scholarly journals TO EVALUATE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF RUPATADINE, BILASTINE, AND LEVOCETRIZINE IN ALLERGIC RHINITIS AT TERITARY CARE HOSPITAL, TELANGANA

2021 ◽  
pp. 140-143
Author(s):  
NAGUR SHARONE GRACE ◽  
SYED ARSHADDUDDIN AHMED ◽  
BHUVANESWARI E ◽  
SYED HAMZA QUADRI ◽  
VEENA B ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Nasal Congestion ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Government

Objective: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a heterogeneous disorder characterized by symptoms – sneezing, itching, nasal congestion, and rhinorrhea. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rupatadine, bilastine, and levocetirizine in AR. Methods: A prospective, open-label, comparative study was conducted at the Government ENT Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana. Ninety patients diagnosed with AR were randomized, of whom Group 1 received oral tab. bilastine 20 mg once daily, Group 2 received oral tab. levocetirizine 5 mg once daily, and Group 3 received oral tab. rupatadine with a dose of 10 mg once daily for 2 weeks. The reduction in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and absolute eosinophil counts (AECs) was compared with baseline and at 2 weeks. Safety was assessed according to adverse events reported during the study period. An analysis of variance was used as a test of significance for the three groups. Results: Overall, 90 cases were included in the study, with 48% of males and 52% of females. All three drugs significantly reduced the TNSS and AEC after treatment compared to before treatment (p<0.05). The mean difference in TNSS and AEC showed no statistically significant difference among the three groups (TNSS: p>0.908 and AEC: p>0.967). In terms of safety, all three drugs showed nearly similar adverse events. Conclusion: In this study, after 2 weeks of follow-up, the three drugs (bilastine, levocetirizine, and rupatadine) showed significant improvement clinically, but the mean reduction in the score of symptoms and AEC was not statistically significant in the treatment of AR.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Tenofovir Disoproxil Orotate in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Previously Treated with Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate: Multicenter, Open-Label, Prospective Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (23) ◽  
pp. 5628
Author(s):  
Young Chang ◽  
Sang-Gyune Kim ◽  
Soung-Won Jeong ◽  
Jae-Young Jang ◽  
Jeong-Ju Yoo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Function ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis B ◽  
Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

Background/Aim: We aimed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxilorotate (TDO) compared with that of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Methods: This multicenter, open-label, prospective clinical trial (KCT0004185) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TDO on switching from TDF for 24 weeks in virologically suppressed chronic hepatitis B patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was the maintenance of virologic response. Safety was assessed by evaluating major adverse events, changes in renal function, and occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Results: TDO treatment was not inferior in terms of virological response when compared with that on TDF treatment, with a noninferiority margin of −10% (risk difference, −3.17%; 95% confidence interval, −7.5%–1.15%). The biological response of TDO was also comparable to that of TDF, with no significant difference in the proportion of patients with normalized alanine transaminase levels. After 24 weeks of treatment, hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) significantly decreased to a mean titer of 3.91 log U/mL from 4.15 log U/mL at baseline (p = 0.01). There were no cases of grade 3 or higher adverse events and HCC. The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate increased from 91.09 mL/min to 93.34 mL/min (p = 0.056), and the mean serum level of phosphorus increased from 3.33 mg/dL to 3.44 mg/dL (p = 0.045), suggesting improvement in renal function with TDO treatment. Conclusion: In patients with chronic hepatitis B, the efficacy of TDO was noninferior to that of TDF, with a significant decrease in the HBcrAg titer and improved renal function.

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.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chenjie Yu ◽  
Kaijian Wang ◽  
Xinyan Cui ◽  
Ling Lu ◽  
Jianfei Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Symptom Score ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Symptom Scores

