Two of our Health experts, Veruska and Alexandra Chirilov, were among co-authors of this significant article that appeared in the peer-reviewed medical journal, Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, published by Wiley & Sons. It reveals an unmet need for approved treatments for inadequately controlled pediatric CSU patients.
Background: Data on the prevalence and disease management of chronic urticaria (CU) and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in the pediatric population are scarce. This study assessed the prevalence of CU and CSU, and disease management among pediatric patients (0-17 years).
Methods: A physician-based online survey was conducted in five European countries (United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France, and Spain) assessing the annual diagnosed prevalence, disease characteristics and treatment patterns in the target population. Results are based on physician responses and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Prevalence estimates were calculated based on the number of CU/CSU pediatric patients diagnosed, seen, and treated by the respondents and extrapolated to the total
pediatric population from each country.
Results: Across five European countries, the one-year diagnosed prevalence of CU and CSU in pediatric patients was 1.38% (95% CI, 0.94-1.86) and 0.75% (95% CI, 0.44-1.08), respectively. Angioedema was reported in 6%-14% of patients. A large proportion of CSU pediatric patients (40%-60%) were treated with H1-antihistamines at approved dose and 16%-51% received H1-antihistamines at higher doses. Approximately 1/3 of pediatric CSU patients remained uncontrolled with H1-antihistamines at approved/higher doses. Other prescribed treatments were oral corticosteroids (10%-28%) and topical creams (15%-26%).
Conclusions: This study revealed a prevalence of CSU among the pediatric population comparable to adults and also suggested an unmet need for approved treatments for inadequately controlled pediatric CSU patients. It is truly of concern that harmful (oral steroids) or insufficient (topical creams) treatments were frequently used despite better and guideline-recommended alternatives.
*This link leads you to an external website that is not provided or maintained by or in any way affiliated with GfK SE.
Please note that GfK SE does not guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of any information on these external websites. GfK SE is not responsible for the content of the external website.