ArticleJournal of asthma and allergy2011
Morning and evening efficacy evaluation of rupatadine (10 and 20 mg), compared with cetirizine 10 mg in perennial allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Article in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Symptomatic Interventions for Allergic Rhinitis Without Comorbid Asthma: A Dose-Stratified Network Meta-analysis.Clinical drug investigation · 2026Pooled it
- Oral Second-Generation H1-Antihistamine Regimens for Allergic Rhinitis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Effects and Estimability.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Olopatadine vs. Rupatadine for Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Cureus · 2025Review
- Pharmacokinetics and Safety of a Bilastine Once-Daily, Preservative-Free, Ophthalmic Formulation.Advances in therapy · 2021Article
- Higher efficacy of rupatadine 20 mg and 10 mg versus placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: a pooled responder analysis.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2020Article
- Clinically relevant effect of rupatadine 20 mg and 10 mg in seasonal allergic rhinitis: a pooled responder analysis.Clinical and translational allergy · 2019Article
- The complex pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis: scientific rationale for the development of an alternative treatment option.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2019Review
- Long-term safety and efficacy of rupatadine in Japanese patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: a 52-week open-label clinical trial.Journal of drug assessment · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness of allergic rhinitis treatment: An exploratory study.SAGE open medicine · 2018Review
- Rupatadine: efficacy and safety of a non-sedating antihistamine with PAF-antagonist effects.Allergo journal internationalReview
- Assessment of Different Cetirizine Dosing Strategies on Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Symptoms: Findings of Two Randomized Trials.Allergy & rhinology (Providence, R.I.)Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA circadian rhythm of symptoms has been reported in allergic rhinitis (AR). Severity of all major symptoms of AR, including runny nose, sneezing, and nasal congestion, is typically at its peak in the morning. The objective of this study was to explore the efficacy of the antihistamine and platelet activating factor (PAF) antagonist rupatadine in the morning and evening and to evaluate whether rupatadine provides effective symptom relief throughout the 24-hour dosing interval.
methodsA total of 308 patients ≥18 years of age with PAR was randomly assigned to once-daily rupatadine 10 mg, rupatadine 20 mg, or cetirizine 10 mg for 4 weeks in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. The main outcome was the morning/evening reflective total symptom score (5TSS) over the treatment period. Secondary endpoints included morning/evening reflective nasal total symptom score (4NTSS), individual symptoms, Pdmax1 as percentage of days with daily severest symptom score ≤1, and subject/investigator evaluation of therapeutic response.
resultsAll active groups were significantly more effective than placebo in improving morning and evening evaluations of 5TSS (P < 0.001) and 4NTSS (P < 0.001) at 2 or 4 weeks. At morning evaluation, there was a significant reduction from baseline for 5TSS with rupatadine 10 mg (-36.8%, P < 0.01) and 20 mg (-46.3%, P < 0.01) compared with placebo. Similarly, 4NTSS was reduced significantly more with rupatadine 10 mg (-34%, P < 0.05) and 20 mg (-41%, P < 0.01) compared with placebo. In the cetirizine 10 mg group, the reduction was -32.7% and -32.2% for 5TSS and 4NTSS, respectively, but this reduction was not significant compared with placebo. The percentage reduction was greater at evening than at morning evaluation. 5TSS reduction with rupatadine 10 mg (-40.7%, P < 0.05) and 20 mg (-49.9%, P < 0.01) and cetirizine 10 mg (-40.1%, P < 0.05) was significantly better than with placebo. 4NTSS values for active groups were also significantly improved versus placebo. When individual symptoms were assessed, statistically significant differences for rhinorrhea (P < 0.01), nasal itching (P < 0.01), and sneezing (P < 0.01) were shown in all active groups compared with placebo at morning and evening evaluations. Pdmax1 index was significantly improved for all active groups and the overall efficacy assessed by patients or investigators showed a significant improvement (P < 0.01) versus placebo at 2 and 4 weeks. The incidence of somnolence was significantly greater in all active groups versus placebo.
conclusionThe sustained 24-hour action of rupatadine 10 mg provides an effective control of morning and evening symptoms in patients with PAR treated for up to 4 weeks.
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.