Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 6153

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : May | Volume : 18 | Issue : 5 | Page : WC01 - WC07 Full Version

Levocetirizine versus Bilastine as Monotherapy in the Management of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Randomised Controlled Trial


Published: May 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/66858.19386
Roshini Rajendran, VNS Ahamed Shariff, Vijayabhaskar Chandran, Deepa Kalappan

1. Postgraduate, Department of Dermatology, Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Dermatology, Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 3. Professor, Department of Dermatology, Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 4. Senior Assistant Professor, Department of Dermatology, Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. VNS Ahamed Shariff,
Associate Professor, Department of Dermatology, Madras Medical College, Chennai-600003, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: drvnsshariffderm@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Chronic urticaria is defined as the almost daily occurrence of wheals and pruritus for a minimum of six weeks, adversely affecting the quality of life and necessitating management with a drug with better efficacy and a high safety profile. This study was designed to determine how monotherapy with newer antihistamines benefits chronic spontaneous urticaria by producing earlier and longer periods of remission. Additionally, the study aimed to assess the adverse effects associated with the drugs.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of Levocetirizine and Bilastine in chronic spontaneous urticaria.

Materials and Methods: The study was a single-blinded randomised controlled trial conducted in the Department of Dermatology at Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India over 24 months from January 2020 to December 2021. A total of 163 patients with chronic urticaria were randomly divided into two groups: Group A with 82 patients and group B with 81 patients. The patients were treated with tablet Levocetirizine 5 mg and tablet Bilastine 20 mg for six months (with up-dosing to four-fold maximum) in Group A and Group B, respectively. The treatment response was assessed using the Urticaria Activity Score (UAS) at each follow-up. Patients were followed-up for an additional six months to observe the time of recurrence. Total 15 patients were lost to follow-up and were consequently excluded from the statistical analysis.

Results: At the end of six months, the improvement observed in UAS was statistically similar in both groups (p-value=0.513). The time taken for remission was shorter with Levocetirizine (11.19±5.31 weeks) compared to Bilastine (14.59±5.02 weeks). Recurrence occurred earlier with Bilastine compared to Levocetirizine.

Conclusion: Levocetirizine and Bilastine are equally effective in controlling urticaria at the end of six months of treatment. Patients on Levocetirizine experienced earlier remission as well as late recurrence compared to those on Bilastine.

Keywords

Histamine antagonist, Hives, Urticaria activity score, Wheal

Chronic urticaria causes significant morbidity, impairs sleep, and disrupts the daily functioning of the patient, necessitating treatment for a variable period depending on individual response. It is essential to analyse predisposing factors to prescribe a drug with better efficacy, a high safety profile, and fewer drug interactions (1). For improved symptomatic relief, the therapy should have a rapid onset, a long duration of action, and be free from undesirable adverse effects. Current European Academy Of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidelines recommend modern second-generation H1-antihistamines as the first-line management for chronic urticaria and suggest up-dosing of the same upto four-fold if unresponsive to standard doses (2).

Levocetirizine is a highly selective H1 receptor inverse agonist, the active R-enantiomer of the racemate Cetirizine with conformational stability, hence not converted to the inactive dextrocetirizine. It has two-fold affinity for the H1 receptor compared to Cetirizine. Its small volume of distribution confers improved safety as there is only lesser absorption through the blood-brain barrier and low cerebral receptor binding (3). Metabolism is minimal with 85.8% being excreted unchanged in urine and faeces. It has a terminal elimination half-life of 5.7 hours (4). The duration of action in inhibiting the histamine-induced flare response is much longer and presumed to be due to trapping of the drug by its strong and prolonged binding to H1 receptors. Also, it does not produce any deleterious effect on cognitive or psychometric functions.

Bilastine is a new H1 antihistamine approved for treating urticaria in adults and children older than two years of age (5). It is highly selective for H1 receptors and has a good safety profile. It does not produce anticholinergic effects, nor does it impair vigilance or driving ability (6). It has a chemical structure of benzimidazole-piperidinyl, an original molecule that binds to H1 receptors with an affinity higher than that of Cetirizine and Fexofenadine. In-vitro potency of the drug is also greater than that of Cetirizine and Fexofenadine (7). It has negligible affinity for H2, H3, or H4, muscarinic, adrenergic, bradykinin, leukotriene, or calcium receptors. It has dose-dependent, long-lasting antihistaminic activity and higher activity in blocking histamine-induced bronchospasm (6). It also inhibits Interleukin (IL)-4 and Tumour Necrosis Factor (TNF)-α release from human mast cells and granulocytes (7). Absorption via the oral route is rapid in fasting conditions with a mean peak plasma concentration (Cmax) of 220 ng/mL. The mean oral bioavailability is about 61%, which is lower than that of other second-generation antihistamines. It has linear pharmacokinetics.

