ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
A prospective, observational study of efficacy and safety of desloratadine and bilastine in patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Urticaria is a disease where there is development of short-lived itchy wheals (hives), angioedema, or both.[1] With a lifetime prevalence of up to 22%, it is a widespread skin disorder that affects the general population. Urticarial episodes lasting longer than 6 weeks are considered chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU).[23] Bilastine is a novel second-generation H1-antihistamine approved by the Drugs Controller General of India for the symptomatic treatment of CSU. Till date, there are very few studies in the Indian population comparing the efficacy and safety of bilastine with second-generation antihistaminic. Hence, the study was planned to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of desloratadine and bilastine in patients of CSU. Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of desloratadine and bilastine in patients of CSU. Materials and Methods: It was a randomized, open-label, parallel group, comparative study conducted in 60 patients of CSU attending the dermatology outpatient department of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Patients were divided into 2 groups of 30 each. They received either desloratadine 5 mg or Bilastine 20 mg once daily for 6 weeks, and efficacy and safety were assessed at 2-, 4- and 6-week follow-up visit. Results: Difference in MTSS was significant in bilastine as well as desloratadine, which showed that bilastine was equally efficacious as desloratadine. Adverse events were reported more in the desloratadine group. Conclusion: Bilastine is equally efficacious as desloratadine, and a favourable safety profile may make it a more tolerable H1-antihistaminic than desloratadine.
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.