Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: Remibrutinib and the Evidence Base

The unmet need in chronic spontaneous urticaria

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is defined by the recurrent appearance of wheals, angioedema, or both, for six weeks or longer, in the absence of a specific external trigger.

CSU is thought to affect approximately 1% of the population at some point in their lives, and is driven by inappropriate activation of cutaneous mast cells and basophils^[1]. The 2026 update to the international EAACI/GA²LEN/EuroGuiDerm/APAAACI urticaria guideline places assessment of disease activity, control and quality of life within a stepwise management approach, with second-generation H1-antihistamines as the recommended first-line treatment for all urticaria subtypes^[24]. Dose escalation to up to four times the licensed antihistamine dose fails to achieve complete symptom control in a substantial proportion of patients. Omalizumab, dupilumab, remibrutinib and ciclosporin have distinct evidence bases, licensing and safety considerations at later treatment steps; the guideline does not describe these medicines as interchangeable, and no head-to-head trial among them has been published^[24].

This residual, difficult-to-treat population — often cycling through antihistamine combinations, leukotriene receptor antagonists, H2-blockers, dapsone and courses of systemic corticosteroids — has driven research interest in therapies that target mast-cell activation through a different intracellular pathway. Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition is, at the time of writing, the most clinically mature of these pharmacological approaches in terms of completed trial phase, though “most mature” describes programme stage, not a claim of superior efficacy over other active treatments.

BTK: from rare disease to drug target

Bruton’s tyrosine kinase takes its name from Ogden Bruton, who in 1952 first described a boy with recurrent bacterial infections and an absence of circulating immunoglobulins — the condition now known as X-linked agammaglobulinaemia (XLA). The responsible gene was identified in 1993, revealing BTK as a central node in B-cell receptor signalling that is essential for normal B-cell maturation and antibody production.

BTK is not confined to B lymphocytes. It is also expressed in myeloid lineage cells, including mast cells, basophils, macrophages and neutrophils, where it sits downstream of the high-affinity IgE receptor, FcεRI. When FcεRI is cross-linked — whether by allergen-specific IgE or, in autoimmune CSU, by IgG autoantibodies directed against IgE or the receptor itself — BTK transmits the activating signal that triggers degranulation, calcium mobilisation and the release of histamine, cytokines and chemokines. BTK therefore sits at a convergence point between the adaptive immune system (antibody-driven triggers) and the innate effector response (mast cell and basophil degranulation), which is what makes it an attractive therapeutic target in CSU.

The first BTK inhibitor to reach clinical use, ibrutinib, was developed for B-cell malignancies — chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, mantle cell lymphoma and Waldenström’s macroglobulinaemia — in which constitutive B-cell receptor signalling drives tumour survival, and entered practice in 2013. The World Health Organisation subsequently adopted the stem “‑brutinib” for this drug class, which now includes covalent, irreversible inhibitors that bind cysteine 481 of BTK (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, zanubrutinib, remibrutinib) and reversible, non-covalent inhibitors that avoid this interaction (fenebrutinib, pirtobrutinib). In oncology use, acquired resistance can emerge through a C481S mutation that prevents covalent binding, or through downstream PLCG2 mutations that re-activate signalling independently of BTK — one reason next-generation inhibitors have been designed for alternative binding modes.

The older, oncology-era inhibitors carry off-target kinase effects — and, at the doses used in haematology, adverse effects such as bruising, diarrhoea, neutropenia and infection risk — that limit their use outside cancer treatment. The newer generation, including remibrutinib, was specifically engineered for high target selectivity and a more favourable safety margin at doses appropriate for chronic inflammatory, non-malignant disease. Within immune-mediated disease, BTK inhibition has a rationale that extends beyond urticaria: because BTK also contributes to autoantibody production and Fc-receptor-driven inflammation more broadly, it is under active investigation across a range of autoimmune and allergic conditions, including asthma, where mast-cell FcεRI signalling follows the same pathway described above.

How remibrutinib works

Remibrutinib is described as a highly selective, oral, covalent BTK inhibitor. Unlike antihistamines, which block the H1 receptor after histamine has already been released, remibrutinib is reported to act upstream — inside the mast cell and basophil — interrupting the signalling cascade that leads to degranulation, largely independently of circulating IgE levels^[16]. This mechanistic distinction is pharmacological, not a demonstration of clinical superiority: a different point of action in the pathway does not, by itself, establish that one active treatment works better than another in practice^[9][12].

