Urticaria is a common cutaneous vascular reaction pattern clinically identified by transient, raised, erythematous, and intensely pruritic wheals, angioedema, or both.1,2 The underlying pathophysiological cascade involves the sudden degranulation of dermal mast cells and basophils, releasing potent preformed and newly synthesized vasoactive mediators—chiefly histamine, platelet-activating factor, kinins, leukotrienes, and prostaglandins—which cause transient capillary vasodilation, dermal hyperpermeability, and sensory nerve stimulation.1,2 By convention, urticaria is classified according to its temporal profile into acute (< 6 weeks duration) and chronic (≥ 6 weeks duration).1-3 Chronic urticaria (CU) is broadly divided into two clinical categories: Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (CSU) and Chronic Inducible Urticaria (CIU).3,11 In CSU, wheals and/or angioedema appear unpredictably without a specific external physical stimulus, driven predominantly by autoallergic (type I, IgE directed against autoantigens such as thyroid peroxidase or IL-24) or autoimmune (type IIb, functional IgG autoantibodies directed against the high-affinity IgE receptor FcεRI or circulating IgE molecules) pathways.19,20 Conversely, CIU encompasses subtypes elicited by specific, reproducible physical or environmental triggers, such as mechanical stroking (symptomatic dermographism), temperature fluctuations (cold contact, localized heat), perspiration/heat (cholinergic urticaria), solar radiation, water contact (aquagenic urticaria), or pressure.11,12 Urticaria affects approximately 15% to 22% of the general population during their lifetime, with chronic urticaria demonstrating a point prevalence of roughly 0.5% to 1.0%.13 The condition exhibits a marked predilection for individuals in their most active economic and social decades (second to fourth decades of life), with a documented female-to-male preponderance of approximately 2:1.13,64 Historically regarded merely as an annoying cutaneous disorder, CU is now recognized as a severe, disabling chronic condition that inflicts a substantial multidimensional toll on patients, their families, healthcare infrastructures, and society.4,5,55-57 The brain and skin share a common neuroectodermal embryological origin, creating an intricate psychoneurocutaneous axis where psychological distress exacerbates neurogenic cutaneous inflammation and, conversely, disfiguring cutaneous eruptions exacerbate psychiatric comorbidities.37-40 Patients frequently suffer from severe sleep disruption, chronic daytime fatigue, impaired work and academic productivity, social embarrassment, anxiety, depression, and tension-type pain syndromes.4,5,62-64,72-74 Furthermore, the unpredictability of flares and uncertainty regarding underlying etiologies exacerbate direct and indirect socioeconomic expenditures, including frequent consultations, emergency visits, and workplace absenteeism.59-61 Conventional physician-driven clinical evaluations focused strictly on counting wheals or inspecting lesions fail to capture the holistic subjective suffering experienced by patients.44,45 Consequently, current international EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guidelines strongly recommend integrating validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)—notably the Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days (UAS7) and disease-specific quality-of-life instruments such as the Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life (CU-Q2oL) questionnaire—into routine clinical appraisal.25,26,44 Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate the clinical spectrum, disease activity, and impact of chronic urticaria on health-related quality of life among patients presenting to a tertiary care medical center in South India.

Study Design and Setting This was a hospital-based prospective, observational cross-sectional study conducted over a period of 12 months, from August 2022 to August 2023, in the Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprosy at The Oxford Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. Ethical Considerations Prior to initiation, the study protocol received formal clearance from the Institutional Ethics Committee. All eligible patients were briefed in detail regarding the purpose, procedural scope, voluntary nature of participation, and confidentiality of records. Written informed consent was obtained from each subject prior to recruitment in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. An impartial witness and translated local-language (Kannada) consent documents were provided where appropriate. Eligibility Criteria ● Inclusion Criteria: Patients presenting with characteristic wheals, intense pruritus, or both, occurring on most days of the week for at least 6 weeks. ● Age & Gender: Male and female patients aged 18 years and above. ● Consent: Willingness to provide voluntary written informed consent. ● Exclusion Criteria 1: Patients with urticaria secondary to systemic vasculitis (urticarial vasculitis), active hyperthyroidism, autoinflammatory syndromes (e.g., Schnitzler syndrome, CAPS), or other established systemic inflammatory diseases. ● Exclusion Criteria 2: Patients presenting with isolated angioedema in the complete absence of wheals (e.g., hereditary angioedema, ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema). Clinical Evaluation and Data Collection Enrolled participants underwent comprehensive clinical evaluations documented using a predesigned semi-structured proforma. Detailed baseline records included sociodemographic variables (age, gender, occupation, socioeconomic class according to modified Kuppuswamy criteria, residential background), history of presenting illness (total duration in weeks, months, or years; lesion duration in minutes, hours, or days; diurnal or seasonal variations), personal history (dietary habits, addictions, sleep), and medical comorbidities (specifically Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension). A rigorous allergy history