68
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Fexofenadine in higher doses in chronic spontaneous urticaria

      letter

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Sir, Nonsedating antihistamines are recommended as first-line treatment for patients with urticaria. In chronic spontaneous urticaria, wheals arise spontaneously for more than 6 weeks without external physical stimuli. The current European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology/Global Allergy and Asthma European Network/European Dermatology Forum (EAACI/GA2 LEN/EDF) guidelines call for updosing of nonsedating antihistamines (up to four times the standard dose) in urticaria patients who do not respond satisfactorily to the standard doses.[1] There are a few studies carried out to assess the efficacy of such a recommendation. Fexofenadine is one of the several second-generation H 1-antihistamines approved for the treatment of various allergic disorders; however, it shows numerous unique properties that make it an optimal choice for many patients. Fexofenadine is devoid of sedative and anticholinergic effects and may offer equivalent or greater efficacy in treating allergic disorders compared with other currently available second-generation H1-antihistamines.[2] We tried fexofenadine in chronic spontaneous urticaria in higher doses. Thirty-seven patients (17 females and 20 males; age group, 18-60 years; mean age, 35.13 years) with chronic spontaneous urticaria for at least 6 weeks; and pruritus, wheal score of more than 2 were enrolled after obtaining an informed written consent. The exclusion criteria included physical urticaria, urticarial vasculitis, pregnant or lactating women, gastritis, a history of sensitivity to aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), hypertension, diabetes, kidney diseases and a history of aggravation of symptoms by pressure. Routine investigations like complete blood count, blood sugar, thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) and urine examination were done to rule out infections before starting therapy. All 37 patients had chronic spontaneous urticaria of duration ranging from 3 months to 2 years (mean duration, 7.84 months). After a 1-day washout without treatment, we graded symptoms using the urticaria activity score (UAS). The UAS measures two symptoms — number of wheals and intensity of itching — each on a 0-3 scale each day. The UAS was recorded by each patient daily and was obtained from the patients weekly. The number of wheals was scored from 0 to 3: 0, no wheals; 1, less than 20 wheals; 2, 20-50 wheals; 3, >50 wheals almost covered large confluent areas of wheals. Severity of itch was scored as 0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; and 3, severe. One has to add both these scores, viz., for both the number of wheals and the severity of itch, on a given day for each of the days in a given week to get the weekly UAS [Table 1]. The possible weekly aggregate UAS thereby ranged from 0 to 42.[3] Sedation was graded from 0 to 3 (0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; and 3, severe). To monitor urticaria, we recorded UAS at the beginning and at the end of 1 week, 2 and 4 weeks of treatment. Table 1 Urticaria activity score All patients were started with fexofenadine 180 mg tablet in the morning after breakfast. Patients were reviewed at weekly intervals for 4 weeks. For symptomatic patients, the dose of fexofenadine was doubled to 360 mg of fexofenadine (2 tablets) in two divided doses at the end of 1 week; and 3 tablets of fexofenadine (540 mg) in three divided doses at the end of 2 weeks. Investigations revealed microcytic anemia in 5 patients and raised thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) in 3 patients. Appropriate treatment was given to these patients in the form of hematinics and thyroid supplements. Average daily UAS was 3.6 at 0 weeks, which came down to 2.27 at the end of 1 week. At the end of 1 week, 26 patients out of 37 were symptomatic. We doubled the dose to 360 mg of fexofenadine in divided doses. At 2 weeks, UAS was 1.2. At the end of 2 weeks, 14 out of 26 patients were symptomatic, whose dose was tripled to 540 mg of fexofenadine in three divided doses. At the end of 4 weeks, UAS came down to 0.19. Difference between UAS at week 0 and that at week 4 was statistically significant (P value, < 0.05). At 540 mg dose of fexofenadine, 13 out of 14 patients were asymptomatic. Electrocardiographic study was done in 5 patients who were on 540 mg of fexofenadine and was within normal limits. One patient required second-line treatment in the form of methotrexate. Sedation was recorded as 0, mild, moderate or severe. One patient with 540 mg of fexofenadine complained of sedation, which was mild. Headache was reported in 2 patients with higher doses. Eleven, 12 and 13 patients became asymptomatic when administered 180, 360 and 540 mg fexofenadine, respectively. We have reported updosing with levocetirizine to control chronic urticaria in Indian patients.[4] The cardiovascular safety of fexofenadine has also been thoroughly investigated. These studies, involving approximately 6,000 patients, have shown that fexofenadine is not associated with cardiotoxicity; it does not inhibit cardiac K+ channels and has no apparent effect on heart rate or QT interval.[5] Fexofenadine HCl at single doses up to 800 mg once daily and multiple doses up to 690 mg b.d. for 28 days in healthy volunteers resulted in no increase in QTc interval. Recommended dose range of fexofenadine is 120-180 mg daily.[6] In a study comparing fexofenadine (360mg) versus promethazine (30mg), fexofenadine was found to be free from disruptive effects on aspects of psychomotor and cognitive function. The identification of antihistamine fexofenadine as being devoid of central effects even at supraclinical doses separates it from currently available first- and second-generation drugs, with no objective evidence of CNS side effects on cognition and psychomotor function.[7] We found fexofenadine in higher doses effectively controlled urticaria in majority of the patients. Side effects were noted in the form of headache and sedation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO guideline: definition, classification and diagnosis of urticaria.

