ArticleIndian journal of pharmacology2010
Loratadine versus levocetirizine in chronic idiopathic urticaria: A comparative study of efficacy and safety.
Article in Indian journal of pharmacology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second-generation H1 antihistamines for the treatment of chronic urticaria: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Sedative Effects of Levocetirizine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies.Drugs · 2017Pooled it
- H1-antihistamines for chronic spontaneous urticaria.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- 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.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2020Review
- Autologous serum therapy in chronic urticaria: a promising complement to antihistamines.Indian journal of dermatology · 2014Article
- 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.Indian journal of dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) is challenging because of its unpredictable course and negative influence on the quality of life. New treatments are being developed, but antihistaminics remain the cornerstone of the therapeutic approach. Newer generation antihistaminics such as loratadine and levocetirizine have already proved to be safe and efficacious for CIU.
objectiveTo choose the better drug between loratadine and levocetirizine for CIU, by comparing their efficacy and safety.
methodsA randomized, open, outdoor-based clinical study was conducted on 60 patients of CIU, to compare the two drugs. After initial clinical assessment and baseline investigations, loratadine was prescribed to 30 patients and levocetirizine to another 30 patients for four weeks. At follow-up, the patients were re-evaluated and then compared using different statistical tools.
resultThe comparative study showed that the changes in differential eosinophil count (P = 0.006) and absolute eosinophil count (P = 0.003) in the levocetirizine group was statistically significant. The results of the Total Symptom Score showed better symptomatic improvement of CIU with levocetirizine as compared to loratadine. The overall incidence of adverse drug reactions was also found to be less in the levocetirizine group.
conclusionAn analysis of the results of all the parameters of safety and efficacy proves the superiority of levocetirizine over loratadine for CIU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.