Background Patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR) who are treated according to the current rhinitis management guidelines may be inadequately controlled. These patients are at risk of serious comorbidities, such as asthma and chronic sinusitis. These symptoms, sneezing and an itchy, runny, stuffy nose, may have a negative impact on patients’ daily functioning. Omalizumab is being developed as a new choice for the treatment of AR. We therefore undertook a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE databases for randomized controlled studies on the treatment of AR with omalizumab. Our evaluation outcomes were symptom scores, medication efficacy, combined symptom and medication scores, and adverse events. We descriptively summarized and quantitatively synthesized original data to evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR by using Stata12.0 software for meta-analyses. Results The results of our meta-analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the omalizumab group and the control group in the following aspects: daily nasal symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.443, 95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.538 to –0.347, P < .001); daily ocular symptom score (SMD = –0.385, 95% CI: –0.5 to –0.269, P < .001); daily nasal medication symptom scores (SMD = –0.421, 95% CI: –0.591 to –0.251, P < .001); proportion of days of emergency drug use (risk ratio [RR] = 0.488, 95% CI: 0.307 to 0.788, P < .005); rhinoconjunctivitis-specific quality of life questionnaire (SMD = –0.286, 95% CI: –0.418 to –0.154, P < .001); and overall evaluation (RR = 1.435, 95% CI: 1.303–1.582, P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in safety indicator: adverse events (RR = 1.026, 95% CI: 0.916–1.150, P = .655). Conclusion Omalizumab is effective and relatively safe in patients with AR; omalizumab used in conjunction with special immunotherapy has shown promising results, especially in reducing adverse events.

scholarly journals A comparative study to assess the efficacy and safety of bepotastine and cetirizine in allergic rhinitis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 2304
Author(s):  
A. T. Priyanka ◽  
K. R. Mamatha ◽  
G. M. Puttamadaiah
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Symptom Score ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Over The Counter ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Background: Pharmacotherapy is the mainstay of allergic rhinitis and many caregivers use over-the-counter antihistamines. Bepotastine is a novel oral second generation non-sedative antihistamine and an effective treatment option for allergic rhinitis. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bepotastine versus cetirizine an over the counter drug.Methods: A prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study was conducted among 60 patients fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Group A (n=30) received tablet cetirizine 10 mg once daily and Group B (n=30) received tablet bepotastine 10 mg once daily. Efficacy was assessed by mean change in total symptom score (TSS) which is the sum of total nasal symptom score and total ocular symptom score at the end of two weeks from baseline.Results: At the end of two weeks of treatment, both groups showed statistically significant (p<0.005) improvements from their baseline TSS. Mean TSS was reduced from12.36±2.12 to 4.2±1.66 in group A and from 13.33±3.039 to 3.033±1.40 in Group B. Significant statistical difference in TSS was seen more in Group B than Group A (p<0.005).Conclusions: Both the groups showed a substantial therapeutic benefit in patients with allergic rhinitis, however bepotastine is more effective. 

scholarly journals A randomized phase II trial of efficacy and safety of the immunotherapy ALECSAT as an adjunct to radiotherapy and temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katja Werlenius ◽  
Giuseppe Stragliotto ◽  
Michael Strandeus ◽  
Malin Blomstrand ◽  
Helena Carén ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background There is an urgent need for effective treatments against glioblastoma (GBM). In this trial we investigated the efficacy and safety of an adoptive cell-based immunotherapy. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed GBM were recruited at four study sites in Sweden. The patients were randomized 1:2 to receive either radiotherapy (RT), 60 Gy/30 fractions, with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) only, or RT and TMZ with addition of Autologous Lymphoid Effector Cells Specific Against Tumor (ALECSAT) in an open-label phase II trial. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were survival and safety of ALECSAT. Results Sixty-two patients were randomized to either RT and TMZ alone (n=22) or RT and TMZ with ALECSAT (n=40). Median age was 57 years (range 38-69), 95% of the patients were in good performance status (WHO 0-1). There was no significant difference between the study arms (SOC vs. ALECSAT + SOC) in PFS (7.9 vs. 7.8 months; HR 1.28; 95% CI 0.70, 2.36; P=0.42), or in median overall survival (OS) (18.3 vs. 19.2 months; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.58, 2.31; P=0.67). The treatment groups were balanced in terms of serious adverse events (52.4% vs. 52.5%), but adverse events ≥ grade 3 were more common in the experimental arm (81.0% vs. 92.5%). Conclusion Addition of ALECSAT immunotherapy to standard treatment with radiochemotherapy was well tolerated but did not improve PFS or OS for patients with newly diagnosed GBM.

scholarly journals Review of Efficacy and Safety of Duloxetine 40 to 60 mg Once Daily in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Skljarevski ◽  
Elijah P. Frakes ◽  
Doron Sagman ◽  
Sarah Lipsius ◽  
Alexandra N. Heinloth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Brief Pain Inventory ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Peripheral Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Once Daily

