Article · Volume 2, Issue 4 · pp. 270–276

Olopatadine hydrochloride and rupatadine fumarate in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A comparative study of efficacy and safety

Rituparna Maiti¹, Jyothirmai Jaida¹, Jalelur Rahman², Rajasri Gaddam¹, Anuradha Palani¹

¹Departments of Pharmacology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagunur Road, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, India Research Paper.
²E.N.T., Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagunur Road, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, India Research Paper.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efﬁ cacy and safety of olopatadine and rupatadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).Materials and Methods: A 2-week, single-centered, randomized, open, parallel group comparative clinical study was conducted on patients with SAR. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 70 patients were recruited and were randomized to two treatment groups and received the respective drugs for 2 weeks. At follow-up, clinical improvement was assessed in terms of change in total and differential count of leucocytes, serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) level, Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scoring.Results: Both the drugs signiﬁ cantly reduced the differential count (P<0.001) and absolute eosinophil count (P<0.001), but olopatadine was found to be superior. In olopatadine group, there was signiﬁ cantly higher reduction in serum IgE (P=0.01), TNSS (P<0.001) and RQLQ score (P=0.015) than that of rupatadine. Incidence of adverse effects was found to be less in olopatadine group when compared with rupatadine group.Conclusions: Olopatadine is a better choice in SAR in comparison to rupatadine due to its better efﬁ cacy and safety proﬁ le.

Keywords: Seasonal allergic rhinitis; olopatadine; rupatadine; rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire scoring; total nasal symptom score

The full text of this article is available as a PDF. Open the PDF.