Trial reportThe Journal of dermatology2017
One-year safety and efficacy study of bilastine treatment in Japanese patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria or pruritus associated with skin diseases.
Trial report in The Journal of dermatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of switching to bilastine, an H1-antihistamine, in patients with refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (H1-SWITCH): a multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group comparative study.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Trial
- Bridging the Gap in Chronic Prurigo Care: Evidence-Based Diagnostic and Therapeutic Recommendations from a Delphi Consensus Panel.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Bilastine's Efficacy and Safety in Treating Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria in Iraqi Patients.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2024Article
- Safety and Tolerability of Bilastine 0.6% Ophthalmic Solution: An 8-Weeks Phase III Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- A Comparative, Three-Arm, Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness and Tolerability of Bilastine vs Fexofenadine vs Levocetirizine at the Standard Dose and Bilastine vs Fexofenadine at Higher Than the Standard Dose (Up-Dosing) vs Levocetirizine and Hydroxyzine (in Combination) in Patients with Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2022Article
- Quality of life in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases: in the eye of the beholder.Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA · 2021Review
- Article
- The safety and tolerability profile of bilastine for chronic urticaria in children.Clinical and translational allergy · 2019Review
- OSMR gene effect on the pathogenesis of chronic autoimmune Urticaria via the JAK/STAT3 pathway.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2018Article
- Real-Life Experience of Efficacy and Safety of Bilastine in the Refractory Cases of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria and its Effect on the Quality of Life of Patients.Indian journal of dermatologyArticle
- A Prospective Randomized Non-Blinded Study of Safety and Efficacy of Bilastine Up-Dosing (40 mg) Versus Combination of Bilastine 20 mg With Levocetirizine 5 mg in the Treatment of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of second-generation non-sedating antihistamines are used in clinical practices over the world. However, long-term safety and efficacy have not been proved high level evidence based medicine. We have performed an open-label, multicenter, phase III study to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of bilastine, a novel non-sedating H
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.