Objective: To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of allergic rhinitis (AR).

Materials And Methods: A 2-week, single-centered, randomized, double-blind, parallel group comparative clinical study was conducted on patients with AR. 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 ( < 0.05) than that of rupatadine. Both the drugs significantly reduced the absolute eosinophil count, but olopatadine ( < 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.

Conclusion: Olopatadine is a better choice in AR in comparison to rupatadine due to its better efficacy and safety profile.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5242030PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.195901DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

efficacy safety
12
safety cost-effectiveness
8
cost-effectiveness rupatadine
8
rupatadine olopatadine
8
olopatadine patients
8
patients allergic
8
allergic rhinitis
8
randomized double-blind
8
double-blind parallel
8
parallel group
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!