ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Comparative study of efficacy and safety of cetirizine and bilastine in patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria: Open-label, randomized, parallel-group study.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second-generation H1 antihistamines for the treatment of chronic urticaria: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Data mining in FAERS: association of newer-generation H1-antihistamines with nervous system disorders.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2024Article
- Therapies for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: Present and Future Developments.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Bilastine Reimagined: A Comprehensive Exploration of Pruritus Management With a Novel Antihistamine.Cureus · 2024Review
- A prospective, observational study of efficacy and safety of desloratadine and bilastine in patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Bilastine is a novel second-generation antihistaminic. Very few studies in Indian population have compared the safety and efficacy of bilastine with other second-generation antihistaminic like cetirizine. Hence, the present study was planned. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized, open-label comparative parallel group study conducted on 70 patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Patients either received cetirizine 10 mg or bilastine 20 mg once daily for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was to find out the difference in the mean total symptom score (MTSS) at baseline and 6 weeks. The secondary endpoint was to find out changes in the scale of the number of wheals, change in pruritus scale, scale for size of wheal, change for interference of wheals with sleep, change in visual analog scale (VAS) for sedation, change in scale for intensity of erythema, and change in Scale for Extent of Skin Area Involvement (SESI). Results: Bilastine and cetirizine offer a significant reduction in MTSS, mean number of wheals, and mean pruritus scale at baseline to 1, 3, and 6 weeks. The mean difference in MTSS was significantly more in bilastine. Cetirizine showed a significant increase in VAS score for sedation as compared to bilastine. Both the drugs were well tolerated and safe. Adverse events like headache, gastric irritation, dryness of mouth, and sedation were more reported in cetirizine group. Conclusion: Bilastine was more efficacious than cetirizine in patients of CSU and the efficacy was seen earlier at 1 week, which was not seen in the cetirizine group.
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.