Ana Giménez-Arnau

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/GA²LEN/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 (GA²LEN), 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).

EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF guideline: Management of urticaria

This guideline is the result of a consensus reached during a panel discussion at the second International Consensus Meeting on Urticara, Urticaria 2004, a joint initiative of the EAACI Dermatology Section and GA2LEN. Urticaria has a profound impact on the quality of life, and effective treatment is therefore required. The recommended first line treatment are nonsedating H1 antihistamines. They have proven to be effective in double‐blind controlled studies, but dosages increased up to fourfold over the recommended doses may be necessary. However, for different urticaria subtypes and in view of individual variation in the course of the disease and response to treatment, additional or alternative therapies may be required. Immunosuppressive drugs like cyclosporin A and corticosteroids are not recommended for long‐term treatment due to unavoidable severe adverse effects. This guideline was, in addition, accepted by the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and formally approved by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).

Oma liz u mab for the Treatment of Chronic Idiopathic or Spontaneous Urticaria

BACKGROUND Many patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (also called chronic spontaneous urticaria) do not have a response to therapy with H-antihistamines, even at high doses. In phase 2 trials, omalizumab, an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody [corrected] that targets IgE and affects mast-cell and basophil function, has shown efficacy in such patients. METHODS In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic idiopathic urticaria who remained symptomatic despite H-antihistamine therapy (licensed doses). We randomly assigned 323 patients to receive three subcutaneous injections, spaced 4 weeks apart, of omalizumab at doses of 75 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg or placebo, followed by a 16-week observation period. The primary efficacy outcome was the change from baseline in a weekly itch-severity score (ranging from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating more severe itching). RESULTS The baseline weekly itch-severity score was approximately 14 in all four study groups. At week 12, the mean (±SD) change from baseline in the weekly itch-severity score was -5.1±5.6 in the placebo group, -5.9±6.5 in the 75-mg group (P=0.46), -8.1±6.4 in the 150-mg group (P=0.001), and -9.8±6.0 in the 300-mg group (P<0.001). Most prespecified secondary outcomes at week 12 showed similar dose-dependent effects. The frequency of adverse events was similar across groups. The frequency of serious adverse events was low, although the rate was higher in the 300-mg group (6%) than in the placebo group (3%) or in either the 75-mg or 150-mg group (1% for each). CONCLUSIONS Omalizumab diminished clinical symptoms and signs of chronic idiopathic urticaria in patients who had remained symptomatic despite the use of approved doses of H-antihistamines. (Funded by Genentech and Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01292473.).

European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing – recommendations on best practice

The present guideline summarizes all aspects of patch testing for the diagnosis of contact allergy in patients suspected of suffering, or having been suffering, from allergic contact dermatitis or other delayed‐type hypersensitivity skin and mucosal conditions. Sections with brief descriptions and discussions of different pertinent topics are followed by a highlighted short practical recommendation. Topics comprise, after an introduction with important definitions, materials, technique, modifications of epicutaneous testing, individual factors influencing the patch test outcome or necessitating special considerations, children, patients with occupational contact dermatitis and drug eruptions as special groups, patch testing of materials brought in by the patient, adverse effects of patch testing, and the final evaluation and patient counselling based on this judgement. Finally, short reference is made to aspects of (continuing) medical education and to electronic collection of data for epidemiological surveillance.

Unmet clinical needs in chronic spontaneous urticaria. A GA2LEN task force report

To cite this article: Maurer M, Weller K, Bindslev‐Jensen C, Giménez‐Arnau A, Bousquet PJ, Bousquet J, Canonica GW, Church MK, Godse KV, Grattan CEH, Greaves MW, Hide M, Kalogeromitros D, Kaplan AP, Saini SS, Zhu XJ, Zuberbier T. Unmet clinical needs in chronic spontaneous urticaria. A GA2LEN task force report. Allergy 2011; 66: 317–330.

The definition and diagnostic testing of physical and cholinergic urticarias--EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF/UNEV consensus panel recommendations.

The recommendations for the definition and diagnosis presented in this position paper are the result of a panel consensus meeting held in December 2008 in Berlin. This consensus meeting was a joint initiative of EAACI (European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology) Dermatology Section, the EU‐funded network of excellence, GA2LEN (Global Allergy and Asthma European Network), the EDF (European Dermatology Forum) and UNEV (urticaria network e.V.). The aim of these recommendations is to improve the diagnosis and management of patients with physical urticaria or cholinergic urticaria and to promote research and a better understanding of these diseases. Our recommendations used the paper produced by a 1996 expert meeting ( 1 ) and they acknowledge the latest changes in our understanding of physical urticarias and cholinergic urticaria as well as the recent development of novel diagnostic tools. In addition, this consensus paper highlights areas of need for further research.

Current patch test results with the European baseline series and extensions to it from the 'European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy' network, 2007-2008

Background. The pattern of contact sensitization to the supposedly most important allergens assembled in the baseline series differs between countries, presumably at least partly because of exposure differences.

Immediate contact skin reactions, an update of Contact Urticaria, Contact Urticaria Syndrome and Protein Contact Dermatitis – “A Never Ending Story”

Listening and paying attention to our patients is crucial for understanding a disease. A good example is Immediate Contact Skin Reactions (ICSR) which manifest as Contact Urticaria Syndrome (CUS), Contact Urticaria (CU) and Protein Contact Dermatitis (PCD). These entities are characterized by the immediate skin development of itchy flares, wheals, and/or dermatitis. All conditions usually appear within minutes of contact with various substances, including chemicals, animal products, antibiotics, cosmetics, and many other materials. From the clinical and diagnostic viewpoint, the patients clinical report is critical to its description, definition and classification. Its pathogenesis still remains a challenge and our knowledge of the agents potentially responsible is slowly increasing over time, based on the descriptions of a few isolated cases. This text reviews the classic concepts, introduces new compounds responsible for these immediate skin reactions, and suggests further investigation.

The EU Nickel Directive revisited—future steps towards better protection against nickel allergy

In July 2001, the EU Nickel Directive came into full force to protect European citizens against nickel allergy and dermatitis. Prior to this intervention, Northern European governments had already begun to regulate consumer nickel exposure. According to part 2 of the EU Nickel Directive and the Danish nickel regulation, consumer items intended to be in direct and prolonged contact with the skin were not allowed to release more than 0.5 µg nickel/cm2/week. It was considered unlikely that nickel allergy would disappear altogether as a proportion of individuals reacted below the level defined by the EU Nickel Directive. Despite this, the EU Nickel Directive part 2 was expected to work as an operational limit that would sufficiently protect European consumers against nickel allergy and dermatitis. This review presents the accumulation of epidemiological studies that evaluated the possible effect of this major public health intervention. Also, it evaluates recent exposure assessment studies that have been performed using the dimethyl glyoxime test. It is concluded that the EU Nickel Directive has started to change the epidemiology of nickel allergy in Europe but it should be revisited to better protect consumers and workers since nickel allergy and dermatitis remain very frequent.

The use of a responder analysis to identify clinically meaningful differences in chronic urticaria patients following placebo- controlled treatment with rupatadine 10 and 20 mg.

Background  According to the EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF guidelines for urticaria management, modern non‐sedating H1‐antihistamines are the first‐line symptomatic treatment for chronic urticaria. Two previous randomized clinical trials demonstrated rupatadine efficacy and safety in chronic urticaria treatment. However, a responder analysis to identify clinically meaningful differences in patients with chronic urticaria has not yet been performed.