Treatment of acute urticaria: A systematic review
Abstract
Abstract There are only a few clinical trials which address the treatment of acute urticaria (AU). Especially, the added value of systemic corticosteroids to antihistamines is unclear in treatment of severe AU. To review the existing evidence‐based approaches for AU treatment. A systematic electronic search was done in PubMed and Web of Science to retrieve all studies on the treatment of patients with AU. A descriptive synthesis was conducted based on the PRISMA statement. Quality assessment was independently performed by both reviewers (‘Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool’ for RCTs). Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 857 participants) were included. Four studies assessed corticosteroid effectiveness added to antihistamines and six studies compared the efficacy of H1 and/ or H2‐antihistamines. The addition of corticosteroid (prednisone) to an antihistamine (levo)cetirizine did not improve symptoms of AU compared to antihistamine alone in two out of three RCTs. The combination of diphenhydramine (50 mg, IV) and ranitidine (50 mg, IV) or cimetidine (300 mg, IV) was most efficient for relief of urticaria in two out of five studies. Most frequent adverse effects were sedation and drowsiness. Recent guidelines on urticaria treatment mainly focus on chronic urticaria rather than on AU. Moreover, only few, small RCTs provide evidence for the management of AU. Thus, the state‐of‐the‐art management of this frequent condition remains unclear. The addition of corticosteroids to an…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 857 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students on Application, Education, and Ethical Aspects
- Information quality of videos related to esophageal cancer on tiktok, kwai, and bilibili: a cross-sectional study
- The quality and reliability of short videos about hypertension on TikTok: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability evaluation of pancreatic cancer-related video content on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study
- Association between metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) and hypertension: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2007–2018
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.