ArticleIndian journal of dermatology
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.
Article in Indian journal of dermatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second-generation H1 antihistamines for the treatment of chronic urticaria: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy, safety, and serum cytokine modulation by olopatadine hydrochloride and desloratadine citrate disodium combination therapy in urticaria.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- 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
- Comparison of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of allergic rhinitis: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel group study.Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeuticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria. MATERIALS AND
methodsA 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).
resultsBoth 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.
conclusionsOlopatadine is a better choice in chronic spontaneous urticaria in comparison to rupatadine due to its better efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness profile.
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.