Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao British Journal of D...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
British Journal of Dermatology
Article . 2016 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Updosing nonsedating antihistamines in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: S, Guillén-Aguinaga; I, Jáuregui Presa; E, Aguinaga-Ontoso; F, Guillén-Grima; M, Ferrer;

Updosing nonsedating antihistamines in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

There is a lack of large, randomized, double-blind studies that address antihistamine updosing for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). The objective of this systematic review is to explore and analyse available data to provide clinical evidence for the efficacy of antihistamine updosing. We searched the literature in Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases using the keywords 'chronic, urticaria, antihistamines' to identify studies published between January 1990 and November 2014. We assessed quality using the Jadad score that evaluates quality of randomization, double-blinding and losses to follow-up. We identified 1042 articles and 15 articles were included in the final evaluation. We performed two meta-analyses, one that included studies that analysed treatment response among groups receiving different antihistamine dosages vs. placebo, and another that analysed antihistamine updosing in those patients who did not respond to standard dosages. Only five articles obtained a high quality level score. We did not find significant differences in response rates or number of weals in those patients who received a standard dosage vs. a high dosage. We found a significant improvement only in the pruritus variable of the Urticaria Activity Score scale. The estimated relative risk for improvement by increasing the antihistamine dosage was 2·27 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1·68-3·06]; however, there was significant heterogeneity. The proportion of nonrespondent patients with CSU who responded to antihistamine updosing was 63·2% (95% CI 57-69·6). We found that updosing antihistamines significantly improved control of pruritus but not weal number. However, the relative weakness of the studies and the significant heterogeneity among them made it difficult to reach a final conclusion.

Keywords

Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating, Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Double-Blind Method, Urticaria, Pruritus, Chronic Disease, Humans, Drug Administration Schedule, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    253
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 1%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
253
Top 1%
Top 1%
Top 1%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!