was elicited to identify reported triggers, encompassing environmental allergens (dust, mites, animal fur, pollen) and specific dietary elements (chicken, egg, fish, brinjal, drumstick, bread). Family history of urticaria or atopic diatheses (allergic rhinitis, bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis) was systematically documented. Physical dermatological examination recorded the distribution, morphology, size, and borders of wheals, mucosal involvement, and cutaneous dermographism elicited via standardized mechanical stroking. Disease Activity Assessment: UAS7 Baseline disease activity was quantified using the Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days (UAS7), a validated tool recommended by international urticaria guidelines.25,28,78 Patients documented once-daily scores assessing itch intensity (0 = none, 1 = mild [present but not troublesome], 2 = moderate [troublesome but not interfering with normal activity/sleep], 3 = intense [severe itch interfering with activity/sleep]) and the 24-hour wheal count (0 = none, 1 = mild [<20 wheals/24h], 2 = moderate [20-50 wheals/24h], 3 = intense [>50 wheals/24h]). The daily combined score (0–6) was summed over 7 consecutive days to yield the weekly UAS7 score (range: 0–42). Disease activity was categorized into five standardized health states:78 ● 1. Itch-Free: UAS7 = 0: Pruritus and itch free ● 2. Well-Controlled: UAS7 = 1 to 6: Well-controlled urticaria ● 3. Mild: UAS7 = 7 to 15: Mild urticaria ● 4. Moderate: UAS7 = 16 to 27: Moderate activity urticaria ● 5. Severe: UAS7 = 28 to 42: Severe activity urticaria Quality of Life Assessment: CU-Q2oL Health-related quality of life was evaluated using the Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life (CU-Q2oL) questionnaire, a validated disease-specific instrument.44,46,47 The questionnaire comprises 23 items evaluating the degree of disturbance and limitation experienced over the preceding 14 days across six distinct domains:44,47 ● Domain 1: Pruritus (2 items: itching, wheals) ● Domain 2: Swelling (2 items: swelling of eyes, swelling of lips) ● Domain 3: Impact on Life Activities (6 items: interference with work, physical activities, social relationships, sports, free time, eating, sleep, and clothing material choices) ● Domain 4: Sleep Problems (5 items: difficulty falling asleep, nocturnal awakenings, daytime tiredness, difficulty concentrating, nervousness, feeling miserable) ● Domain 5: Limits (3 items: limitation in food choices, troubled by medication side effects) ● Domain 6: Looks (5 items: bothered by hives appearance, embarrassment in public places, cosmetic restrictions) Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = not at all/never, 1 = a little/rarely, 2 = rather/sometimes, 3 = a lot/often, 4 = very much/very often). For comparative domain analysis, raw scores were linearly transformed to a standardized 0–100 scale using the formula: Converted Score = (Total Raw Score / Maximum Possible Raw Score) × 100, where 100 represents the maximum possible impairment of HRQoL.47 Sample Size Calculation The sample size was estimated based on the landmark study by Pherwani et al.,5 which reported a sleep disturbance prevalence of 79.2% among chronic urticaria patients in India. Utilizing the single proportion formula: N = 4pq / d², where p = 79.2%, q = 20.8%, and relative precision d set at 12% of p (d = 9.5%), the calculated sample size was 75 subjects. Statistical Analysis Data entered into Microsoft Excel 2021 were processed and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). The normality of continuous variables was confirmed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages (%). Continuous parametric variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD), and non-parametric data as median and interquartile range (IQR). Comparisons of categorical data across severity groups were conducted using the Pearson Chi-Square test or Fisher's Exact test as appropriate. Differences in continuous scores across severity categories were examined using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). A two-tailed p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 75 clinically diagnosed chronic urticaria patients completed all study protocols and clinical evaluations. Severity Distribution by UAS7 Score Based on UAS7 classification, moderate activity urticaria was the most frequent presentation, observed in 40.0% (n=30) of patients, followed by mild urticaria in 33.3% (n=25) and severe activity urticaria in 24.0% (n=18). Only 2.7% (n=2) of patients demonstrated well-controlled disease (Table 1). Table 1: Distribution of Chronic Urticaria Severity According to UAS7 Score (N = 75) Severity of Urticaria (UAS7) Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Well-controlled urticaria (1-6) 2 2.7% Mild urticaria (7-15) 25 33.3% Moderate activity urticaria (16-27) 30 40.0% Severe activity urticaria (28-42) 18 24.0% Total 75 100.0% Sociodemographic Characteristics The age of enrolled patients ranged from 18 to over 60 years. The predominant age cohort was 25–34 years, accounting for 41.3% (n=31) of the study population, followed by 35–45 years (25.3%, n=19), >45 years (18.7%, n=14), and 18–24 years (14.7%, n=11) (Table 2). Within the severe urticaria subset, the 35–45-year age group was most heavily affected (44.4%, n=8). Table 2: Distribution of Age Cohorts Across Urticaria Severity Strata Age Range (Years) Well-Controlled n (%) Mild n (%) Moderate n (%) Severe n (%) Total n (%) 18–24 1 (50.0%) 2 (8.0%) 6 (20.0%) 2 (11.1%) 11 (14.7%) 25–34 0 (0.0%) 11 (44.0%) 14 (46.7%) 6 (33.3%) 31 (41.3%) 35–45 0 (0.0%) 6 (24.0%) 5 (16.7%) 8 (44.4%) 19 (25.3%) >45 1 (50.0%) 6 (24.0%) 5 (16.7%) 2 (11.1%) 14 (18.7%) Total 2 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%) 30 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%) A distinct female preponderance was identified, with females representing 57.3% (n=43) and males accounting for 42.7% (n=32) of the study population, corresponding to a female-to-male ratio of 1.34:1 (Table 