Both the Cmax and the area under the curve increase proportionally to the administered dose. It is eliminated unchanged in urine and faeces - 33% and 67% of the administered dose, respectively. It does not undergo hepatic metabolism and does not alter the activity of cytochrome P450 enzymes. It has a slow elimination half-life of around 10-14 hours, and 96% of the administered dose is eliminated within a day (7). Inhibitors or inducers of P-glycoproteins (P-gps) have interactions with Bilastine. Bilastine is a good substrate for P-gp, which limits its route across the blood-brain barrier and does not produce any significant effects on the QT interval, ensuring neurological and cardiovascular safety. In many clinical studies, treatment with Bilastine 20 mg/day was as effective as Levocetirizine in chronic urticaria (6).

Studies on newer second-generation H1-antihistamines in chronic urticaria are very limited. Hence, present study was designed with a rationale to find out how monotherapy with newer antihistamines benefited in chronic spontaneous urticaria in producing earlier and longer periods of remission. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of Levocetirizine and Bilastine in chronic spontaneous urticaria. Also, the objective of the study was to assess the adverse effects associated with the drugs. The null hypothesis that there was no significant difference in the efficacy of Levocetirizine and Bilastine in the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria. The research hypothesis that there was a significant difference in the efficacy of Levocetirizine and Bilastine in the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria.

Material and Methods

The study was a single-blinded randomised controlled trial conducted in the Department of Dermatology, Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India for two years from January 2020 to December 2021 (24 months). Permission was taken from the Institutional Ethics Committee, Madras Medical College, Chennai (IEC number: 23012020). Single blinding was done by unwrapping the drugs from the original strips and providing the drugs in a pill organiser every two weeks. Randomisation was done by the opaque sealed envelope technique.

Inclusion criteria: Patients with newly diagnosed chronic spontaneous urticaria belonging to the age group 12-60 years attending the Dermatology Outpatient Department (OPD) during the study period. Patients who had not undergone any prior treatment for chronic urticaria in the past four weeks before enrollment. Those who were willing to give consent to participate in the study and for further follow-up.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with thyroid disorders, pregnant and lactating women, patients with other skin diseases such as psoriasis, immunobullous disorders, eczema, or dermatophytosis, stool examination positive for ova and cyst were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: According to Zuberbier T et al., study, considering a minimal mean difference of Total Symptoms Score (TSS) change at 28 days between Bilastine Group and Levocetirizine Group as 0.57 (1.95-1.38), an average standard deviation of TSS change at 28 days in both groups as 2.29 at 95% confidence interval with 80% power, the sample size is calculated as (8).

N=(Z1-α/2+Z1-β)2*2*σ2/(μ12)2

Z1-α/2-two tailed probability for 95% confidence interval=1.96.

Z1-β-two tailed probability for 80% power=0.84.

μ1-μ2-mean difference of TSS change at 28 days between Bilastine Group and Levocetirizine group (1.95-1.38)=0.57.

σ-average standard deviation of TSS change at 28 days in Bilastine group & TSS change at 28 days in Levocetirizine group=2.29.

N=(1.96+0.84)2*2*(2.29)2/(1.95-1.38)2.

=81.5/0.33.

N=246.9

Thus, the estimated sample size was 247.

In the current study, 163 patients were enrolled and randomised into two groups.

Study Procedure

Sampling technique: Simple random sampling. A total of 163 patients were enrolled in the study and simple random sampling technique was used after satisfying the inclusion criteria. They were randomly divided into two groups:

Group A (82 patients) - was treated with tablet Levocetirizine 5 mg for six months (with up-dosing to four-fold maximum, depending on the response).

Group B (81 patients)- was treated with tablet Bilastine 20 mg for six months (with up-dosing to fourfold maximum, depending on the response).