We summarize efficacy and safety findings from 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week studies and 1 open-label, uncontrolled, 34-week maintenance-of-effect (MOE) study that examine duloxetine 40 and 60 mg once daily (QD) in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). In all placebo-controlled studies, duloxetine showed significantly (P≤.01) greater reduction in pain severity (weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity ratings, primary outcome measure) compared with placebo. In all placebo-controlled studies, duloxetine showed significantly (P≤.05) greater improvement on brief pain inventory-Interference ratings. Patient global impression of improvement ratings were superior to placebo (P≤.01) for duloxetine patients in all placebo-controlled studies. Response rates (based on 30% pain reduction) ranged from 57% to 68% for duloxetine and from 35% to 47% for placebo and were statistically significantly different (P≤.01) between treatment groups in 3 out of 4 studies. The open-label study showed maintenance of analgesic effect of duloxetine in DPNP. In the duloxetine groups, 4.3% to 14.9% of patients discontinued because of adverse events (placebo groups: 2.6% to 7.4%). Most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and headache. Duloxetine 40 and 60 mg QD was efficacious and well tolerated in the management of DPNP.

scholarly journals Randomized Controlled Trial of Etodolac versus Combination of Etodolac and Eperisone in Patients of Knee Osteoarthritis

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Navjot Kaur ◽  
Harinder Singh ◽  
Avinash Chander Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Spontaneous Pain ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective. To compare the efficacy and tolerability of etodolac versus etodolac in combination with eperisone in patients of Osteoarthritis knee. Patients and Methods. A prospective, randomized, open label, parallel group, comparative study was conducted in 60 patients of knee OA over a period of 2 months. Thirty patients received etodolac 600 mg once daily and 30 patients received eperisone 50 mg thrice daily in addition to etodolac 600 mg once daily for 8 weeks. Efficacy assessment was done on the basis of improvement in mean scores of spontaneous pain on Visual analog scale (VAS), pain on movement, functional capacity, joint tenderness, swelling, erythema on Likert scale, and patient's overall arthritic condition on a five-point investigator scale at the end of study period as compared with the baseline scores. Assessment of tolerability was done by recording the occurrence of adverse events. Data was analyzed using Chi square test and students t-test. Results. All the enrolled patients completed the study and were compliant to the treatment regimens that they were allocated to. Both the treatment groups showed a statistically significant improvement in all the efficacy parameters at the end of 8 weeks as compared to baseline (P<0.05) with no statistically significant difference between the groups. Adverse events were few and mild in nature. Conclusion. Combination of etodolac and eperisone is as effective as etodolac alone in patients of OA knee. Thus, it is concluded that additional use of muscle relaxant has no adjuvant value in patients of OA knee and is not recommended. The study is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India vide registration number CTRI/2013/03/003442.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Molidustat for Anemia in ESA-Naive Nondialysis Patients: A Randomized, Phase 3 Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Hiroyasu Yamamoto ◽  
Kiyoshi Nobori ◽  
Yoshimi Matsuda ◽  
Yasuhiro Hayashi ◽  
Takanori Hayasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Renal Anemia ◽  
Target Range ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Evaluation Period ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Change In Mean

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Molidustat is an oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor that predominantly induces renal production of erythropoietin (EPO). Molidustat was evaluated for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the “Molidustat Once Daily Improves Renal Anemia by Inducing EPO” (MIYABI) program, which comprises 5 phase 3 clinical trials. The present MIYABI Non-Dialysis Correction (ND-C) study investigated the efficacy and safety of molidustat in Japanese patients with renal anemia who were not undergoing dialysis and were not receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) treatment. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This was a 52-week, randomized (1:1), open-label, active-control, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 study in Japanese patients with renal anemia associated with CKD (stages 3–5). Molidustat or the ESA darbepoetin alfa (hereinafter referred to as darbepoetin) were initiated at 25 mg once daily or 30 μg every 2 weeks, respectively, and doses were regularly titrated to correct and to maintain hemoglobin (Hb) levels in the target range of ≥11.0 g/dL and &#x3c;13.0 g/dL. The primary efficacy outcome was the mean Hb level and its change from baseline during the evaluation period (weeks 30–36). The safety outcomes included evaluation of all adverse events. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In total, 162 patients were randomized to receive molidustat (<i>n</i> = 82) or darbepoetin (<i>n</i> = 80). Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced between treatment groups. The mean (standard deviation) Hb levels at baseline were 9.84 (0.64) g/dL for molidustat and 10.00 (0.61) g/dL for darbepoetin. The mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) for mean Hb levels during the evaluation period for molidustat (11.28 [11.07, 11.50] g/dL) and darbepoetin (11.70 [11.50, 11.90] g/dL) was within the target range. Based on a noninferiority margin of 1.0 g/dL, molidustat was noninferior to darbepoetin in the change in mean Hb level during the evaluation period from baseline; the least-squares mean (95% CI) difference (molidustat-darbepoetin) was −0.38 (−0.67, −0.08) g/dL. The proportion of patients who reported at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was 93.9% for molidustat and 93.7% for darbepoetin. Most TEAEs were mild (54.9% for molidustat and 63.3% for darbepoetin) or moderate (22.0% for molidustat and 22.8% for darbepoetin) in intensity. There were 3 deaths in the molidustat group and 1 in the darbepoetin group. <b><i>Discussion/Conclusion:</i></b> In the MIYABI ND-C study, molidustat appeared to be an efficacious and generally well-tolerated alternative to darbepoetin for the treatment of renal anemia in Japanese patients who were not undergoing dialysis and were not receiving ESA treatment.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of a drug-free, barrier-forming nasal spray for allergic rhinitis: randomized, open-label, crossover noninferiority trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Nehrig ◽  
Nicole Grosse ◽  
Ilja P Hohenfeld ◽  
Fabio Fais ◽  
Thomas Meyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose ◽  
Allergen Challenge ◽  
Dactylis Glomerata ◽  
Least Square ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
The Difference