3). Moderate urticaria showed significant female predominance (70.0%, n=21), whereas severe urticaria displayed a higher proportion of males (55.6%, n=10). Table 3: Gender Distribution Across Urticaria Severity Strata Gender Well-Controlled n (%) Mild n (%) Moderate n (%) Severe n (%) Total n (%) Male 0 (0.0%) 13 (52.0%) 9 (30.0%) 10 (55.6%) 32 (42.7%) Female 2 (100.0%) 12 (48.0%) 21 (70.0%) 8 (44.4%) 43 (57.3%) Total 2 (100.0%) 25 (100.0%) 30 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%) With regard to occupation, nearly two-thirds of participants were actively employed (64.0%, n=48), followed by homemakers (21.3%, n=16), students (9.3%, n=7), unemployed individuals (4.0%, n=3), and retirees (1.3%, n=1) (Table 4). Notably, 72.2% (n=13) of patients with severe urticaria were employed. Socioeconomic stratification revealed that the vast majority belonged to the middle socioeconomic tier (77.3%, n=58), while 22.7% (n=17) were from the low socioeconomic stratum (Table 5). Table 4: Occupational Distribution by Disease Severity Occupation Mild n (%) Moderate n (%) Well-Controlled n (%) Severe n (%) Total n (%) Employed 15 (60.0%) 19 (63.3%) 1 (50.0%) 13 (72.2%) 48 (64.0%) Housewife / Homemaker 6 (24.0%) 5 (16.7%) 1 (50.0%) 4 (22.2%) 16 (21.3%) Student 3 (12.0%) 4 (13.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (9.3%) Unemployed 1 (4.0%) 1 (3.3%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (5.6%) 3 (4.0%) Retired 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.3%) Total 25 (100.0%) 30 (100.0%) 2 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%) Table 5: Socioeconomic Status Across Severity Strata Socioeconomic Class Mild n (%) Moderate n (%) Well-Controlled n (%) Severe n (%) Total n (%) Middle Class 21 (84.0%) 23 (76.7%) 2 (100.0%) 12 (66.7%) 58 (77.3%) Low Class 4 (16.0%) 7 (23.3%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (33.3%) 17 (22.7%) High Class 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Total 25 (100.0%) 30 (100.0%) 2 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%) Disease Duration, Clinical Characteristics, and Comorbidities The total duration of chronic urticaria symptoms was measured in months for 54.7% (n=41), in years for 41.3% (n=31), and in weeks for 4.0% (n=3) (Table 6). Regarding individual wheal episode duration, most patients experienced lesions lasting hours (66.7%, n=50), while 22.7% (n=17) experienced wheals lasting minutes, and 10.7% (n=8) experienced persistent wheals lasting more than 24 hours (Table 7). Positive symptomatic dermographism was elicited in 38.7% (n=29) of all participants (Table 8). Table 6: Disease Duration of Chronic Urticaria by Severity Group Disease Duration Mild n (%) Moderate n (%) Well-Controlled n (%) Severe n (%) Total n (%) Weeks (<3 months) 1 (4.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (11.1%) 3 (4.0%) Months (3-12 months) 12 (48.0%) 19 (63.3%) 2 (100.0%) 8 (44.4%) 41 (54.7%) Years (>12 months) 12 (48.0%) 11 (36.7%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (44.4%) 31 (41.3%) Total 25 (100.0%) 30 (100.0%) 2 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%) Table 7: Individual Wheal Episode Duration by Severity Group Wheal Episode Duration Mild n (%) Moderate n (%) Well-Controlled n (%) Severe n (%) Total n (%) Minutes 8 (32.0%) 6 (20.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (16.7%) 17 (22.7%) Hours (<24 hours) 15 (60.0%) 22 (73.3%) 2 (100.0%) 11 (61.1%) 50 (66.7%) Days (>24 hours) 2 (8.0%) 2 (6.7%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (22.2%) 8 (10.7%) Total 25 (100.0%) 30 (100.0%) 2 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%) Table 8: Dermographism Distribution by Disease Severity Dermographism Mild n (%) Moderate n (%) Well-Controlled n (%) Severe n (%) Total n (%) Positive 8 (32.0%) 11 (36.7%) 2 (100.0%) 8 (44.4%) 29 (38.7%) Negative 17 (68.0%) 19 (63.3%) 0 (0.0%) 10 (55.6%) 46 (61.3%) Total 25 (100.0%) 30 (100.0%) 2 (100.0%) 18 (100.0%) 75 (100.0%) A positive family history of chronic urticaria or atopic diseases was documented in 14.7% (n=11) of patients, whereas 85.3% (n=64) had no familial predisposition. Documented systemic comorbidities included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in 8.0% (n=6) and Essential Systemic Hypertension in 5.3% (n=4). Trigger Factors and Allergen Associations Dust exposure was the most frequent self-reported environmental trigger, identified in 12.0% (n=9), whereas animal fur was reported by 1.3% (n=1). Dietary aggravations were frequently reported: chicken was implicated in 29.3% (n=22), followed by brinjal (eggplant) in 20.0% (n=15), egg in 17.3% (n=13), and fish in 14.7% (n=11) (Table 9). Reported food aggravations were especially pronounced among severe urticaria patients, including chicken (38.9%), brinjal (33.3%), egg (33.3%), and fish (27.8%). Table 9: Self-Reported Environmental and Dietary Triggers Across Severity Categories Reported Allergens / Triggers Mild (n=25) Moderate (n=30) Well-Controlled (n=2) Severe (n=18) Total (N=75) Dust (Environmental) 4 (16.0%) 5 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (12.0%) Animal Fur 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.3%) Chicken 8 (32.0%) 7 (23.3%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (38.9%) 22 (29.3%) Brinjal (Eggplant) 2 (8.0%) 6 (20.0%) 1 (50.0%) 6 (33.3%) 15 (20.0%) Egg 4 (16.0%) 3 (10.0%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (33.3%) 13 (17.3%) Fish 3 (12.0%) 3 (10.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (27.8%) 11 (14.7%) Drumstick 1 (4.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.3%) Other reported triggers 2 (8.