Total of 15 patients were lost to follow-up during the course of the study (eight patients from Group A and seven patients from Group B) and were excluded from the statistical analysis. There were remaining 148 patients, with 74 patients in each group (Table/Fig 1). Detailed clinical history, including occupation and basic demographic details, was taken. General examination, systemic examination, and dermatological examination were conducted. UAS (Table/Fig 1),(Table/Fig 2) was calculated for each patient before the initiation of treatment and during each follow-up (9),(10).

Investigations including complete blood count, absolute eosinophil count, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), thyroid function tests, liver function tests, renal function tests, random blood sugar, and stool examination for ova and cyst were performed.

The patients were followed-up during the six months of treatment at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24. The response to treatment was assessed by calculating the UAS before the initiation of treatment and at every follow-up (at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24). Clinical effectiveness and the period of remission were noted. The patients were followed-up for a further six months after the completion of treatment, and the time taken for recurrence was noted.

Primary outcome: Urticaria free/well-controlled urticaria. The disease activity was assessed using UAS7 disease activity score bands (Table/Fig 2) (9).

The severity of urticaria was assessed using Urticaria Activity Score (UAS) (Table/Fig 3) (2).

Statistical Analysis

The data collected were entered into Microsoft Excel 2019 and then loaded into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 23.0 for statistical analysis. Both quantitative and qualitative variables were present in the study. Qualitative data were expressed using percentages, and quantitative data were described using mean standard deviation. To compare the distribution of qualitative variables between the groups, the Chi-square test was applied. To compare the mean between the two groups, an Unpaired t-test was applied. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Out of 163 patients, 15 patients were lost to follow-up (8 from Group A and 7 from Group B) and were excluded from the statistical analysis. The most common age group affected was 20-30 years (33.8%), with a female-to-male ratio of 1.3:1 (Table/Fig 4). Absolute eosinophil count was raised in only 17 patients (11.5%) (Table/Fig 5). With respect to the cause, 137 patients (92.5%) of the cases were idiopathic, and 2 (1.3%), 3 (2.1%), and 6 (4.1%) gave a history of triggers following the consumption of fish/meat/brinjal, respectively. With respect to occupation, 10 patients (6.7%) were drivers, and 8 (5.4%) were tailors, which were associated with vibration (Table/Fig 6).

Symptoms and triggers: Total of 60 patients (41.2%) reported a duration of symptoms for six months to one year, followed by 46 patients (31.1%) who had symptoms for 1-3 years. Total 9 (6.1%) patients (6.1%) had urticaria for more than 10 years (Table/Fig 7). All the patients had a history of both itching and wheals; only 11 patients (7.4%) had a history of angioedema associated with wheals, but it was not life-threatening. None of the patients complained of pain over the lesions (Table/Fig 8).

Co-morbidities: Total 10 (6.7%) patients had diabetes mellitus type 2, 1 (0.7%) had diabetes mellitus with hypertension, 1 (0.7%) had only hypertension, 4 (2.7%) had hypothyroidism, and 2 patients (1.4%) had hyperthyroidism (Table/Fig 9). Total 81 (54.7%) patients (54.7%) had moderate activity of urticaria at the time of presentation. Among the patients in Group A, 12 (16.2%), 46 (62.2%), and 16 (21.6%) had severe, moderate, and mild activity, respectively, and among the patients in Group B, 30 (40.5%), 35 (47.3%), and 9 (12.2%) had severe, moderate, and mild activity as per the UAS, respectively. Severity was higher among the patients in Group B than in Group A.

In the first and second weeks of the trial, patients in Group A received 5 mg of Levocetirizine, and everyone in Group B received 20 mg of Bilastine once a day. At week 4, there was an increase in dosage among a certain proportion of patients, with 32 (43.2%) receiving 10 mg dosage of Levocetirizine in Group A and 39 (52.7%) receiving 40 mg (20 mg twice a day) of Bilastine in Group B. During each follow-up, the dosage received by the patients increased.

