ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
A comparative study of efficacy and tolerability of cetirizine and bilastine in patients of allergic rhinitis: An 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. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a type 1 allergic disease of the nasal mucosa, characterized by paroxysmal repetitive sneezing, watery rhinorrhea, and nasal blockage with the prevalence of 25% worldwide. Bilastine is a newer second-generation H1 antihistaminic approved for the symptomatic treatment of AR and chronic urticaria in patients older than 12 years. To date, there are very few studies in the Indian population comparing the efficacy, safety, and its effect on cognition of bilastine with second-generation antihistaminics. Hence, the study was planned to assess and compare the efficacy, tolerability, and the effect on cognition of cetirizine and bilastine in patients of AR. Aim: The aim is to assess and compare the efficacy and tolerability of cetirizine and bilastine in patients with AR. Materials and Methods: It was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, comparative study conducted on 80 patients of AR attending the ENT outpatient department of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Patients were divided into two groups of 40 each. They received either cetirizine 10 mg or bilastine 20 mg once daily for 2 weeks, and efficacy and tolerability were assessed at 2 weeks follow-up visits. Results: The difference in mean total symptom score was significant in bilastine as well as cetirizine, which showed that bilastine was equally efficacious as cetirizine. Adverse events were reported more in the cetirizine group. Conclusion: Bilastine is equally efficacious as cetirizine and a favorable tolerability profile may make it a more tolerable H1-antihistaminic than cetirizine.
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.