Comparison of Efficacy, Safety and Cost-effectiveness of Rupatadine and Olopatadine in Patients of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Randomized, Double-blind, Comparative, Parallel Group Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of chronic spontaneous urticaria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 6-week, single-centered, randomized, double blind, parallel group comparative clinical study was conducted on patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 60 patients were recruited and were randomized to two treatment groups and received the respective drugs for 6 weeks. At follow-up, parameters assessed were mean total symptom score (MTSS) calculated by adding the mean number of wheals (MNW) and the mean pruritus score (MPS), number of wheals, size of wheal, scale for interference of wheals with sleep (SIWS).

RESULTS: Both the drugs significantly reduced the MTSS, number of wheals, size of wheal, scale for interference of wheals with sleep, but olopatadine was found to be superior. In olopatadine group, there was significantly higher reduction in MTSS (p = 0.01), Number of wheals (P < 0.05), Size of wheals (p < 0.05), Scale for intensity of erythema (p < 0.05) and change in eosinopils count (p = 0.015) than that of rupatadine. Incidence of adverse effects was found to be less in olopatadine group when compared with rupatadine group. Cost effectiveness ratio was less in olopatadine group as compared to rupatadine group throughout the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine is a better choice in chronic spontaneous urticaria in comparison to rupatadine due to its better efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness profile.