At weeks 10 and 12, the patients who received an increased dosage were more in Group B than in Group A, with a p-value of less than 0.05 (Table/Fig 10). Additionally, the dose escalation was higher in Group B at weeks 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22 compared to Group A (Table/Fig 11),(Table/Fig 12). The proportion of patients requiring a higher dosage of the drug was higher with Bilastine compared to Levocetirizine (p-value <0.05). The data regarding the distribution of activity of urticaria at each follow-up is provided in the following tables (Table/Fig 13),(Table/Fig 14),(Table/Fig 15),(Table/Fig 17). At week 24, in Group A, 72 patients (97.3%) were urticaria-free, and two patients (2.7%) had well-controlled urticaria. In Group B, 72 patients (97.3%) were urticaria-free, and one patient (1.4%) had well-controlled urticaria. Both groups were statistically similar with respect to the outcome at the end of 24 weeks. Both Levocetirizine and Bilastine were equally effective in controlling urticaria at the end of 24 weeks of treatment (p-value >0.05) (Table/Fig 17). The time taken for remission was shorter with Levocetirizine (11.19±5.31 weeks) compared to Bilastine (14.59±5.02 weeks) (p-value <0.05) (Table/Fig 18). Recurrence was earlier with Bilastine than Levocetirizine (p-value <0.05). Within the 1st and 2nd months after the stoppage of treatment, 19.4% and 33.3% had a recurrence in Group B, compared to 6.9% and 13.9% in Group A (Table/Fig 19). Drowsiness was commonly reported with Levocetirizine, and headache with Bilastine. Both drugs did not cause serious adverse effects. In Group A, 10 patients (13.5%) reported drowsiness, 3 (4.1%) reported gastrointestinal symptoms, and three patients (4.1%) reported headache, respectively. In Group B, 7 (9.5%) patients (9.5%) reported headache, 5 (6.8%) reported drowsiness, and 2 (2.7%) patients reported gastrointestinal symptoms (Table/Fig 20).

Discussion

In the present study, the aim was to find the efficacy of Levocetirizine and Bilastine as monotherapy in chronic spontaneous urticaria. It was inferred that all the patients in Group A (Levocetirizine) and Group B (Bilastine) were urticaria-free or had well-controlled activity at the end of six months, making both drugs equally effective with a p-value of >0.05.Over a period of 6 months of follow-up, Group B patients showed earlier recurrence compared to Group A with a p-value of <0.05. Thus, Levocetirizine produced earlier remission and showed late recurrence in contrast to Bilastine.

In present study, the most commonly affected age group was 20-30 years (33.8%), followed by 30-40 years (30.4%). This was in contrast to Wertenteil S et al.,’s study, where chronic urticaria was more prevalent among the older age group of 40-49 years, followed by 50-59 years (10). The gender distribution overall was 56.8% females and 43.2% males, which was in the ratio of 1.3:1. This was similar to many studies where there was a female preponderance in the ratio of 2:1 (11),(12). The age and gender distribution in both groups were found to be statistically similar.

In present study, all the patients had a history of both itching and wheals; only 7.4% had a history of angioedema associated with wheals but not life-threatening.

In the study by Jaros J et al., 50% of the patients presented with only wheals, 10% with angioedema, and 40% with both (13). A family history of urticaria was evident in only 7.4% in present study, in contrast to Asero R’s study where only 4% had a family history of urticaria (14). The duration of urticaria prior to treatment was between six weeks to six months in 9 (6.1%) patients, six months to one year in 61 (41.2%), 1-3 years in 46 (31.1%), 3-10 years in 23 (15.5%), and for >10 years in 9 (6.1%) patients. This is in contrast to the study conducted by Toubi E et al., where the persistence of symptoms at the end of one year, two years, three years, and five years was 75%, 52%, 43%, and 14%, respectively (15). AEC was raised in only 11.5% of the patients. However, in a study conducted by Naveen N and Puneetha B the mean AEC was significantly higher in patients with chronic urticaria compared to the control group (16).

Before starting treatment, among the patients in Group A, 16.2%, 62.2%, and 21.6% had severe, moderate, and mild activity, respectively, and among the patients in Group B, 40.5%, 47.3%, and 12.2% had severe, moderate, and mild activity, respectively. Severity was higher among the patients in group B than in group A with a p-value of less than 0.05. 46.6% of patients had moderate urticaria and 18.44% had severe urticaria in Naveen N and Puneetha B study, as compared to 77% in Kessel A et al.,’s and 64.29% in Zaky A and Knalifa S study (16),(17),(18).