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (5.6%) 3 (4.0%) UAS7 Disease Activity Score Analysis The overall mean UAS7 score across the 75 patients was 22.6 ± 10.1 (median 21.0, IQR 14.0–28.0). Mean UAS7 scores increased progressively across severity tiers: 8.5 ± 3.5 in well-controlled, 13.4 ± 5.1 in mild, 24.7 ± 5.4 in moderate, and 35.4 ± 4.7 in severe urticaria (Table 10). Analysis of variance demonstrated a highly significant difference across groups (p < 0.0001). Table 10: Comparison of UAS7 Scores by Disease Severity Category (*Statistically significant) Severity Group Mean ± SD Median (IQR) F-Statistic / Test p-value Well-Controlled (n=2) 8.5 ± 3.5 8.5 (6.0–11.0) ANOVA <0.0001* Mild Urticaria (n=25) 13.4 ± 5.1 14.0 (10.0–16.0) -- -- Moderate Urticaria (n=30) 24.7 ± 5.4 24.5 (21.0–28.0) -- -- Severe Urticaria (n=18) 35.4 ± 4.7 35.5 (32.0–40.0) -- -- Total Cohort (N=75) 22.6 ± 10.1 21.0 (14.0–28.0) -- -- CU-Q2oL Domain Scores Across Severity Strata Evaluation of the six CU-Q2oL domains across UAS7 severity strata revealed marked variations (Table 11). Patients with severe urticaria exhibited the highest mean impairment scores across all domains: Impact on Life Activities (13.8 ± 4.9), Sleep Problems (9.6 ± 4.0), Limits (6.3 ± 2.8), and Looks (8.8 ± 3.6). Differences across severity groups were highly statistically significant for Life Activities (p = 0.0001), Sleep Problems (p = 0.0004), Limits (p = 0.0019), and Looks (p = 0.0002). Conversely, differences for Pruritus (p = 0.1247) and Swelling (p = 0.4528) were not statistically significant across severity categories, indicating that pruritus causes high distress universally regardless of wheal frequency. Table 11: Comparison of CU-Q2oL Domain Raw Scores Across UAS7 Severity Strata (*Statistically significant) CU-Q2oL Domain Mild (n=25) Moderate (n=30) Well-Controlled (n=2) Severe (n=18) Total Cohort p-value Impact on Life Activities 7.4 ± 4.1 10.7 ± 5.4 5.0 ± 1.4 13.8 ± 4.9 10.2 ± 5.5 0.0001* Sleep Problems 5.2 ± 3.5 7.4 ± 4.1 3.5 ± 2.1 9.6 ± 4.0 7.1 ± 4.2 0.0004* Limits 3.6 ± 2.4 4.9 ± 2.9 2.5 ± 0.7 6.3 ± 2.8 4.8 ± 2.9 0.0019* Looks (Appearance) 4.4 ± 3.6 6.9 ± 4.1 2.5 ± 0.7 8.8 ± 3.6 6.5 ± 4.1 0.0002* Pruritus 5.2 ± 1.8 5.7 ± 2.2 3.5 ± 2.1 6.1 ± 2.3 5.6 ± 2.1 0.1247 Swelling 0.6 ± 1.2 0.9 ± 1.5 1.0 ± 1.4 1.3 ± 1.8 0.9 ± 1.5 0.4528 Converted CU-Q2oL Item and Domain Impairment (0–100 Scale) When converted to a standardized 0–100 scale, the 'Pruritus' domain demonstrated the most profound quality of life impairment (mean converted score 70.0 ± 26.3), followed by 'Impact on Life Activities' (63.8 ± 34.4) and 'Limits' (60.0 ± 36.3). Moderate impairment was observed in 'Sleep Problems' (44.4 ± 26.3) and 'Looks' (40.6 ± 25.6), while the 'Swelling' domain exhibited the lowest burden (11.3 ± 18.8) (Table 12). Among individual questionnaire items, the highest specific burdens were documented for itching (65.0 ± 30.0), wheals (60.0 ± 27.5), feeling miserable (52.5 ± 30.0), clothing restrictions (47.5 ± 32.5), social relationship limitations (45.0 ± 35.0), sports restrictions (45.0 ± 32.5), and difficulties in falling asleep (45.0 ± 27.5). The lowest scores were observed for problems using cosmetics (15.0 ± 20.0) and swelling of the eyes (15.0 ± 27.5). Table 12: Standardized Mean Item and Domain Scores on the CU-Q2oL Questionnaire (Scale: 0–100) CU-Q2oL Domain Individual Item Name Item Score (Mean ± SD) Domain Score (Mean ± SD) Pruritus Pruritus / Itching 65.0 ± 30.0 70.0 ± 26.3 Wheals / Hives 60.0 ± 27.5 Impact on Life Activities Interference with Work 40.0 ± 27.5 63.8 ± 34.4 Interference with Physical Activities 40.0 ± 27.5 Interference with Social Relationships 45.0 ± 35.0 Limitations in Sports Activities 45.0 ± 32.5 Interference with Free Time / Hobbies 35.0 ± 27.5 Interference with Eating 40.0 ± 32.5 Interference with Sleep 42.5 ± 32.5 Restrictions in Clothing Material Choice 47.5 ± 32.5 Sleep Problems Difficulties in Falling Asleep 45.0 ± 27.5 44.4 ± 26.3 Nocturnal Awakenings 37.5 ± 27.5 Daytime Tiredness / Fatigue 37.5 ± 30.0 Difficulties in Concentrating 37.5 ± 32.5 Feelings of Nervousness 37.5 ± 30.0 Feeling Miserable 52.5 ± 30.0 Limits Troubled by Medication Side Effects 37.5 ± 30.0 60.0 ± 36.3 Limitations in Food Choices 25.0 ± 27.5 Looks (Appearance) Bothered by Symptoms of Hives 20.0 ± 22.5 40.6 ± 25.6 Embarrassment Going to Public Places 20.0 ± 22.5 Problems Using Cosmetics 15.0 ± 20.0 Swelling Eye Swelling (Angioedema) 15.0 ± 27.5 11.3 ± 18.8 Lip Swelling (Angioedema) 17.5 ± 27.5

Chronic urticaria is a persistent, distressing disease that impairs objective functional capacities and subjective psychological well-being.79 Patients frequently struggle with debilitating pruritus, disfiguring eruptions, sleep deprivation, and psychiatric distress, accompanied by significant direct and indirect economic burdens.55-57,59-61,79 In the present hospital-based study of 75 adult chronic urticaria patients in South India, we evaluated disease severity, clinicodemographic correlations, and health-related quality of life using the validated UAS7 and CU-Q2oL tools. Our assessment of disease severity using UAS7 revealed that 40.0% had moderate and 24.0% had severe urticaria, meaning nearly two-thirds (64.0%) experienced moderate-to-severe disease. Only 2.7% presented with well-controlled symptoms. These findings parallel observations by Toubi et al.,80 who noted that 60% of chronic urticaria patients presented with moderate-to-severe symptoms, and Maurer et al. in the international ASSURE-CSU study,57 highlighting that inadequate disease control remains widespread in real-world clinical practice. The peak age distribution occurred in the economically productive 25–34-year cohort (41.3%), followed by the 35–45-year age group (25.3%). Patients in their third and fourth decades constituted two-thirds of the cohort. Furthermore, among severe urticaria patients, 44.4% belonged to the 35–45 age category. This distribution is congruent with findings by Das et al. in Nepal (49.6% aged 20–40 years)70 and Yousif et al. in Iraq (38.2% aged 21–40 years).81 Disease onset during peak career and family building years intensifies socioeconomic disruption, explaining the high occupational interference observed. A clear female preponderance was identified (57.3% female, female-to-male ratio 1.34:1). This female excess in CU is widely documented across international literature, including reports by Baiardini et al. (61.8%),44 Das et al. (65.7%),70 