Because this mechanism does not depend on antagonising a single receptor or antibody, BTK inhibition can, in principle, remain effective in patients whose CSU is driven by autoimmune (type IIb) mechanisms that are less responsive to anti-IgE therapy, and in patients with both high and low baseline IgE^[3]. An in-vitro mechanistic study using serum from patients with chronic urticaria confirmed that remibrutinib suppressed activation of mast-cell and basophil effector lines independently of each donor’s FcεRI expression level or their prior clinical response to omalizumab, supporting a broader mechanism of action than anti-IgE therapy alone^[16].

Remibrutinib’s wider development programme

Remibrutinib has also been investigated in other immune-mediated conditions. Evidence from those programmes should be assessed separately: different populations, doses and outcomes cannot be assumed to establish efficacy or safety in CSU.

The clinical evidence

The published evidence base for remibrutinib in CSU comprises a phase 2b dose-finding study and its open-label extension, two near-identical phase 3 trials with 52 weeks of reported follow-up, several pre-planned subgroup and pooled-safety analyses, one prospective real-world cohort, and independent systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Figures are reported as published; none of the trials summarised here compared remibrutinib directly against another active CSU treatment.

Phase 2b: dose-finding

The 2022 placebo-controlled trial evaluated several remibrutinib regimens over 12 weeks in patients with CSU inadequately controlled by antihistamines, including participants with prior anti-IgE treatment^[2]. At week 4, the least-squares mean change in the weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) was −20.0 with the 25 mg twice-daily regimen subsequently carried into phase 3, compared with −5.4 with placebo. This was dose-finding evidence identifying an active regimen against placebo; it was not a comparison against an established active treatment such as omalizumab.

A pre-specified subgroup analysis of the same programme reported improvement in CSU activity across both high and low baseline IgE strata^[3]. A subsequent 52-week open-label extension described continued symptom control with longer exposure; infections, skin/subcutaneous disorders and gastrointestinal disorders were among the commonly reported treatment-emergent event categories^[4].

Phase 3: REMIX-1 and REMIX-2

REMIX-1 and REMIX-2 randomised 925 adults with CSU symptomatic despite second-generation H1-antihistamines to remibrutinib 25 mg twice daily or placebo, with background antihistamine continued in both arms^[5]. At week 12, least-squares mean UAS7 change was −20.0 with remibrutinib versus −13.8 with placebo in REMIX-1, and −19.4 versus −11.7 in REMIX-2; both comparisons were reported as statistically significant^[5]. Earlier, late-breaking data from the same two trials, presented ahead of the full peer-reviewed publication, were broadly consistent with these eventual results^[6].

Published percentages; both trial arms received background antihistamines. These are trial-population comparisons against placebo, not predictions for an individual patient, and UAS7 = 0 reflects absence of itch and wheals over the assessed week rather than permanent remission or absence of angioedema. The trials establish efficacy against placebo in the studied population; they do not establish superiority to omalizumab, dupilumab or ciclosporin, and treatment history within a trial population is not equivalent to a study designed specifically for multiply refractory disease.

A pre-planned analysis examined outcomes by prior biologic exposure and reported broadly similar effect sizes whether or not patients had previously received omalizumab^[7]. A separate 2026 analysis of the same REMIX participants reported early improvements in disease control, sleep and quality-of-life measures, extending assessment beyond wheal counts; because these outcomes are drawn from the same trial population as the primary results, they should be read as correlated secondary measures rather than independent confirmatory evidence^[25].

Outcomes through 52 weeks

The 2026 52-week publication reported sustained UAS7 reductions among participants originally randomised to remibrutinib: a mean change from baseline of −23.22 in REMIX-1 and −22.98 in REMIX-2 at week 52^[8]. Placebo-arm participants transitioned to active treatment at week 24 under the trial protocol. Consequently, outcomes beyond week 24 describe persistence of response during continued exposure; they do not provide a 52-week placebo-controlled effect estimate, and continuing control during treatment is not evidence of disease modification after treatment withdrawal.