In the first week of the trial, everyone in Group A received 5 mg of Levocetirizine, and everyone in Group B received 20 mg once a day of Bilastine. A similar dose was received by the patients in the second week as well. In week 4, there had been an increase in dosage among a certain proportion of patients in both groups. 43.2% received a 10 mg dosage of Levocetirizine in Group A, and 52.7% received 40 mg (20 mg twice a day) of Bilastine in Group B. During each follow-up, the dosage received by the patients had increased. At weeks 10 and 12, the dosage received by the patients was higher with Bilastine than Levocetirizine with a p-value of less than 0.05. Also, the dose escalation was higher with Bilastine at weeks 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 compared to Levocetirizine.

At week 24, in Group A, 97.3% were urticaria-free, and 2.7% had well-controlled urticaria. In Group B, 97.3% were urticaria-free, and 1.4% had well-controlled urticaria. Both groups were statistically similar with respect to the outcome at the end of 24 weeks. These observations align with a study by Zuberbier T et al., which indicated that Bilastine reduced patients’ mean TSS significantly more than placebo (8). In contrast, Podder I et al., found Bilastine to be more effective, differing from present study (19). The mean time taken for remission in Group A and Group B was 11.19±5.31 weeks and 14.59±5.02 weeks, respectively. The time for remission was longer with Bilastine than with Levocetirizine, with a p-value of less than 0.05.

In present study, the proportion of patients with early recurrence was higher with Bilastine than with Levocetirizine. Out of 148 patients, 129 (89.5%) experienced recurrence. This contrasts with a study by Kim JK et al., where only 13% of cases had recurrence (20).

With Levocetirizine, 13.5% reported drowsiness, 4.1% reported gastrointestinal symptoms, and 4.1% reported having a headache. This differs from studies by Hindmarch I et al., and Gandon JM et al., where Levocetirizine did not induce sedative effects (21),(22). Sedation was reported in 25% of patients in a study by Sarkar TK et al., (23). With Bilastine, 9.5% reported headaches, 6.8% reported drowsiness, and 2.7% reported gastrointestinal symptoms. Many studies indicate less sedation with Bilastine (19). Therefore, Bilastine is considered a safer drug for use by drivers and pilots compared to Levocetirizine. Monotherapy with Levocetirizine or Bilastine in chronic urticaria is well-tolerated and does not lead to serious adverse effects with long-term use.

When monotherapy or combination therapy fails to control symptoms, an advanced approach with immunosuppressants or biologic therapy (such as Omalizumab or Ligelizumab) may be necessary (24).

Limitation(s)

Serum Immunoglobulin (Ig) E levels and autologous serum skin tests were not conducted, which could have added more significance to the study. Antithyroid peroxidase antibodies were not tested, preventing investigation into the aetiology of autoimmune thyroid disorders. Treatment was based solely on monotherapy with second-generation antihistamines, despite many studies recommending combination treatments for more effective chronic urticaria management. Adverse effects were assessed based on symptoms alone.

Conclusion

Levocetirizine and Bilastine are equally efficacious in controlling chronic spontaneous urticaria at the end of six months of treatment. Both are found to have good tolerability. Patients on Levocetirizine experienced earlier remission as well as late recurrence compared to those on Bilastine. Both drugs did not produce any serious adverse effects. Drowsiness was commonly reported with Levocetirizine, while headache was more commonly reported with Bilastine. The quality of life of patients with urticaria is severely affected, and the search for an optimal drug to control the symptoms with minimal side effects continues. Prompt and effective management of the disease, along with identifying a cause, will help mitigate the disease burden.

