西替利嗪和bilastine治疗慢性自发性荨麻疹的疗效和安全性比较:开放标签、随机、平行组研究

MrunaliniVinay Kalikar, VishakhaV Sinha, JayeshIshwardas Mukhi, AkhilBhagwan Giradkar, Smita Sontakke
{"title":"西替利嗪和bilastine治疗慢性自发性荨麻疹的疗效和安全性比较:开放标签、随机、平行组研究","authors":"MrunaliniVinay Kalikar, VishakhaV Sinha, JayeshIshwardas Mukhi, AkhilBhagwan Giradkar, Smita Sontakke","doi":"10.4103/picr.picr_28_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":20015,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Clinical Research","volume":"2019 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study of efficacy and safety of cetirizine and bilastine in patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria: Open-label, randomized, parallel-group study\",\"authors\":\"MrunaliniVinay Kalikar, VishakhaV Sinha, JayeshIshwardas Mukhi, AkhilBhagwan Giradkar, Smita Sontakke\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/picr.picr_28_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives in Clinical Research\",\"volume\":\"2019 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives in Clinical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_28_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Clinical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_28_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:Bilastine是一种新型的第二代抗组胺药。在印度人群中很少有研究比较bilastine与其他第二代抗组胺药如西替利嗪的安全性和有效性。因此,计划进行本研究。材料和方法:这是一项随机、开放标签的比较平行组研究,对70例慢性自发性荨麻疹(CSU)患者进行了研究。患者接受西替利嗪10mg或bilastine 20mg,每日一次,持续6周。主要终点是找出基线和6周时平均总症状评分(MTSS)的差异。次要目的是了解皮疹数量、瘙痒程度、大小、干扰睡眠程度、镇静效果视觉模拟评分(VAS)、红斑强度评分、皮肤受累程度评分(SESI)的变化。结果:比拉斯汀和西替利嗪在基线至1、3和6周时显著降低MTSS、平均轮数和平均瘙痒量表。bilastine组MTSS的平均差异更大。西替利嗪的VAS镇静评分明显高于bilastine。这两种药物都具有良好的耐受性和安全性。西替利嗪组出现头痛、胃刺激、口干、镇静等不良反应较多。结论:比拉斯汀对CSU患者的疗效优于西替利嗪,且疗效早于西替利嗪组,西替利嗪组未见疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparative study of efficacy and safety of cetirizine and bilastine in patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria: Open-label, randomized, parallel-group study
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perspectives in Clinical Research
Perspectives in Clinical Research Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: This peer review quarterly journal is positioned to build a learning clinical research community in India. This scientific journal will have a broad coverage of topics across clinical research disciplines including clinical research methodology, research ethics, clinical data management, training, data management, biostatistics, regulatory and will include original articles, reviews, news and views, perspectives, and other interesting sections. PICR will offer all clinical research stakeholders in India – academicians, ethics committees, regulators, and industry professionals -a forum for exchange of ideas, information and opinions.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of student-led “Association for Support and Propagation of Innovation, Research, and Education” (A.S.P.I.R.E) in empowering undergraduate medical students in research: A 2-year longitudinal study Pleiotropic effect of teneligliptin versus glimepiride add-on therapy on hs-CRP and cardiorenal parameters in Indian type 2 diabetes patients: An open-labeled randomized controlled trial Efficacy and safety of quick penetrating solution heparin, quick penetrating solution diclofenac, and heparin gel in the prevention of infusion-associated superficial thrombophlebitis: A randomized controlled trial Bio-entrepreneurs’ bugbear: Regulatory rigmarole Experience of participating in community-based clinical trials from rural Maharashtra: Analysis of over 4000 participant feedback forms
×
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