Safety in detail

A dedicated 2026 pooled safety analysis across the controlled and open-label treatment periods of REMIX-1 and REMIX-2 characterised adverse event frequencies and laboratory parameters, including the rate of petechiae (small bruising-like spots), an adverse event of interest with BTK inhibitors as a class^[9]. This analysis should be interpreted alongside the current UK product information, with attention to how bleeding events are defined and the time at risk in each analysis; event categories from different publications should not be combined as though identical. Correspondence published in the New England Journal of Medicine discussed proposed mechanisms underlying the petechiae signal, noting that platelet counts and coagulation testing remained within normal limits and that no severe bleeding events were reported in the pivotal trials^[10].

Independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses, conducted by groups outside the trial sponsor, have pooled the phase 2b and phase 3 data. A PRISMA-adherent review registered on PROSPERO reported significant improvement in urticaria activity and disease control over placebo, with no unexpected safety findings in the pooled dataset^[11]. A second independent meta-analysis reached concordant conclusions on efficacy, while flagging an increase in mild infections (principally nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infection) and petechiae relative to placebo that warrants ongoing monitoring^[12]. A third meta-analysis incorporated quality-of-life outcomes and reported consistent improvements in disease activity and symptom burden across the pooled randomised and single-arm evidence^[13]. Because several of these reviews draw on overlapping publications from the same development programme, overlapping reports should not be treated as independent patient cohorts when weighing the total evidence. Narrative reviews in the specialist literature have situated remibrutinib within the wider landscape of CSU therapies in development^[14][19], and the approval has been reported in the general medical press^[15].

2026 observational evidence and evidence synthesis

A prospective multicentre report published in September 2026 described early routine-care experience in 29 exposed patients, of whom 25 had evaluable week-4 UAS7 data; petechiae were recorded in 4 of 29 patients^[26]. This adds early observational data from outside the trial setting, but the small sample size, incomplete outcome ascertainment and absence of a randomised comparator limit the certainty of any conclusions. Studies of this kind are useful for documenting implementation experience and flagging unexpected events; they are not designed to demonstrate comparative superiority over other treatments.

Trial evidence at a glance

None of the studies in this table compared remibrutinib directly against another active CSU treatment. All placebo-controlled comparisons apply to the trial populations studied and should not be read as predictions for an individual patient.

Rilzabrutinib and fenebrutinib: evidence for other BTK inhibitors

Remibrutinib is not the only BTK inhibitor under investigation in CSU. Reviewing the smaller trials of other BTK inhibitors helps separate what is specific to a given molecule from what may be a class effect of BTK inhibition.

Rilzabrutinib, a reversible covalent BTK inhibitor, was evaluated in the RILECSU phase 2 randomised trial, which assigned 143 participants to placebo or one of three daily regimens over 12 weeks. The 1,200 mg/day regimen was associated with reductions in itch and urticaria activity compared with placebo^[18]. The short follow-up period and relatively small group sizes limit assessment of uncommon adverse effects and durable benefit; exploratory endotype analyses within the trial are hypothesis-generating and do not validate a biomarker-based selection rule or establish a BTKi class-wide effect.

Fenebrutinib, a reversible, non-covalent BTK inhibitor, was assessed in a randomised phase 2 trial that assigned 93 adults to placebo or one of three regimens over eight weeks. Higher-dose groups showed improvements in disease activity, supporting BTK as a plausible pharmacological target, and biomarker analyses explored autoimmune (type IIb) mechanisms^[17]. The short trial duration and limited participant numbers restrict safety conclusions, and liver-enzyme findings noted during the development programme require consideration when interpreting its subsequent course. These results cannot be transferred directly to remibrutinib, since target selectivity, binding mode and drug exposure differ between the two molecules.

Adjacent allergy research. A small, open-label phase II study of acalabrutinib, a BTK inhibitor licensed for B-cell malignancies, investigated food-challenge reactivity in peanut allergy as a model of BTK-dependent mast-cell/basophil activation^[27]. This provides mechanistic context for BTK inhibition in IgE-mediated disease rather than evidence of CSU efficacy; findings in food allergy, oncology populations or experimental systems should not be used to justify extrapolated urticaria claims.

Across currently published data, remibrutinib has the most complete phase 3 dataset of the three BTK inhibitors discussed here, and is, at the time of writing, the only one to have received UK marketing authorisation for CSU. This reflects the relative stage of each development programme rather than a head-to-head demonstration that remibrutinib is clinically superior to rilzabrutinib or fenebrutinib, neither of which has yet been directly compared with it in a randomised trial.

