RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 6-week, single-centered, randomized, double blind, parallel group comparative clinical study was conducted on patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 60 patients were recruited and were randomized to two treatment groups and received the respective drugs for 6 weeks. At follow-up, parameters assessed were mean total symptom score (MTSS) calculated by adding the mean number of wheals (MNW) and the mean pruritus score (MPS), number of wheals, size of wheal, scale for interference of wheals with sleep (SIWS). RESULTS: Both the drugs significantly reduced the MTSS, number of wheals, size of wheal, scale for interference of wheals with sleep, but olopatadine was found to be superior. In olopatadine group, there was significantly higher reduction in MTSS (p = 0.01), Number of wheals (P < 0.05), Size of wheals (p < 0.05), Scale for intensity of erythema (p < 0.05) and change in eosinopils count (p = 0.015) than that of rupatadine. Incidence of adverse effects was found to be less in olopatadine group when compared with rupatadine group. Cost effectiveness ratio was less in olopatadine group as compared to rupatadine group throughout the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine is a better choice in chronic spontaneous urticaria in comparison to rupatadine due to its better efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness profile.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Urticaria is a distressing condition associated with diverse clinical presentations. Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CsU) is characterized by wheals and angioedema. Its treatment requires an algorithmic approach to identify the optimum medication. OBJECTIVES: Cetirizine is commonly used in the treatment of urticaria. Rupatadine is a selective non-sedating H1 -antihistamine approved for the treatment of CsU. This trial was conducted to ascertain whether the properties of rupatadine offer advantages over cetirizine. METHODS: Seventy patients with CsU were enrolled. Parameters assessed included: (i) mean number of wheals (MNW); (ii) pruritus; (iii) mean total symptom score (MTSS); (iv) size of wheal; (v) interference of wheals with sleep; and (vi) sedation. Patients with CsU were divided randomly into two groups. Routine investigations were performed at baseline and at the end of the study. RESULTS: Evaluations of MTSS, MNW, and pruritus revealed statistically significant differences at week 3 compared with baseline in the cetirizine group. However, greater reductions in these parameters were obtained with rupatadine. In patients receiving rupatadine, reductions in the MNW, size of wheals, and intensity of erythema were also significant at six weeks (P < 0.001) and were significantly greater than those in the cetirizine group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in MTSS, MNW, size of wheals, intensity of erythema, and differential eosinophil count imply that rupatadine is a particularly attractive therapeutic modality compared with cetirizine for the treatment of CsU.
