Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , Urticaria , Anaphylaxis/drug therapy , Cold Temperature , Epinephrine/therapeutic use , Humans , Urticaria/drug therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cold urticaria (ColdU), that is, the occurrence of wheals or angioedema in response to cold exposure, is classified into typical and atypical forms. The diagnosis of typical ColdU relies on whealing in response to local cold stimulation testing (CST). It can also manifest with cold-induced anaphylaxis (ColdA). We aimed to determine risk factors for ColdA in typical ColdU. METHODS: An international, cross-sectional study COLD-CE was carried out at 32 urticaria centers of reference and excellence (UCAREs). Detailed history was taken and CST with an ice cube and/or TempTest® performed. ColdA was defined as an acute cold-induced involvement of the skin and/or visible mucosal tissue and at least one of: cardiovascular manifestations, difficulty breathing, or gastrointestinal symptoms. RESULTS: Of 551 ColdU patients, 75% (n = 412) had a positive CST and ColdA occurred in 37% (n = 151) of the latter. Cold-induced generalized wheals, angioedema, acral swelling, oropharyngeal/laryngeal symptoms, and itch of earlobes were identified as signs/symptoms of severe disease. ColdA was most commonly provoked by complete cold water immersion and ColdA caused by cold air was more common in countries with a warmer climate. Ten percent (n = 40) of typical ColdU patients had a concomitant chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). They had a lower frequency of ColdA than those without CSU (4% vs. 39%, p = .003). We identified the following risk factors for cardiovascular manifestations: previous systemic reaction to a Hymenoptera sting, angioedema, oropharyngeal/laryngeal symptoms, and itchy earlobes. CONCLUSION: ColdA is common in typical ColdU. High-risk patients require education about their condition and how to use an adrenaline autoinjector.
Subject(s)
Angioedema , Chronic Urticaria , Hymenoptera , Insect Bites and Stings , Urticaria , Angioedema/diagnosis , Angioedema/epidemiology , Angioedema/etiology , Animals , Cold Temperature , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Insect Bites and Stings/complications , Pruritus/complications , Risk Factors , Urticaria/diagnosis , Urticaria/epidemiology , Urticaria/etiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Information/communication technologies such as mobile phone applications (apps) would enable chronic urticaria (CU) patients to self-evaluate their disease activity and control. Yet, recently Antó et al (2021) reported a global paucity of such apps for patients with CU. In this analysis, we assessed patient interest in using apps to monitor CU disease activity and control using questions from the chronic urticaria information and communication technologies (CURICT) study. METHODS: The methodology for CURICT has been reported. Briefly, a 23-item questionnaire was completed by 1841 CU patients from 17 UCAREs across 17 countries. Here, we analyzed patient responses to the CURICT questions on the use of apps for urticaria-related purposes. RESULTS: As previously published, the majority of respondents had chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU; 63%; 18% chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) [CIndu]; 19% with both), were female (70%) and in urban areas (75%). Over half of patients were very/extremely interested in an app to monitor disease activity (51%) and control (53%), while only â¼1/10 were not. Patients with both urticaria types versus those with CSU only (odds ratio [OR], 1.36 [1.03-1.79]) and females versus males (OR [95% CI], 1.47 [1.17-1.85]) were more likely to be very to extremely interested in an app to assess disease control. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, half of the patients with CU were very to extremely interested in using an app to assess their disease activity and control. Development of well-designed apps, specific to disease types (CSU, CIndU, CSU + CIndU, etc), validated by experts across platforms would help improve the management and possibly outcomes of CU treatment while providing important patient information to be used in future research.
