formulated. The resulting advice in this document focus on practical questions and the available literature and experiences of the participants.

Results

The diagnosis of CU can be made in a short time by means of a thorough anamnesis, a physical examination, and a basic laboratory chemical diagnosis. For this purpose, practical recommendations for everyday practice are given in this paper. An extended diagnosis is only indicated in a few cases and should always be carried out in parallel with an effective therapy. In general, CU should always be treated in the same way, regardless of whether wheals, angioedema or both occur. Symptomatic therapy should be carried out according to the treatment steps recommended by the guidelines. This publication provides practical advice on issues in everyday practice, such as the procedure in the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the cardiac risk under higher dosed H1 antihistamines, the self-administration of omalizumab as well as vaccination under omalizumab therapy. In addition to treatment recommendations, topics such as documentation in the practice and family planning with urticaria will be discussed.

Discussion

These supporting treatment recommendations serve as an addendum to the current CU guideline and provide support in dealing with CU patients in everyday practice. The aim is to ensure that patients suffering from CU achieve complete freedom of symptoms with the help of an optimal therapy.

Supplementary information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40629-021-00162-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SUBMITTER: Bauer A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7903036 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic urticaria (CU) is a common skin disorder, which can be further divided into chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU). Omalizumab is effective and safe for difficult-to-treat CSU based on clinical trials. However, there are limited data comparing the therapeutic effect of omalizumab for patients with CSU, CIndU, and CSU plus CIndU. Meanwhile, there is still no reliable predictor for treatment response or relapse. Our study was conducted to collect real-world clinical data on omalizumab treatment in patients with CSU, CIndU, and both.MethodsThis was an observational, retrospective chart review of patients with CU initiating omalizumab treatment between February 2018 and May 2020 (maximum 28 months follow-up).ResultsA total of 138 patients were included, 87 with CSU alone, 33 with different forms of CIndU, and 18 with both. A total of 87.0% (n = 120/138) of the CU patients responded to omalizumab therapy, among which 65.2% (n = 90/138) of the patients showed complete response and 21.7% (n = 30/138) of the patients showed partial response. The therapeutic effect and speed of onset of effect for omalizumab were comparable among patients with CSU, CIndU, or both. Autologous serum skin test (ASST)-positive patients were more likely to show a slow response to omalizumab therapy ( P = 0.043). Non-responders had lower baseline total IgE levels (35.0 vs 121.5 kU/L, P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with low total IgE levels in non-responders was significantly higher than that of responders (61.1% vs. 14.5%, P < 0.001). Also, more non-responder patients had elevated thyroid autoantibodies than responders (50.0% vs. 23.0%, P = 0.041). The median ratio of serum IgG-anti-TPO to serum total IgE in non-responders was significantly higher compared with responders (1.22 vs. 0.09, P < 0.001). Non-responders also had shorter treatment periods (4.5 vs 6.0 months, P = 0.035) compared with responders. Two of 3 patients (67.4%, n = 29/43) experienced relapse after ceasing omalizumab therapy. These patients had longer disease durations (52.0 vs. 15.0 months, P = 0.007) and higher baseline total IgE levels (179.9 vs. 72.5 kU/L, P = 0.020) than patients who did not relapse. We reinitiated omalizumab treatment for 10 relapsed patients, all of them reported a rapid response after the first injection within the first 4 weeks of retreatment.ConclusionOmalizumab is highly effective in patients with difficult-to-treat CSU, CIndU, or both. Responders tend to have unique immunological features and longer treatment periods. Patients with higher baseline total IgE levels and longer disease durations are more likely to experience rapid relapse after discontinuation of omalizumab.

Project description:BackgroundGlucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are an established treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Differences between GLP-1RAs in pharmacokinetics, dosing regimens and clinical effects, including cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, mean there may be benefits to switching from one to another. However, clinical guidance on switching is lacking and data from clinical trials are limited. This article provides a clinical perspective and consensus on the benefits of switching between GLP-1RAs, the triggers for switching and how best to manage this in clinical practice. Once weekly (OW) semaglutide is used as an example to illustrate how the authors might switch to a different GLP-1RA in clinical practice.MethodsLiterature was searched and perspectives from 10 healthcare professionals with experience in switching patients with T2D to OW semaglutide from another GLP-1RA were collated.ResultsMedical triggers for switching to another GLP-1RA included HbA1c targets not being met, a desire for additional weight loss, poor adherence, patients moving to increased CV risk status and adverse effects with the current GLP-1RA. Non-medical triggers for switching included patient preference, cost, formulary changes and insurance mandates. Once the decision to switch is made, an individualised approach is recommended, based on considerations that include reimbursement requirements, treatment duration with (and dose of) previous GLP-1RA, the patient's experience initiating the prior GLP-1RA, any concomitant treatment and clinical characteristics. When switching, it is important to emphasise that treatment burden will not increase and that if gastrointestinal adverse effects occur, they are typically transient. Any transient gastrointestinal adverse effects that may occur (or recur) when switching to another GLP-1RA can be reduced by slow up-titration and advising patients to reduce food portion sizes and fat intake.ConclusionSwitching from one GLP-1RA to another, such as OW semaglutide, can provide clinical benefits and may delay the need for treatment intensification.

Project description:BackgroundAround 25% of prisoners meet diagnostic criteria for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Because ADHD is associated with increased recidivism and other functional and behavioural problems, appropriate diagnosis and treatment can be a critical intervention to improve outcomes. While ADHD is a treatable condition, best managed by a combination of medication and psychological treatments, among individuals in the criminal justice system ADHD remains both mis- and under-diagnosed and consequently inadequately treated. We aimed to identify barriers within the prison system that prevent appropriate intervention, and provide a practical approach to identify and treat incarcerated offenders with ADHD.MethodsThe United Kingdom ADHD Partnership hosted a consensus meeting to discuss practical interventions for youth (<?18 years) and adult (?18 years) offenders with ADHD. Experts at the meeting addressed prisoners' needs for effective identification, treatment, and multiagency liaison, and considered the requirement of different approaches based on age or gender.ResultsThe authors developed a consensus statement that offers practical advice to anyone working with prison populations. We identified specific barriers within the prison and criminal justice system such as the lack of adequate: staff and offender awareness of ADHD symptoms and treatments; trained mental health staff; use of appropriate screening and diagnostic tools; appropriate multimodal interventions; care management; supportive services; multiagency liaison; and preparation for prison release. Through discussion, a consensus was reached regarding prisoners' needs, effective identification, treatment and multiagency liaison and considered how this may differ for age and gender.ConclusionsThis practical approach based upon expert consensus will inform effective identification and treatment of offenders with ADHD. Appropriate intervention is expected to have a positive impact on the offender and society and lead to increased productivity, decreased resource utilization, and most importantly reduced rates of re-offending. Research is still needed, however, to identify optimal clinical operating models and to monitor their implementation and measure their success. Furthermore, government support will likely be required to effect change in criminal justice and mental health service policies.