Comparison of efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria: A randomized, double-blind, comparative, parallel group trial

Abstract

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.

Comparison of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of allergic rhinitis: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel group study

“…Other adverse events noted were headache and dryness of mouth which were also found in the previous study. [214] Our study did not reveal any change in electrocardiogram (ECG), supporting the previous studies which also showed no change in ECG findings. [101415]…”

“…Other adverse events noted were headache and dryness of mouth which were also found in the previous study. [2,14] Our study did not reveal any change in electrocardiogram (ECG), supporting the previous studies which also showed no change in ECG findings. [10,14,15] To compare the cost-effectiveness of two drugs, only the direct health cost of the drug treatment was taken into consideration.…”

“…Other adverse events noted were headache, gastric irritation, and dryness of mouth. [9,14] Similarly, with olopatadine, the most commonly occurring adverse event was sedation, which supports the finding of the previous study. Other adverse events noted were headache and dryness of mouth which were also found in the previous study.…”

Presence of positive skin prick tests to inhalant allergens and markers of T2 inflammation in subjects with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU): a systematic literature review

“…Where corticosteroids weren’t held, the mean eosinophil percentage, mean absolute eosinophil count and median absolute eosinophil count were not elevated. Studies did find that antihistamines reduced peripheral blood eosinophil counts in CSU subjects which may help explain these findings [ 23 , 24 , 50 ].…”