Yousif et al. (64.1%),81 Liu et al. (63%),82 and Dias et al. (85.7%).64 Sex-based immunomodulation by estrogen and progesterone, greater cutaneous vascular reactivity, and heightened sensitivity to body image alterations have been proposed to explain this female predilection.64 Interestingly, in our severe cohort, males outnumbered females (55.6% vs 44.4%), which may reflect late healthcare seeking among working men until symptoms become unmanageable. Most participants were employed (64.0%), followed by homemakers (21.3%). Notably, 72.2% of severe patients were employed. Similar employment rates were noted by Gowda et al. (63.2%)67 and Almeida et al. (71.2%).83 Workplace presenteeism and absenteeism represent critical indirect costs of CU.59,60 Furthermore, 77.3% of participants belonged to the middle socioeconomic tier. This aligns with urban outpatient demographics, though Xiao et al.84 observed 51% middle class in China. Most patients had endured symptoms for months (54.7%) or years (41.3%), consistent with Dias et al.,64 underscoring the chronic, recalcitrant course of urticaria. In clinical evaluation, individual wheals persisted for hours in 66.7% of patients, characteristic of classical mast-cell-driven urticaria where wheals resolve within 24 hours without leaving purpura or scarring.9,21 Wheals lasting over 24 hours (10.7%) warrant careful differentiation from urticarial vasculitis.23,25 Positive symptomatic dermographism was elicited in 38.7% of patients, higher than the 24.8% reported by Sánchez et al. in Colombia,89 demonstrating frequent overlap between CSU and physical urticarias. Among self-reported triggers, dust was the leading environmental trigger (12.0%), while chicken (29.3%), brinjal (20.0%), egg (17.3%), and fish (14.7%) were the most common foods reported to provoke flares. While genuine IgE-mediated food allergy is an uncommon cause of chronic spontaneous urticaria, dietary pseudoallergens, histamine-releasing spices, and foods high in natural amines frequently provoke non-allergic mast cell degranulation, aggravating ongoing disease.12,86 Regarding quality of life, the 'Pruritus' domain demonstrated the highest impairment (mean converted score 70.0 ± 26.3), driven by severe ratings for itching (65.0 ± 30.0) and wheals (60.0 ± 27.5). This finding is corroborated by studies from South India by Gowda et al. (mean domain score 74.6, itching 82.1),67 Eastern India by Dhabal et al. (56 ± 19.3),91 and Brazil by Dias et al.71 Pruritus is widely acknowledged as the primary sensory driver of distress in chronic urticaria.5,67,68 Importantly, pruritus scores did not differ significantly between severity categories (p = 0.1247), indicating that even patients with fewer wheals experience intense, distressing itch. Conversely, the 'Swelling' domain registered the lowest score (11.3 ± 18.8), corroborating findings by Gowda et al. (30.6)67 and Dias et al. (16.7),71 reflecting that angioedema is episodic and affects a subset of patients. Significant impairment was documented in 'Impact on Life Activities' (mean 63.8 ± 34.4) and 'Limits' (60.0 ± 36.3). Within daily activities, patients highlighted severe constraints in clothing fabric choices (47.5 ± 32.5), social relationships (45.0 ± 35.0), and sports (45.0 ± 32.5). In the 'Limits' domain, distress over medication side effects—notably drowsiness from first-generation antihistamines—scored 37.5 ± 30.0. In 'Sleep Problems' (mean 44.4 ± 26.3), difficulty falling asleep (45.0 ± 27.5) and daytime fatigue (37.5 ± 30.0) were prominent, while 'feeling miserable' scored the highest among psychological items (52.5 ± 30.0). Nocturnal pruritus and cutaneous mast cell degranulation circadian rhythms induce recurrent arousals, chronic fatigue, and daytime cognitive impairment.69,72-74 The 'Looks' domain (mean 40.6 ± 25.6) revealed marked psychological distress, with embarrassment in public places (20.0 ± 22.5) and anxiety over disfiguring visible lesions. Statistical comparison across UAS7 severity tiers demonstrated that HRQoL impairment in daily activities (p = 0.0001), sleep (p = 0.0004), limitations (p = 0.0019), and appearance (p = 0.0002) worsened in direct proportion to disease severity. These results emphasize that the bidirectional interplay between cutaneous inflammation and psychological stress can trap patients in a self-reinforcing vicious cycle.48-54 Incorporating holistic psychodermatology approaches and stepped pharmacological management as advocated by international guidelines is essential to relieve both physical hives and patient suffering.25,32,76,77 Strengths and Limitations Key strengths of this study include the prospective evaluation of clinically diagnosed CU patients using validated, disease-specific instruments (CU-Q2oL and UAS7) in an Indian tertiary care setting, providing detailed item-level and domain-level insights. Limitations include the cross-sectional single-center design, a sample size of 75 patients which precluded subgroup analysis of inducible urticaria subtypes, reliance on self-reported dietary recalls without oral provocation challenges, and absence of post-treatment longitudinal follow-up.

Chronic urticaria is a multidimensional systemic disorder that imposes a severe physical, emotional, and social burden far beyond cutaneous wheals. In this prospective tertiary care study, moderate-to-severe disease accounted for 64% of patients, with the greatest affliction occurring among productive young adults and females. Health-related quality of life was substantially impaired, with 'Pruritus' identified as the most distressing symptom, followed by severe disruption of daily life activities, sleep architecture, and personal limitations. Impairment in daily activities, sleep, limitations, and appearance worsened in direct proportion to UAS7 severity. Consequently, routine dermatological practice must look beyond lesion counting and integrate validated PROMs such as CU-Q2oL and UAS7 to guide personalized, stepped-care management that restores patient functioning and subjective well-being.

