790
Exploring the Real-World Profile of Refractory and Non-Refractory Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria Patients in the US
Monday, March 7, 2016
South Exhibit Hall H (Convention Center)
Susan Gabriel, MSc, Meryl Mendelson, MD, Alexander J. Gillespie, Ben Hoskin
Rationale:

To describe consultation patterns, management and clinical characteristics of US refractory/non-refractory Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria (CIU) patients as reported by patients in a real world setting.

Methods:

97 refractory/47 non-refractory CIU patients consulting US specialists (15 allergists/2 dermatologists) completed a patient questionnaire.  Refractory was pre-defined as currently symptomatic/receiving higher dose/treatment beyond second-generation antihistamine monotherapy; non-refractory was pre-defined as receiving second-generation antihistamine monotherapy only.  Ethical approval was obtained.  Patient groups were compared using bivariate analysis. T-tests were used for continuous variables; Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables.

Results:

Compared with non-refractory patients, OTC self-medication is more common among refractory patients (74% vs 60%) and they are more likely to initially consult a PCP than a specialist (40% vs 31%), report delayed diagnosis due to referral (51% vs 33%) and forget to take their medication to some extent (50% vs 34%).  They are significantly less likely to consult for every symptomatic period (12% vs 32%, p=0.01997) and report lower quality of life - Dermatology Quality of Life Index (7.0 vs 5.0); Jenkins Sleep Questionnaire score (8.1 vs 7.2).

On a 10-point attitudinal scale (where 0 = completely disagree/10 = completely agree), refractory patients report more concern about impact of their lifestyle on their condition (3.3 vs 2.1; p=0.045) and about treatment side effects (3.2 vs 1.7; p=0.008).

Conclusions:

Distinct managerial, clinical, QoL and attitudinal differences exist between refractory and non-refractory CIU patients in the US. This information is valuable in informing best clinical practice and appropriate new interventions for both patient types.