Regulatory status

Safety information in the UK product licence

The UK Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) for Rhapsido identifies bleeding and bruising, infections, and relevant drug interactions among its safety information^[28]. Live vaccines are not recommended during treatment; non-live vaccination, and whether to interrupt treatment around it, requires individual prescriber review. Restrictions apply in pregnancy, breastfeeding, hepatic impairment and paediatric use, and additional monitoring is specified. The authoritative source for current safety information is the UK SmPC itself, available via the MHRA or the electronic medicines compendium (eMC).

The EMA assessment additionally lists upper respiratory tract infections as very common, with bleeding, bruising, herpes infection, headache, nausea and abdominal pain among recognised adverse effects^[29]. Suspected adverse reactions can be reported through the MHRA Yellow Card scheme.

London Allergy and Immunology Centre case reports: two managed-access patients

The London Allergy and Immunology Centre is a designated Urticaria Centre of Reference and Excellence (UCARE) and Angioedema Centre of Reference and Excellence (ACARE). Two patients with CSU received remibrutinib through the UK Novartis Managed Access Programme, ahead of routine UK availability. The observations reflect complex prior and concomitant therapy, with no control group and no standardised, pre-specified comparison between the two patients.

These cases illustrate individual clinical courses; they do not constitute a success rate or a comparative-effectiveness estimate. Concomitant medication changes, spontaneous disease fluctuation, selection bias and reporting bias all limit attribution of outcomes to remibrutinib specifically ^[23].

London Allergy and Immunology Centre’s observation: vaccination and antibody responses

A separate Centre poster, presented at the BSACI Annual Conference 2026 (Poster A043), reported immunological evaluation in one patient with CSU receiving remibrutinib through early access^[22]. Because BTK also participates in B-cell receptor signalling, there is a theoretical concern that sustained BTK inhibition could reduce vaccine responses, particularly to polysaccharide antigens. Treatment was suspended for one week before Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination and for two weeks afterwards; follow-up serology was obtained at four weeks.

¹Follow-up Hib IgG was censored above the assay’s upper limit (reported as “>5.0”). ²Serotype 19A was excluded from both time points because reagents were unavailable.

Important counterbalance from the UK product information. The UK SmPC describes a healthy-volunteer study at a higher dose (100 mg twice daily) in which uninterrupted remibrutinib exposure reduced antibody responses to some non-live vaccine antigens, whereas interrupting treatment around the time of vaccination avoided a significant impact^[28]. This healthy-volunteer, higher-dose study is not identical to the London Allergy and Immunology Centre’s single CSU case a>

What this case does and does not support. A measurable Hib antibody response occurred after vaccination with a temporary treatment interruption, without reported deterioration in urticaria control in this one patient. It does not establish a vaccine response during uninterrupted treatment, long-term protection, a standard interruption protocol applicable to every patient, or comparative vaccine safety against other CSU treatments. Hib conjugate vaccination involves T-cell help and should not be equated with a pure T-cell-independent polysaccharide challenge; pneumococcal protective thresholds depend on vaccine type, assay, age and clinical purpose. Normal total immunoglobulin levels do not, by themselves, establish normal antigen-specific antibody function, and the persistently low IgG3 level cannot be attributed to remibrutinib.

Remaining research questions

• Direct, randomised head-to-head comparison of remibrutinib against established active treatments (omalizumab, dupilumab, ciclosporin).
• Longer follow-up, across larger and more diverse populations, to characterise rare or delayed harms.
• Outcomes after treatment discontinuation, including whether any benefit persists drug-free.
• Validated clinical or biomarker predictors of response, to support individualised treatment selection.
• Vaccination outcomes under a wider range of exposure conditions (dose, timing, interruption strategy, vaccine type).
• Evidence in populations under-represented in the published trials (for example, pregnancy, significant hepatic impairment, and paediatric age groups).

Scientific conclusions from the evidence above should distinguish symptom suppression during treatment from sustained, drug-free remission; the two are not the same thing, and the published evidence to date speaks mainly to the former.