1. Sachdeva S, Gupta V, Amin SS, Tahseen M. Chronic urticaria. Indian J Dermatol. 2011;56(6):622-8. 2. Krupa Shankar DS, Ramnane M, Rajouria EA. Etiological approach to chronic urticaria. Indian J Dermatol. 2010;55(1):33-8. 3. Reddy S, Manchanda I, Godse K, Patil AD. Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Chronic Urticaria and Adherence to Management Guidelines by Postgraduate Students in Dermatology: A Retrospective Single Center Study. Indian J Dermatol. 2021;66(6):705. 4. Ferreira PL, Gonçalo M, Ferreira JA, Costa AC, Todo-Bom A, Abreu CL, Travassos AR, Andrade P, Baiardini I, Canonica GW. Psychometric properties of the portuguese version of the chronic urticaria quality of life questionnaire (CU-Q2oL). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):190. 5. Pherwani AV, Bansode G, Gadhia S. The impact of chronic urticaria on the quality of life in Indian patients. Indian J Dermatol. 2012;57(2):110-3. 6. Rook A. The historical background. In: Warin RP, Champion RH, eds. Urticaria. London: Saunders; 1974:1-9. 7. Czarnetzki BM. The history of urticaria. Int J Dermatol. 1989;28(1):52-7. 8. Schadewaldt H. Urtikaria. In: Geschichte der Allergie, Vol 3. Munchen-Deisenhofen: Dustri-Verlag Dr. Karl Feistle; 1981:45-176. 9. Grattan CE. Towards rationalizing the nomenclature and classification of urticaria: some guidance on guidelines. Clin Exp Allergy. 2007;37(5):625-6. 10. Oberai C, Kharkar V. Urticaria. In: Valia RG, Valia AR, editors. IADVL Textbook of Dermatology. 4th ed. Mumbai: Bhalani Publishing House; 2018:1204-1205. 11. Ruxrungtham K. Chronic Inducible Urticaria (CIndU) versus Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (CSU): Can new names and new updated information improve our care for patients with urticaria? Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol. 2016;34(2):95-7. 12. Grattan CEH, Marsland AM. Urticaria. In: Griffiths CEM, Barker J, Bleiker T, Chalmers R, Creamer D, editors. Rook’s Textbook of Dermatology. 9th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2016:42.1-42.20. 13. Zuberbier T, Asero R, Bindslev-Jensen C, Walter Canonica G, Church MK, Giménez-Arnau A, et al. EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO guideline: Definition, classification and diagnosis of urticaria. Allergy. 2009;64:1417-26. 14. Grattan CEH, Saini SS. Urticaria and Angioedema. In: Bolognia JL, Schaffer JV, Cerroni L, editors. Dermatology. 4th ed. Elsevier Limited; 2018:308-324. 15. O’Donnell BF, Neill CM, Francis DM, et al. Human leucocyte antigen class II associations in chronic urticaria. Br J Dermatol. 1999;140:853-8. 16. Leznoff A, Sussman GL. Syndrome of idiopathic chronic urticaria and angioedema with thyroid autoimmunity: a study of 90 patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1989;84:66-71. 17. Confino-Cohen R, Chodick G, Shalev V, et al. Chronic urticaria and autoimmunity: associations found in a large population study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;129:1308-13. 18. Krišto M, Lugović-Mihić L, Muñoz M, Rupnik M, Mahnic A, Ozretić P, Jaganjac M, Ćesić D, Kuna M. Gut Microbiome Composition in Patients with Chronic Urticaria: A Review of Current Evidence and Data. Life (Basel). 2023;13(1):152. 19. Kolkhir P, Muñoz M, Asero R, Ferrer M, Kocatürk E, Metz M, Xiang YK, Maurer M. Autoimmune chronic spontaneous urticaria. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;149:1819-1831. 20. Kocatürk E, Muñoz M, Elieh-Ali-Komi D, Criado PR, Peter J, Kolkhir P, Can P, Wedi B, Rudenko M, Gotua M, Ensina LF, Grattan C, Maurer M. How Infection and Vaccination Are Linked to Acute and Chronic Urticaria: A Special Focus on COVID-19. Viruses. 2023;15(7):1585. 21. Caliskaner Z, Karaayvaz M, Ozturk S. Recurrent urticaria lesions in a heparin-allergic patient: most likely another form of “recall urticaria”. J Invest Allergol Clin Immunol. 2005;15:78-80. 22. Oberai C, Kharkar V. Clinical manifestations of urticaria. In: Valia RG, Valia AR, editors. IADVL Textbook of Dermatology. 4th ed. Mumbai: Bhalani Publishing House; 2018:1205. 23. Russell Jones R, Bhogal B, Dash A, Schifferli J. Urticaria and vasculitis: a continuum of histological and immunopathological changes. Br J Dermatol. 1983;108:695-703. 24. Grattan CEH, Saini SS. Histopathology of urticaria. In: Bolognia JL, Schaffer JV, Cerroni L, editors. Dermatology. 4th ed. Elsevier Limited; 2018:312. 25. Zuberbier T, Aberer W, Asero R, Abdul Latiff AH, Baker D, Ballmer-Weber B, et al. The EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis and management of urticaria. Allergy. 2018;73(7):1393-1414. 26. Zuberbier T, Bernstein JA, Maurer M. Chronic spontaneous urticaria guidelines: What is new? J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;150(6):1249-1255. 27. Grattan CEH, Black AK. Urticaria and angioedema. In: Bolognia JL, Jorizzo JL, Rapini RP, et al., editors. Dermatology. 1st ed. London: Mosby; 2003:287-302. 28. Costa C, Gonçalo M, Andrade P, Azevedo F, Barbosa M, Bastos P, et al. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach to Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: Recommendations in Portugal. Acta Med Port. 2016;29:763-81. 29. Hollis K, Proctor C, McBride D, Balp M, McLeod L, Hunter S, et al. Comparison of Urticaria Activity Score Over 7 Days (UAS7) Values Obtained from Once-Daily and Twice-Daily Versions: Results from the ASSURE-CSU Study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018;19:267-74. 30. Costa C, Rosmaninho I, Guilherme A, Ferreira J, Antunes J, Pina A, et al. Chronic Urticaria in the Real-Life Clinical Practice Setting in Portugal: Baseline Results from the Non-Interventional Multicentre AWARE Study. Acta Med Port. 2019;32:133-40. 31. Godse KV. Autologous serum skin test in children. Indian J Dermatol. 2008;53(2):61-3. 32. Türk M, Yılmaz İ, Şahiner ÜM, Kocatürk E, Şekerel BE, Zuberbier T, Maurer M. Experience-based advice on stepping up and stepping down the therapeutic management of chronic spontaneous urticaria: Where is the guidance? Allergy. 2022;77(5):1626-1630. 