Background Symptoms of allergic rhinitis can be reduced by nonpharmacological nasal sprays that create a barrier between allergens and the nasal mucosa. A new nasal spray (AM-301) containing the clay mineral bentonite was tested for its ability to reduce symptoms to grass pollen. Methods This open label, crossover, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy and safety of AM-301 to that of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC; Nasaleze Allergy Blocker), an established barrier method. Adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis were exposed to Dactylis glomerata pollen, in the Fraunhofer Allergen Challenge Chamber, first without protection and then protected by HPMC or AM-301 (7 days apart). Efficacy was assessed from total nasal symptom score (TNSS), nasal secretion weight, and subjective rating. The primary endpoint was the difference, between AM-301 and HPMC, in least square mean change in TNSS over a 4-hour exposure to allergen. Results The study enrolled 36 persons, and 35 completed all study visits. The mean TNSS was 5.91 during unprotected exposure, 5.20 during protection with HPMC, and 4.82 during protection with AM-301. The difference in least square means between the two treatments was -0.39 (95% CI, -0.89 to 0.10), establishing the noninferiority of AM-301. No difference in mean weight of nasal secretions was observed between the treatments. Efficacy was rated as good or very good for AM-301 by 31% and for HPMC by 14% of subjects. 16 subjects reported adverse events with a relationship to AM-301 or HPMC; most adverse events were mild and none was serious. Conclusions AM-301 demonstrated noninferiority towards HPMC in the primary endpoint and was perceived better in subjective secondary endpoints. Both barrier-forming products had a persisting protective effect over 4 hours and were safe. Trial registration German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00024356). EUDAMED (CIV-20-10-034870). Key words: Allergen challenge, Allergy, Bentonite, Dactylis glomerata, Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, Medical device, Nasal spray, Pollen, Rhinorrhea, Thixotropy

scholarly journals Comparison of efficacy and safety of topical luliconazole with topical fluconazole against tinea corporis in a tertiary care hospital

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 840
Author(s):  
E. Seshathri ◽  
R. Deepthi Krishna
Keyword(s):  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Tinea Corporis ◽  
Tolerability Profile ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Low Incidence ◽  
Group B

Background: Dermatophytosis is a common cutaneous infection worldwide with prevalence varying from 20% to 25%. Luliconazole is a newer topical antifungal applied once daily with greater reservoir property in stratum corneum. Objective of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of luliconazole 1% cream with Fluconazole 1% cream in patients with mild to severe grades of tinea corporis.Methods: A total of 100 patients with mycologically confirmed tinea corporis were randomised into group A and B respectively. Group A, 50 patients received luliconazole 1% for 2 weeks and group B, 50 patients received fluconazole 1% cream for 4 weeks. Patients were clinically and mycologically evaluated on 0, 2nd and 4th week of treatment and followed up on 8th week for any relapse.Results: Significant improvement in efficacy was seen in Luliconazole while compared with fluconazole group against tinea corporis infection. Mycological cure and clinical improvement showed significant difference in group A. The safety and tolerability profile of both groups were good and statistically comparable.Conclusions: Luliconazole 1% cream is found to be safe, effective and tolerable with low incidence of relapse than fluconazole 1% cream.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document