A prospective, randomized, open-label, active-controlled study to compare the efficacy and safety of levocetirizine and bepotastine in chronic spontaneous urticaria

G. Menghani, N. Kaur, K. Vyas, Kalpana Gupta, K. Maheshwari, R. Singh
{"title":"A prospective, randomized, open-label, active-controlled study to compare the efficacy and safety of levocetirizine and bepotastine in chronic spontaneous urticaria","authors":"G. Menghani, N. Kaur, K. Vyas, Kalpana Gupta, K. Maheshwari, R. Singh","doi":"10.4103/cdr.cdr_105_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Management of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is challenging because of its unpredictable course and negative influence on the quality of life. Second-generation antihistaminics are the first-line treatment. Levocetirizine, a time-tested antihistaminic, has proven efficacy in CSU. Bepotastine, which was previously used for allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis, has recently been tried in urticaria. It may be a better alternative to levocetirizine because of its long-term safety. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of levocetirizine and bepotastine in CSU. Materials and Methods: A randomized, active-controlled, open-label, prospective, interventional study was conducted on 70 patients of CSU. After initial clinical assessment and baseline investigations, bepotastine and levocetirizine were prescribed to separate groups of 35 patients for a period of 12 weeks. Urticaria Activity Score (UAS) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) were used for assessing the severity of disease. Follow-up visits were planned for evaluating clinical improvement and adverse effects. Results were compared using Mann–Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The reduction in UAS and DLQI score in levocetirizine group was better than bepotastine group, and the results were statistically significant at 12 weeks (P = 0.0001). Incidence of adverse effects such as sedation and weight gain was higher in levocetirizine group at 12th week (P = 0.0003). Conclusion: The result of the study reveals the superiority of levocetirizine in terms of efficacy, i.e., reduction of UAS and DLQI scores. Bepotastine although slightly lower in efficacy shows better safety profile.","PeriodicalId":34880,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Dermatology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Dermatology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/cdr.cdr_105_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Management of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is challenging because of its unpredictable course and negative influence on the quality of life. Second-generation antihistaminics are the first-line treatment. Levocetirizine, a time-tested antihistaminic, has proven efficacy in CSU. Bepotastine, which was previously used for allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis, has recently been tried in urticaria. It may be a better alternative to levocetirizine because of its long-term safety. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of levocetirizine and bepotastine in CSU. Materials and Methods: A randomized, active-controlled, open-label, prospective, interventional study was conducted on 70 patients of CSU. After initial clinical assessment and baseline investigations, bepotastine and levocetirizine were prescribed to separate groups of 35 patients for a period of 12 weeks. Urticaria Activity Score (UAS) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) were used for assessing the severity of disease. Follow-up visits were planned for evaluating clinical improvement and adverse effects. Results were compared using Mann–Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The reduction in UAS and DLQI score in levocetirizine group was better than bepotastine group, and the results were statistically significant at 12 weeks (P = 0.0001). Incidence of adverse effects such as sedation and weight gain was higher in levocetirizine group at 12th week (P = 0.0003). Conclusion: The result of the study reveals the superiority of levocetirizine in terms of efficacy, i.e., reduction of UAS and DLQI scores. Bepotastine although slightly lower in efficacy shows better safety profile.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项前瞻性、随机、开放标签、主动对照研究,比较左西替利嗪和贝泊司汀治疗慢性自发性荨麻疹的疗效和安全性
背景:慢性自发性荨麻疹(CSU)由于其不可预测的病程和对生活质量的负面影响,其治疗具有挑战性。第二代抗组胺药是一线治疗。左西替利嗪是一种经过时间测试的抗组胺药,已被证明在CSU中有效。以前用于治疗过敏性鼻炎和结膜炎的贝他斯汀,最近已被用于治疗荨麻疹。由于其长期安全性,它可能是左西替利嗪的更好替代品。目的:本研究的目的是比较左西替利嗪和贝他斯汀治疗CSU的疗效和安全性。材料与方法:对70例CSU患者进行随机、主动对照、开放标签、前瞻性、介入性研究。在初步临床评估和基线调查后,对35名患者分别开贝他斯汀和左西替利嗪,为期12周。荨麻疹活动评分(UAS)和皮肤病生活质量指数(DLQI)用于评估疾病的严重程度。计划随访以评估临床改善和不良反应。使用Mann-Whitney U检验和Fisher精确检验对结果进行比较。P<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。结果:左西替利嗪组的UAS和DLQI评分的降低优于贝他斯汀组,且在12周时结果具有统计学意义(P=0.0001)。左西替利嗪组在12周后镇静和体重增加等不良反应的发生率更高(P=0.0003),即UAS和DLQI得分的降低。贝他斯汀虽然疗效稍低,但显示出更好的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊最新文献
Pulse Therapy in Rituximab Era: A Retrospective Study of 124 Patients of Pemphigus from a Tertiary Care Center of South Rajasthan A Baby with Café-au-lait Macules and Aberrant Mongolian Spot: Report of Phakomatosis Pigmentopigmentaria Reactive Infectious Mucocutaneous Eruption with Extensive Cutaneous Involvement Orofacial Granulomatosis Secondary to Cutaneous Tuberculosis: An Atypical Presentation Mucocutaneous Manifestations among Patients with Malignancies at a Tertiary Care Center in Maharashtra: A Cross-Sectional Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1