33. Sabroe RA, Lawlor F, Grattan CEH, Ardern-Jones MR, Bewley A, Campbell L, et al. British Association of Dermatologists guidelines for the management of people with chronic urticaria 2021. Br J Dermatol. 2022;186(3):398-413. 34. Cohen SR, Mount BM, MacDonald N. Defining quality of life. Eur J Cancer. 1996;32A(5):753-4. 35. Ford DM, Budworth L, Lawton R, Teale EA, O'Connor DB. In-hospital stress and patient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0282789. 36. Roy DJ. Measurement in the service of compassion. J Palliat Care. 1992;8(4):3-4. 37. Chen Y, Lyga J. Brain-skin connection: stress, inflammation and skin aging. Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets. 2014;13(3):177-90. 38. Cortés H, Rojas-Márquez M, Del Prado-Audelo ML, Reyes-Hernández OD, González-Del Carmen M, Leyva-Gómez G. Alterations in mental health and quality of life in patients with skin disorders: a narrative review. Int J Dermatol. 2022;61(7):783-791. 39. Pondeljak N, Lugović-Mihić L. Stress-induced Interaction of Skin Immune Cells, Hormones, and Neurotransmitters. Clin Ther. 2020;42(5):757-770. 40. Dalgard FJ, Gieler U, Tomas-Aragones L, Lien L, Poot F, Jemec GBE, et al. The psychological burden of skin diseases: a cross-sectional multicenter study among dermatological out-patients in 13 European countries. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135(4):984-991. 41. Pärna E, Aluoja A, Kingo K. Quality of life and emotional state in chronic skin disease. Acta Derm Venereol. 2015;95:312-316. 42. Vilar GN, Santos LA, Sobral Filho JF. Quality of life, self-esteem and psychosocial factors in adolescents with acne vulgaris. An Bras Dermatol. 2015;90:622-629. 43. AlOtaibi HM, AlFurayh NA, AlNooh BM, Aljomah NA, Alqahtani SM. Quality of life assessment among patients suffering from different dermatological diseases. Saudi Med J. 2021;42(11):1195-1200. 44. Baiardini I, Pasquali M, Braido F, Fumagalli F, Guerra L, Compalati E, Braga M, Lombardi C, Fassio O, Canonica GW. A new tool to evaluate the impact of chronic urticaria on quality of life: chronic urticaria quality of life questionnaire (CU-QoL). Allergy. 2005;60(8):1073-8. 45. Schipper H, Clinch J, Olweny CLM. Quality of life studies: definitions and conceptual issues. In: Spilker B, editors. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Press; 1990:11-23. 46. Tawil S, Irani C, Kfoury R, Salameh P, Baiardini I, Weller K, Maurer M, Ezzedine K. The Arabic Urticaria Activity Score and Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire: validation and correlations. Int J Dermatol. 2020;59(8):893-901. 47. Lewis V, Finlay AY. 10 years’ experience of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). J Invest Dermatol Symp Proc. 2004;9:169-180. 48. Dalgard FJ, Gieler U, Tomas-Aragones L, Lien L, Poot F, Jemec GB, et al. The psychological burden of skin diseases: A cross-sectional multicenter study among dermatological out-patients in 13 European countries. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135:984-991. 49. Jerković H, Bešlić I, Cesić D, Šitum M. The psychosocial burden of urticaria. Proceedings of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts: Medical Sciences. 2021;548:98-103. 50. Beyaz S, Demir S, Oztop N, Karadag P, Coskun R, Colakoglu B, Buyukozturk S, Gelincik A. Psychological burden of COVID-19 on mild and moderate chronic spontaneous urticaria. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2021;42:e107-e115. 51. Tat TS. Higher Levels of Depression and Anxiety in Patients with Chronic Urticaria. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:115-120. 52. Choi GS, Nam YH, Park CS, Kim MY, Jo EJ, Park HK, Kim HK. Anxiety, depression, and stress in Korean patients with chronic urticaria. Korean J Intern Med. 2020;35:1507-1516. 53. Tomaszewska K, Słodka A, Tarkowski B, Zalewska-Janowska A. Neuro-Immuno-Psychological Aspects of Chronic Urticaria. J Clin Med. 2023;12(9):3134. 54. Patella V, Zunno R, Florio G, Palmieri M, Palmieri S, Brancaccio R. Omalizumab improves perceived stress, anxiety, and depression in chronic spontaneous urticaria. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(3):1402-1404. 55. Maurer M, Staubach P, Raap U, Richter-Huhn G, Bauer A, Rueff F, et al. H1-antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria: it's worse than we thought - first results of the multicenter real-life AWARE study. Clin Exp Allergy. 2017;47(5):684-692. 56. Maurer M, Staubach P, Raap U, Richter-Huhn G, Baier-Ebert M, Chapman-Rothe N. ATTENTUS, a German online survey of patients with chronic urticaria highlighting the burden of disease, unmet needs and real-life clinical practice. Br J Dermatol. 2016;174(4):892-894. 57. Maurer M, Abuzakouk M, Bérard F, Canonica W, Oude Elberink H, Giménez-Arnau A, Grattan C, Hollis K, Knulst A, Lacour JP, Lynde C, Marsland A, McBride D, Nakonechna A, Ortiz de Frutos J, Proctor C, Sussman G, Sweeney C, Tian H, Weller K, Wolin D, Balp MM. The burden of chronic spontaneous urticaria is substantial: Real-world evidence from ASSURE-CSU. Allergy. 2017;72(12):2005-2016. 58. Baiardini I, Braido F, Bindslev-Jensen C, Bousquet PJ, Brzoza Z, Canonica GW, et al. Recommendations for assessing patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life in patients with urticaria: a GA(2) LEN taskforce position paper. Allergy. 2011;66(7):840-844. 59. Parisi CA, Ritchie C, Petriz N, Morelo Torres C. Direct Medical Costs of Chronic Urticaria in a Private Health Organization of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Value Health Reg Issues. 2016;11:57-59. 60. Broder MS, Raimundo K, Antonova E, Chang E. Resource use and costs in an insured population of patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2015;16(4):313-321. 61. Graham J, McBride D, Stull D, Halliday A, Alexopoulos ST, Balp MM, et al. Cost Utility of Omalizumab Compared with Standard of Care for the Treatment of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(8):815-827. 62. O’Donnell BF, Lawlor F, Simpson J, Morgan M, Greaves MW. The impact of chronic urticaria on the quality of life. Br J Dermatol. 