References

1.
Bovet D. Introduction to antihistamine agents and antergan derivatives. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1950;50(9):1089-26. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Zuberbier T, Asero R, Bindslev-Jensen C, Walter Canonica G, Church MK, Giménez-Arnau AM, et al. EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO guideline: Management of urticaria. Allergy. 2009;64(10):1427-43. Doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02178.x. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Tillement JP. A low distribution volume as a determinant of efficacy and safety for histamine (H1 antagonists. Allergy. 1995;50(24 Suppl):12-16. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Summary for CID 1549000, Levocetirizine. 2024. Retrieved April 4, 2024. Available from: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Levocetirizine.
5.
Novák Z, Yáñez A, Kiss I, Kuna P, Tortajada-Girbés M, Valiente R, et al.; Bilastine Paediatric Safety Study Group. Safety and tolerability of bilastine 10 mg administered for 12 weeks in children with allergic diseases. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2016;27(5):493-98. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Jáuregui I, Ferrer M, Bartra J, del Cuvillo A, Dávila I, Montoro J, et al. Bilastine for the treatment of urticaria. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2013;14(11):1537-44. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Gandhi J, Godse K, Godse G. Bilastine: A novel antihistamine. Indian Journal of Drugs in Dermatology. 2018;4(1):03-06. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/iodd/fulltext/2018/04010/bilastine__a_novel_antihistamine.2.aspx. [crossref]
8.
Zuberbier T, Oanta A, Bogacka E, Medina I, Wesel F, Uhl P, et al.; Bilastine International Working Group. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of bilastine 20 mg vs levocetirizine 5 mg for the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria: A multi-centre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Allergy. 2010;65(4):516-28. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Stull D, McBride D, Tian H, Arnau AG, Maurer M, Marsland A, et al. Analysis of disease activity categories in chronic spontaneous/idiopathic urticaria. Br J Dermatol. 2017;177(4):1093-101. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Wertenteil S, Strunk A, Garg A. Prevalence estimates for chronic urticaria in the United States: A sex- and age-adjusted population analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81(1):152-56. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Greaves M. Chronic urticaria. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;105(4):664-72.[crossref][PubMed]
12.
Juhlin L. Recurrent urticaria: Clinical investigation of 330 patients. Br J Dermatol. 1981;104(4):369-81. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Jaros J, Shi VY, Katta R. Diet and chronic urticaria: Dietary modification as a treatment strategy. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2020;10(1):e2020004. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Asero R. Chronic idiopathic urticaria: A family study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002;89(2):195-96. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Toubi E, Kessel A, Avshovich N, Bamberger E, Sabo E, Nusem D, et al. Clinical and laboratory parameters in predicting chronic urticaria duration: A prospective study of 139 patients. Allergy. 2004;59(8):869-73. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Naveen N, Puneetha B. A study on serum ig E and AEC in chronic urticaria and correlation between serum ig E and disease activity in hronic urticaria. Indian J Clin Exp Dermatol. 2019;5(1):46-50. [crossref]
17.
Kessel A, Helou W, Bamberger E, Sabo E, Nusem D, Panassof J, et al. Elevated serum total IgE-A potential marker for severe chronic urticaria. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2010;153(3):288-93. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Zaky A, Knalifa S. Chronic idiopatic urticaria and atopy, is there any relation. J Dermatol Venerology. 2010;17(1):32-35.
19.
Podder I, Das A, Ghosh S, Biswas D, Sengupta S, Chowdhury SN. Effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of bilastine 20 mg vs levocetirizine 5 mg for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria: A double-blind, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33(6):e13946. [crossref]
20.
Kim JK, Har D, Brown LS, Khan DA. Recurrence of chronic urticaria: Incidence and associated factors. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018;6(2):582-85.[crossref][PubMed]
21.
Hindmarch I, Johnson S, Meadows R, Kirkpatrick T, Shamsi Z. The acute and sub-chronic effects of levocetirizine, cetirizine, loratadine, promethazine and placebo on cognitive function, psychomotor performance, and weal and flare. Curr Med Res Opin. 2001;17(4):241-55. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Gandon JM, Allain H. Lack of effect of single and repeated doses of levocetirizine, a new antihistamine drug, on cognitive and psychomotor functions in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;54(1):51-58. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Sarkar TK, Sil A, Pal S, Ghosh C, Das NK. Effectiveness and safety of levocetirizine 10 mg versus a combination of levocetirizine 5 mg and montelukast 10 mg in chronic urticaria resistant to levocetirizine 5 mg: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2017;83(5):561-68. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Orzan OA, Popa LG, Mihai MM, Cojocaru A, Giurcaneanu C, Dorobant‚u AM. Current and future approaches in management of chronic spontaneous urticaria using anti-ige antibodies. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58(6):816. [crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/66858.19386

Date of Submission: Aug 03, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Oct 26, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Feb 29, 2024
Date of Publishing: May 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Aug 04, 2023
• Manual Googling: Feb 23, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Feb 26, 2024 (18%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com