ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Current treatment practices and efficacy in solar urticaria: insights from a patient survey.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Solar urticaria (SolU) is a rare chronic inducible urticaria and photodermatosis, presenting with wheal/flare formation accompanied by severe itch, following exposure to light in the triggering action spectrum. Therapeutic options remain limited for SolU, and the perspective of patients regarding the efficacy of available treatments remains unknown. Methods: Patients with SolU, organized in a disease-specific Facebook group, were asked to complete an electronic questionnaire on their condition and therapies performed between May 2023 and April 2024. The certainty of SolU diagnosis was differentiated as i) physician confirmed by clinical presentation, ii) light provocation tests, or iii) patient-reported. Study outcomes included clinical presentation, triggering action spectrum, disease severity, impairment of quality of life, therapies performed, and their efficacy. Logistic regression models were used to study the association between clinical factors and treatment outcomes. Results: A total of 112 patients (female, n = 94; median age, 42 years) participated in the study. Most patients considered their condition severe or extremely severe (n = 72, 76.6%) with a very/extremely impacted quality of life (n = 82, 86.3%). The majority of patients received non-sedating antihistamines (58.9%, n = 66), leading to worsening, no change, or only slight improvement in most cases (82.2%, n = 53). Omalizumab was given to 28 patients and induced complete control in 32.1% of cases. Treatments with sedating antihistamines, ciclosporin, systemic corticosteroids, phototherapy, and Conclusion: SolU is generally perceived as severe by affected patients, leading to a high impairment of quality of life. Performed therapies, including off-label treatments, are not sufficient to reach complete remission of symptoms in the majority of patients. Effective therapeutics for SolU are urgently needed to achieve better care for this highly burdened patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.