1997;136:197-201. 63. Baiardini I, Giardini A, Pasquali M, Dignetti P, Guerra L, Specchia C, et al. Quality of life and patients satisfaction in Chronic urticaria and respiratory allergy. Allergy. 2003;58:621-623. 64. Dias GAC, Pires GV, Valle SOR, Dortas Junior SD, Levy S, França AT, et al. Impact of chronic urticaria on the quality of life of patients followed up at a university hospital. An Bras Dermatol. 2016;91(6):754-9. 65. Heng JK, Koh LJ, Toh MPHS, Aw DCW. A study of treatment adherence and quality of life among adults with chronic urticaria in Singapore. Asia Pac Allergy. 2015;5(4):197. 66. Lapi F, Cassano N, Pegoraro V, Cataldo N, Heiman F, Cricelli I, et al. Epidemiology of chronic spontaneous urticaria: Results from a nationwide, population-based study in Italy. Br J Dermatol. 2016;174(5):996-1004. 67. Gowda G, Athani SB. A descriptive study on quality of life, depression and anxiety in chronic urticaria patients attending a tertiary care hospital in Bengaluru, South India. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2019;6(7):3118-3124. 68. Yosipovitch G, Ansari N, Goon A, Chan YH, Goh CL. Clinical characteristics of pruritus in chronic idiopathic urticaria. Br J Dermatol. 2002;147:32-6. 69. Yun J, Katelaris CH, Weerasinghe A, Adikari DB, Ratnayake C. Impact of chronic urticaria on the quality of life in Australian and Sri Lankan populations. Asia Pac Allergy. 2011;1:25-9. 70. Das AK, Paudel U, Brar N, Karn A. Impact of chronic urticaria on quality of life in a tertiary level hospital in Nepal. Nepal J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2020;18(1):52-5. 71. Dias GAC, Coelho FC, Pennaforte C, Caputo F, Arraes ACN, Pedrazzi DL, et al. Quality of life and disease activity assessment in patients with chronic urticaria. World Allergy Organ J. 2015;8:A91. 72. Weldon DR. Quality of life in patients with urticaria. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2006;27:96-9. 73. Pasaoglu G. Psychological status of patients with chronic urticaria. J Dermatol. 2006;33:765-71. 74. Chung MC, Symons C, Gilliam J, Kaminski ER. The relationship between posttraumatic stress disorder, psychiatric comorbidity, and personality traits among patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Compr Psychiatry. 2010;51:55-63. 75. Lennox RD, Leahy MJ. Validation of the Dermatology Life Quality Index as an outcome measure for urticaria-related quality of life. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2004;93:142-146. 76. Godse K, Patil A, De A, Sharma N, Rajagopalan M, Shah B, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Urticaria in Indian Settings: Skin Allergy Research Society's Guideline-2022. Indian J Dermatol. 2022;67(6):732-743. 77. Patel A, Jafferany M. Multidisciplinary and Holistic Models of Care for Patients With Dermatologic Disease and Psychosocial Comorbidity: A Systematic Review. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(6):686-694. 78. Dias G, Pires G, Valle S, França A, Papi J, Dortas S, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the chronic urticaria quality-of-life questionnaire - CU-Q2oL. Allergy. 2011;66:1487-93. 79. Maurer M, Weller K, Bindslev-Jensen C, Giménez-Arnau A, Bousquet PJ, Bousquet J, et al. Unmet clinical needs in chronic spontaneous urticaria. A GA2LEN task force report. Allergy. 2011;66(3):317-30. 80. Toubi E, Kessel A, Avshovich N, Bamberger E, Sabo E, Nusem D, et al. Clinical and laboratory parameters in predicting chronic urticaria duration: a prospective study of 139 patients. Allergy. 2004;59:869-873. 81. Yousif SZ, Yaaqub PY. The Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Urticaria. Ann Coll Med Mosul. 2022;44(1):14-21. 82. Liu JB, Yao MZ, Si AL, Xiong LK, Zhou H. Life quality of Chinese patients with chronic urticaria as assessed by the dermatology life quality index. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26(10):1252-1257. 83. Almeida AR, Oliveiros B, Gonçalo M. Relation between Chronic Urticaria and Quality of Life: An Observational Study of 112 Portuguese Patients. J Port Soc Dermatol Venereol. 2021;79(3):233-240. 84. Xiao Y, Huang X, Jing D, Huang Y, Chen L, Zhang X, et al. The Prevalence of Atopic Dermatitis and Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria are Associated with Parental Socioeconomic Status in Adolescents in China. Acta Derm Venereol. 2019;99(3):321-326. 85. Ferastraoaru D, Jariwala S, Hudes G, Rosenstreich DL. Relation Between Environmental Allergen Exposure and Chronic Urticaria. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;133(2):AB248. 86. Kanny G, Moneret-Vautrin DA, Flabbee J, Beaudouin E, Morisset M, Thevenin F. Population study of food allergy in France. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001;108(1):133-140. 87. Zysk W, Trzeciak M. Characterization of Chronic Urticaria and Associated Conditions - A Web-Based Survey. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(1):e2023023. 88. Shalom G, Magen E, Babaev M, Tiosano S, Vardy DA, Linder D, et al. Chronic urticaria and the metabolic syndrome: a cross-sectional community-based study of 11 261 patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32(2):276-281. 89. Sánchez J, Amaya E, Acevedo A, Celis A, Caraballo D, Cardona R. Prevalence of Inducible Urticaria in Patients with Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: Associated Risk Factors. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5(2):464-470. 90. Ferrer Puga M, Silvestre Salvador JF, Bartra Tomas J, Giménez-Arnau A, Labrador-Horrillo M, Miquel-Miquel J, et al. Daily Clinical Practice in the Management of Chronic Urticaria in Spain: Results of the UCREX Study. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2022;113(1):37-47. 91. Dhabal A, Mondal H, Mondal S, Baiardini I, Chakraborty SS, Chakraborty T, Podder I. Adaptation and validation of the Bengali version of the Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire (CU-Q2oL). Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2023;89(3):385-392.