ArticleIndian journal of dermatology
Loratadine vs Rupatadine: Unearthing the Capital Choice in Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria (CIU) - A Randomized Controlled 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria (CIU) is a debilitating disease characterised by almost daily presence of urticarial symptoms like short-lived wheals, itching, and erythema for at least 6 weeks without an identifiable cause there by leading to impairment of quality of life of the patient. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of loratadine and rupatadine in chronic idiopathic urticaria. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, single-blind, parallel arm study conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of loratadine and rupatadine in patients with CIU. The study was registered prospectively with Clinical Trial registry of India (CTRI/2017/05/008624). Institutional Ethics Committee clearance was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants before enrolment into the trial. The study was conducted in the outpatient department of Dermatology, SRM Medical College, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, India, during the period from June 2017 to August 2018. Patients with CIU enrolled into the study based on inclusion-exclusion criteria were given the intervention drugs; Loratadine 10 mg once daily or rupatadine10 mg once daily orally for 6 weeks. Results: Rupatadine is more efficacious than loratadine in the reduction of Total Leucocyte Count, Differential Count and Absolute Eosinophil Count, the key determinants of allergy. Rupatadine also produced better improvement in Total symptom Score, Dermatology Life Quality Index in patients with CIU. Conclusion: Analysis of all the parameters of efficacy and safety establishes the probable superiority of rupatadine over loratadine for the treatment of urticaria.
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.