scholarly journals Pharmacoeconomic assessment and comparing efficacy between cetirizine, levocetirizine, loratadine and fexofenadine in allergic rhinitis patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 2684
Author(s):  
Ganesh S. Pentewar ◽  
Ranjit J. Wagh ◽  
Aparna S. Chincholkar
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Nasal Symptom ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Bonferroni Adjustment ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Comparative Clinical Study ◽  
Analysis Of Results

Background: A successful treatment of allergic rhinitis is considered not only as relief from sneezing, itching, rhinorrhoea, congestion but also as the functional impact on the patient’s daily life. The cost of treating allergic rhinitis and indirect costs related to loss of workplace productivity are substantial.Methods: The present study was single centered, open label, randomized, four Arm, parallel-group, comparative clinical study between orally administered Cetirizine, Levocetirizine, Loratadine and Fexofenatidine in patients with allergic rhinitis conducted at MIMER Medical college and Dr. Bhausaheb Sardesai hospital in rural Maval Taluka in Pune district of Maharashtra State.Results: Total Nasal Symptom Score differs significantly for all the treatment groups. Subsequent pairwise contrasts using a Bonferroni adjustment reveals maximum reduction of symptoms in Levocetirizine group. Cost effectiveness ratio was effective for Levocetirizine followed by Cetirizine, Loratadine, and Fexofenadine.Conclusions: From the analysis of results, the study shows that both Levocetirizine and Cetirizine control the symptoms of allergic rhinitis better as compared to Loratadine and Fexofenadine but Levocetirizine was a better choice in comparison to others due to its cost effectiveness.

scholarly journals A comparative study to assess the efficacy of fluticasone and mometasone in allergic rhinitis

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 1587
Author(s):  
Waqar Ul Hamid ◽  
Deepshikha Sumbria ◽  
Ihsan Ali ◽  
Rauf Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Allergic Diseases ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
Nasal Symptom ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Nasal Sprays ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
The Difference

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Allergic rhinitis is the most prevalent of allergic diseases in the world. Pharmacotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment.  Nasal corticosteroids being the most applicable drugs for its treatment. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of fluticasone propionate (FP) and mometasone furoate (MF) nasal sprays in the treatment of allergic rhinitis based on total nasal symptom score (TNSS) questionnaire.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> A prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, comparative study was conducted among 80 allergic rhinitis patients fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. They were randomly assigned to two groups: FP and MF groups. FP group received 200 µg dose of FP nasal spray (1 spray/nostril) daily and the MF group received 100 µg dose of MF nasal spray (1 spray/nostril) daily for 8 weeks. The effects of the two agents were compared based on TNSS questionnaire in 0, 4 and 8 weeks after the beginning of the treatment.  </p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> At the end of eight weeks of treatment, both groups showed statistically significant (p&lt;0.005) improvements from their baseline TNSS. Mean TNSS was reduced from to 9.46 to 2.716 in FP group and from 10.18 to 2.504 in MF group.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Both the groups showed a significant therapeutic benefit in patients with allergic rhinitis. Even though, the difference between the two is not significant for 8 weeks therapy.   </p>

scholarly journals Evaluation of effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of allergic rhinitis at Indore: a randomized control trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 1753
Author(s):  
Jay Shah ◽  
Poonam Patel
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Nasal Symptom ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Differential Count ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
College Hospital ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Parallel Group

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most prevalent atopic disorders that affect productivity and quality of life. Although individually olopatadine and rupatadine are efficacious in AR, data on the head to head study of these drugs in Indian population are scanty, so present study was undertaken with an aim to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients’ of allergic rhinitis.Methods: A prospective, randomized, double blind, parallel group, comparative 2 weeks clinical study conducted in eighty patients of AR in the Department of Pharmacology, Index Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Indore. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 67 patients were recruited and randomized to two treatment groups and received the respective drugs for 2 weeks. At follow-up, parameters assessed were total nasal symptom score (TNSS), change in total and differential count of eosinophil.Results: In olopatadine group, there was a significantly higher reduction in TNSS (P < 0.05) than that of rupatadine. Both the drugs significantly reduced the absolute eosinophil count, but olopatadine (P <0.001) was found to be superior. The incidence of adverse effects was found to be less in olopatadine group when compared with rupatadine group.Conclusions: Both rupatadine and olopatadine provide effective relief of the symptoms of AR. However, clinical benefit occurs significantly more with olopatadine. However, rupatadine was more cost‑effective than olopatadine in treating the patients of AR in term of effectiveness.