          This guideline, together with its sister guideline on the management of urticaria [Zuberbier T, Asero R, Bindslev-Jensen C, Canonica GW, Church MK, Giménez-Arnau AM et al. EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO Guideline: Management of urticaria. Allergy, 2009; 64:1427-1443] is the result of a consensus reached during a panel discussion at the 3rd International Consensus Meeting on Urticaria, Urticaria 2008, a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-funded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2)LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO). Urticaria is a frequent disease. The life-time prevalence for any subtype of urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous urticaria and other chronic forms of urticaria do not only cause a decrease in quality of life, but also affect performance at work and school and, as such, are members of the group of severe allergic diseases. This guideline covers the definition and classification of urticaria, taking into account the recent progress in identifying its causes, eliciting factors, and pathomechanisms. In addition, it outlines evidence-based diagnostic approaches for different subtypes of urticaria. The correct management of urticaria, which is of paramount importance for patients, is very complex and is consequently covered in a separate guideline developed during the same consensus meeting. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO guideline: management of urticaria.

            This guideline, together with its sister guideline on the classification of urticaria (Zuberbier T, Asero R, Bindslev-Jensen C, Canonica GW, Church MK, Giménez-Arnau AM et al. EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO Guideline: definition, classification and diagnosis of urticaria. Allergy 2009;64: 1417-1426), is the result of a consensus reached during a panel discussion at the Third International Consensus Meeting on Urticaria, Urticaria 2008, a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-funded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2)LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO). As members of the panel, the authors had prepared their suggestions regarding management of urticaria before the meeting. The draft of the guideline took into account all available evidence in the literature (including Medline and Embase searches and hand searches of abstracts at international allergy congresses in 2004-2008) and was based on the existing consensus reports of the first and the second symposia in 2000 and 2004. These suggestions were then discussed in detail among the panel members and with the over 200 international specialists of the meeting to achieve a consensus using a simple voting system where appropriate. Urticaria has a profound impact on the quality of life and effective treatment is, therefore, required. The recommended first line treatment is new generation, nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines. If standard dosing is not effective, increasing the dosage up to four-fold is recommended. For patients who do not respond to a four-fold increase in dosage of nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines, it is recommended that second-line therapies should be added to the antihistamine treatment. In the choice of second-line treatment, both their costs and risk/benefit profiles are most important to consider. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their unavoidable severe adverse effects. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An evaluation of the effects of high-dose fexofenadine on the central nervous system: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in healthy volunteers.

              As regards central nervous system (CNS) effects there are three types of antihistamines. Those that cross the blood-brain barrier and cause widespread impairment of cognitive and psychomotor function; those that cross into the brain and, although without much impairment at low clinical doses, have a dose-related relationship to impairment; and those that do not cross into the brain and therefore possess no intrinsic potential for impairing CNS function. [corrected] To investigate the acute effects of fexofenadine (360 mg) on various aspects of cognitive and psychomotor function in comparison to placebo and promethazine (positive internal control), an antihistamine known to produce psychomotor and cognitive impairment. Fifteen healthy volunteers received fexofenadine 360 mg, promethazine 30 mg and placebo in a 3-way cross-over, double-blind study. For each treatment condition, subjects were required to perform a series of tests of cognitive function and psychomotor performance at baseline and 1, 3, 5 and 7 h post-dose. The test battery consisted of critical flicker fusion (CFF), choice reaction time (CRT), compensatory tracking task (CTT) and a subjective assessment of sedation (LARS). Fexofenadine was not distinguishable from placebo in any of the objective and subjective tests for up to seven hours following drug administration. However, all measures were significantly impaired following the administration of promethazine, which confirms the sensitivity of the test battery for sedation. The effects of fexofenadine and placebo were not significantly different from one another, whereas promethazine caused an overall reduction in CFF thresholds when compared to placebo (P < 0.05). There was an overall significant increase (impairment) in recognition, motor and total reaction time (P < 0.05), and both the tracking accuracy and reaction time aspects of CTT were significantly impaired (P < 0.05) following the administration of promethazine. In contrast, the effects of fexofenadine could not be distinguished from the placebo condition. Subjective ratings of sedation were significantly higher with promethazine when compared to placebo (P < 0.05) and fexofenadine (P< 0.05). Fexofenadine at a dose of 360mg is demonstrably free from disruptive effects on aspects of psychomotor and cognitive function in a study where the psychometric assessments have been shown to be sensitive to impairment, as evidenced by the effects of the verum control promethazine 30 mg. The identification of an antihistamine (fexofenadine) devoid of central effects even at supraclinical doses separates it from currently available first and second generation drugs with no objective evidence of CNS side-effects on cognition and psychomotor function, and highlights the need for the introduction of a third generation of non-sedative antihistamines.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Indian Dermatol Online J
                Indian Dermatol Online J
                IDOJ
                Indian Dermatology Online Journal
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                2229-5178
                2249-5673
                Jul-Dec 2010
                : 1
                : 1
                : 45-46
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Skin, Rajawadi Hospital, Ghatkopar, Mumbai, India
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Dr. Kiran V. Godse, Department of Skin, Rajawadi Hospital, Ghatkopar, Mumbai, India. E-mail: drgodse@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                IDOJ-1-45
                10.4103/2229-5178.73262
                3481404
                23130196
                0d1168ea-b2d3-4b96-93ba-45a505e3a6a0
                Copyright: © Indian Dermatology Online Journal

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Letters to Editor

                Dermatology
                Dermatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content291

                Cited by8

                Most referenced authors83