Safety profile

Across the phase 2b and phase 3 programmes, the most frequently reported adverse events with remibrutinib were headache and nasopharyngitis, generally described as mild to moderate in severity^[11]. Petechiae occurred more often with remibrutinib than placebo; platelet counts and coagulation parameters were reported as remaining within normal limits, and no severe bleeding events were reported in the pivotal trials^[9][10]. An increase in mild infections — principally nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infection — has been flagged in independent meta-analysis and in the EMA assessment, and warrants routine clinical monitoring, as with other immunomodulatory therapies^[12][29]. The current UK SmPC additionally lists bleeding/bruising, herpes infection, headache, nausea and abdominal pain among recognised adverse effects, and specifies restrictions in pregnancy, breastfeeding, hepatic impairment and paediatric use, with additional monitoring requirements^[28]. Serum immunoglobulin levels and, where clinically indicated, specific antibody titres may warrant monitoring during longer-term treatment, particularly in patients with coexisting antibody deficiency or additional immunosuppressive therapy; this is a clinical judgement for the treating specialist rather than a protocol established by the evidence summarised on this page.

How should these research findings be read?

Randomised evidence supports a reduction in CSU activity with remibrutinib compared with placebo, in adults matching the characteristics of the trial populations studied. Smaller randomised trials support continued investigation of rilzabrutinib and fenebrutinib in the same indication. Open-label extension studies address outcomes during continued drug exposure, but not after withdrawal. Routine-care observational studies and the London Allergy and Immunology Centre’s own case reports add clinical detail from outside the trial setting, with correspondingly lower certainty due to small numbers, absent control groups and incomplete data capture.

None of this evidence should be used to promise an individual patient a particular response, to infer a cure, to recommend unsupervised treatment interruption around vaccination or otherwise, or to claim superiority over another active CSU treatment in the absence of a direct comparative trial. Readers are encouraged to weigh the strength of each type of evidence described above (randomised controlled trial, open-label extension, meta-analysis, routine-care cohort, single-centre case report) rather than treating all sources as equivalent.

Frequently asked questions

Sources and disclosures

For the London Allergy and Immunology Centre’s two-case Managed Access Programme publication Novartis undertook a scientific-accuracy and intellectual-property review and did not influence its publication content. That statement concerns the publications of two case studies specifically; it does not constitute review or endorsement of this webpage by Novartis or any other party.

Managed access to remibrutinib for the cases described involved manufacturer supply.

This page is intended as scientific information for clinicians and informed patients and does not promote, endorse or advertise any specific medicine to the public, consistent with UK rules on the advertising of medicinal products^[30][31]. Suspected adverse drug reactions in the UK can be reported via the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. This page is educational and does not replace the current UK SmPC or individual medical advice.