Comparison of efficacy and tolerability of oral desloratadine, rupatadine and ketotifen in seasonal allergic rhinitis

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 106-114
Author(s):  
Syed Khadeer ◽  
B Jagannath
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Nasal Congestion ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Nasal Symptom ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Non Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Change In Mean

Rhinitis is inflammation of nasal mucosa which characteristically presents as running nose, blocked nose, itching on nose or sneezing. Allergic rhinitis is more common than non-allergic rhinitis. Anti-histamines are the mainstay of SAR treatment. Desloratadine, rupatadine and ketotifen are the commonly prescribed anti histamines in our region. In this study, we have compared efficacy and tolerability of desloratadine, rupatadine and ketotifen in SAR. This was a prospective, randomized, three arm, open label comparative study of desloratadine, rupatadine and ketotifen in SAR, conducted at Department of ENT, Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangalore; between January 2014 and December 2014. Patients’ severity of SAR symptoms were assessed by TNSS, QoL was measured using Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire (SF-12). SF-12 was administered at the start of study and then at the end of study. Adverse effects were monitored during clinical examination at each visit. Study subjects were systemically randomized into three groups – desloratadine (DES), rupatadine (RUP) and ketotifen (KET). Based on the assigned group; desloratadine was given orally in dose of 10mg OD, rupatadine orally 10 mg OD and ketotifen orally 1mg BD. All medications were given for 4 weeks. Follow up was done for all patients every week during treatment period of 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change in mean TNSS from baseline; secondary outcome measures were changes in the individual nasal symptom scores, change in the quality of life and tolerability to the study medications. Total 150 patients were recruited for this study, divided into 3 groups. DES and RUP were equally effective but significantly better than KET in improving rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, TNSS and AEC. (p=0.05). All the drugs were equally effective with no statistically significant intergroup difference in improving sneezing, nasal itching and QoL. RUP appeared to have better tolerability as the total number of adverse events were marginally less. DES and RUP are comparatively more effective and faster acting than KET. All the study medications were well tolerated with few mild, self-limiting, transient adverse events requiring no intervention.

scholarly journals Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Losartan and Amlodipine in Reducing Microalbuminuria in Patients with Primary Hypertension, a Randomized open Label Parallel Group Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 1389-1394
Author(s):  
Sowmya P ◽  
Balaji c ◽  
Arul Amutha Elizabeth ◽  
Punnagai Punnagai
Keyword(s):  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Albumin Level ◽  
Primary Hypertension ◽  
Renal Diseases ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Microvascular Damage ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Urine Albumin ◽  
Parallel Group

Majority of the cardiovascular and renal diseases has been associated with Hypertension Primary hypertension also called as essential or idiopathic hypertension tends to be familial and the prevalence increases with age. Microalbuminuria has been correlated with microvascular damage in hypertension patients.To Compare the Efficacy of Losartan and Amlodipine in reducing microalbuminuria in patients with primary hypertension.An open labeled parellel group cross sectioned study was conducted in Sree Balaji medical college and hospital, Department of General Medicine Chrompet during the period of March 2015 to December 2015. In our research study suggested that there are major differences between Angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium chaneel blockers in reducing microalbuminuria in essential hypertension. After 6-month of losartan treatment, the reduction in urine albumin level is statistically highly significant (p<0.01) 71.17±66.04**. compared with baseline101.95±94.70. After 6 months of Amlodipine treatment group resulted in statistically not significant (p>0.05) in urine albumin excretion level 99.85±96.35 compared with baseline 101.11±95.28 in essential hypertensive patients .Hence this study shows that losartan after administration for 6 months ,conferred significant advantages over amlodipine in terms of reduction of urinary albumin levels levels in hypertension patients

scholarly journals Role of Antioxidants on the Clinical Outcome of Patients with Perennial Allergic Rhinitis

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. ar.2016.7.0163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhushan Chauhan ◽  
Manish Gupta ◽  
Komal Chauhan
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Combined Therapy ◽  
Nasal Symptom ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Perennial Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Symptom Scores ◽  
The Mean

Background Antioxidants have a preventive or therapeutic role in oxygen free radical-mediated cell and tissue damage. The study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effects of antioxidants and intranasal steroid fluticasone furoate (FF) on the clinical outcome of patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Methods Subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis (n = 61) were randomly divided into two groups, group A (n = 30) received FF and group B(n = 31) received FF with antioxidants for 6 weeks. Nasal and ocular symptoms were evaluated weekly by using a four-point categoric scale. The efficacy of the study drug was assessed based on the mean change from baseline of the total daytime nasal symptom scores, total nighttime nasal symptom scores, and the composite symptom scores. Results The combined therapy (FF with antioxidants) resulted in marked improvements (p ≤ 0.05) in the mean total daytime nasal symptom scores, total nighttime nasal symptom scores, and composite symptom scores of subjects compared with ones treated with intranasal steroid (FF) alone, which highlighted the therapeutic effect of antioxidants in allergic rhinitis. Conclusion Significant improvement in clinical outcome was observed in subjects who received antioxidants along with FF. However, because this was an open-label study, the results must be interpreted with caution, and further double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trials supplemented with different antioxidants together with intranasal steroids are suggested.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document