Background: Chronic urticaria (CU) is a prevalent chronic skin condition characterized by recurrent wheals. Clinical guidelines recommend multiple drugs for CU treatment. Our study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of drug therapy for CU.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies (RWSs) in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to assess the response rate, decline in Urticaria Activity Score over 7 Days (UAS7), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and adverse event rates of standard-dose and high-dose H1 antihistamine (H1AH), omalizumab (OMA) 75, 150, and 300 mg, cyclosporine and placebo. The risk-benefit assessment was conducted by probabilistic simulation and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA).
Results: A total of 39 studies were identified, including 37 RCTs and 2 RWSs. OMA 300 mg and 150 mg both had significantly higher response rate than standard-dose H1AH (p < 0.05, respectively). OMA 300 mg and 150 mg both consistently led to a huge drop in UAS7 and DLQI compared to standard-dose H1AH and high-dose H1AH (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Regarding risk-benefit assessment, OMA 300 mg emerges as the optimal pharmacological intervention for CU, while OMA 150 mg stands as a secondary alternative compared to H1 antihistamines and cyclosporine.
Keywords: Chronic urticaria; H1 antihistamine; cyclosporine; drug therapy; network meta-analysis; omalizumab; risk-benefit assessment; treatment effectiveness.