References

1. Zuberbier T, Ensina LF, Giménez-Arnau A, Grattan C, Kocatürk E, Kulthanan K, Kolkhir P, Maurer M. Chronic urticaria: unmet needs, emerging drugs, and new perspectives on personalised treatment. Lancet. 2024;404(10450):393–404. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00852-3
2. Maurer M, Berger W, Giménez-Arnau A, et al. Remibrutinib, a novel BTK inhibitor, demonstrates promising efficacy and safety in chronic spontaneous urticaria. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;150(6):1498–1506.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2022.08.027
3. Hayama K, Ramsey A, Maurer M, et al. Remibrutinib improves chronic spontaneous urticaria in patients with low or high IgE. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2022;129(5 Suppl):S31–S32. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2022.08.594
4. Jain V, Giménez-Arnau A, Hayama K, et al. Remibrutinib demonstrates favorable safety profile and sustained efficacy in chronic spontaneous urticaria over 52 weeks. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2024;153(2):479–486.e4. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2023.10.007
5. Metz M, Giménez-Arnau A, Hide M, et al.; REMIX-1 and REMIX-2 Investigators. Remibrutinib in chronic spontaneous urticaria. N Engl J Med. 2025;392(10):984–994. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2408792
6. Saini SS, Metz M, Hide M, et al. Fast symptom improvement and favorable safety profile with remibrutinib in chronic spontaneous urticaria: REMIX-1/REMIX-2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2024;133(5 Suppl).
7. Mosnaim G, Giménez-Arnau A, Hide M, et al. Efficacy of remibrutinib in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria with or without prior exposure to biologics. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2024;153(2):AB369. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2023.11.883
8. Giménez-Arnau AM, Szalewski R, Hide M, Jain V, Khemis A, Lebwohl M, et al. Remibrutinib in chronic spontaneous urticaria: 52-week results from two phase 3 studies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2026;157(1):143–154. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2025.09.028
9. Giménez-Arnau AM, Zharkov A, Yang B, Fukunaga A, Hide M, Metz M, et al. Safety of remibrutinib in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a pooled analysis of REMIX-1 and REMIX-2 trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2026 Aug.
10. Metz M, Haemmerle S. Remibrutinib in chronic spontaneous urticaria. Reply. N Engl J Med. 2025;392(20):2077–2078. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2504726
11. Burhan M, Ashraf S, Ali A, et al. Safety and efficacy of remibrutinib for chronic spontaneous urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2025;187(6):635–646. doi:10.1159/000548302
12. Fatima F, et al. Efficacy and safety of remibrutinib in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Ther. 2025 Oct 20. doi:10.1097/MJT.0000000000002065
13. Efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life outcomes of remibrutinib in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2025;13(12):3406–3419. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2025.09.023
14. Bożek A, Reich A. Evaluating remibrutinib in the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria. Immunotherapy. 2025;17(7):479–484. doi:10.1080/1750743X.2025.2510892
15. Anderer S. Remibrutinib shows promise for chronic hives relief. JAMA. 2025;333(17):1479. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.3242
16. Gimeno R, Ribas-Llauradó C, Pesque D, et al. Remibrutinib inhibits hives effector cells stimulated by serum from chronic urticaria patients independently of FcεRI expression level and omalizumab clinical response. Clin Transl Allergy. 2023;13(3):e12227. doi:10.1002/clt2.12227
17. Metz M, Sussman G, Gagnon R, et al. Fenebrutinib in H1 antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria: a randomized phase 2 trial. Nat Med. 2021;27:1961–1969. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01537-w
18. Giménez-Arnau A, Ferrucci S, Ben-Shoshan M, et al. Rilzabrutinib in antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria: the RILECSU phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2025;161(7):679–687. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.0733
19. Fenton C, Fung S. Look out for new treatment choices in chronic spontaneous urticaria. Drugs Ther Perspect. 2026. doi:10.1007/s40267-026-01220-5
20. Jan M, Qazi K, Noor A, Naveed M, Khalid M, Waafira A. A new era in chronic spontaneous urticaria: FDA approval of the oral BTK inhibitor remibrutinib. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2025. doi:10.1097/MS9.0000000000004298
21. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Remibrutinib approval announcement, 6 August 2026; marketing authorisation granted 5 August 2026. GOV.UK. Available at: gov.uk
22. Rudenko M. Successful humoral response to Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination in a patient with chronic spontaneous urticaria treated with remibrutinib. Poster A043, BSACI Annual Conference 2026.
23. Rudenko M. Clinical experience with remibrutinib in the UK Novartis Managed Access Programme. UCARE Conference 2025.
24. Zuberbier T, Ansari ZAH, Abdul Latiff AH, et al.; Metz M, Giménez-Arnau AM. The international guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis and management of urticaria. Allergy. 2026;81(8):2582–2632. doi:10.1111/all.70210
25. Remibrutinib impact on disease control, sleep, and quality of life: analysis of phase 3 REMIX-1/2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2026.
26. Early clinical effectiveness and safety of remibrutinib in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a prospective multicenter real-world study. 2026;9:100126.
27. A phase II study of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibition (acalabrutinib) for the prevention of anaphylaxis. J Clin Invest. 2023.
28. Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd. Rhapsido 25 mg film-coated tablets: UK Summary of Product Characteristics. Updated 11 August 2026. Available via the electronic medicines compendium (eMC) or MHRA.
29. European Medicines Agency. Rhapsido: European Public Assessment Report and medicine overview. 2026. EMA assessment
30. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The Blue Guide: advertising and promoting medicines. GOV.UK. MHRA Blue Guide
31. Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (UK), Part 14, including regulation 284: advertising of prescription-only medicines to the public. Human Medicines Regulations 2012, Part 14

Reference numbering in this list reflects the order references were first added to this page; it is not a ranking of evidential weight. Readers are encouraged to consult each original source directly via the linked DOI or URL where provided.