IADVL
Indexed with PubMed and Science Citation Index (E) 
 
Users online: 438 
     Home | Feedback | Login 
About Current Issue Archive Ahead of print Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe What's New Contact  
  Navigate here 
  Search
 
   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
  
 Resource links
   Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
   [PDF Not available] *
   Citation Manager
   Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   Abstract
   Introduction
   Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Acknowledgment
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5835    
    Printed104    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
STUDIES
Year : 1995  |  Volume : 61  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 137-139

A comparative study of loratadine versus pheniramine maleate in chronic idiopathic urticaria




Correspondence Address:
C Ranjan Raval


Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 20952926

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

  Abstract 

Fifty cases with chronic idiopathic urticaria of more than 3 months duration were selected and divided into two groups. Group 'A' was given 10 mg loratadine once daily, while group 'B' was given pheniramine maleate 25 mg, twice daily for one month. All patients were followed for one month more. 48% excellent response was observed in group 'A' while 16% excellent response was observed in group 'B'. Good response was observed in 24% of patients in group 'A', while in group 'B' 16% of patients had good response. No side effects were observed in loratadine group, while drowsiness was observed in pheniramine group


Keywords: Urticaria, Antihistamines


How to cite this article:
Raval C R, Bilimoria F E, Patel A H. A comparative study of loratadine versus pheniramine maleate in chronic idiopathic urticaria. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 1995;61:137-9

How to cite this URL:
Raval C R, Bilimoria F E, Patel A H. A comparative study of loratadine versus pheniramine maleate in chronic idiopathic urticaria. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol [serial online] 1995 [cited 2019 May 23];61:137-9. Available from: http://www.ijdvl.com/text.asp?1995/61/3/137/4179



  Introduction Top


Patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria are commonly treated with conventional H1-antihistaminics, generally becoming resistant to many of them. Furthermore, daytime drowsiness and anticholinergic effects such as dryness of mouth may be the major drawbacks. A long acting H1 - antagonist without CNS and anticholinergic effects would have an obvious therapeutic advantage. Loratadine,[1],[2] a derivative of azatadine is a long acting antihistamine which has a high selectivity for peripheral H1 - receptors and lacks the central nervous system depressant effects.

This study compares the efficacy and side effects of loratadine with pheniramine maleate in the treatment of chronic idopathic urticaria.


  Materials and Methods Top


Fifty patients (age range 10 to 50 years) were selected and classified in group 'A' and group 'B'. Pregnant women were not included. All the patients had urticaria for 3 months or more. All the patients were investigated thoroughly to rule out any septic focus or any obvious cause of urticaria and their blood, urine and stool were analysed before starting the treatment. All medications including antihistaminics were withdrawn prior to study. Group 'A' was given loratadine 10 mg, once a day, while group 'B' was given pheniramine maleate 25 mg, twice a day. Treatment was given either upto the relief of symptoms or upto one month. All patients were followed up at weekly intervals for 2 months.

The results were graded according to subjective and objective criteria. Criteria for evaluation were as follows:

Objective evaluation

0 = No signs or absence of lesions

1 = Mild erythema, non-confluent lesions

2 = Numerous lesions of large size

3 = Quite numerous confluent lesions with scratching.

Subjective Evaluation

0 = No symptoms and recurrence for 2 months - Excellent

1 = Mild itching or irritation without interference with sleep and immediate recurrence on withdrawal of drugs = Good.

2 = Intermittent itching with possible interference with sleep and immediate recurrence on withdrawal of drugs = Fair.

3 = Continuous irritation and itching with disturbed sleep = Poor.


  Results Top


Results were recorded and were analysed as shown in [Table - 1] and [Figure - 1]. After one month, in group 'A' excellent result was seen in 48% and Good result in 24% of the patients, while in group 'B' 16% had excellent and 16% had good response. No side effects occurred in group 'A', while 11 patients in group 'B' complained of drowsiness.


  Discussion Top


The superior antiallergic activity of loratadine has been demonstrated clinically in the present study. Loratadine is a single dose therapy, so it is convenient for the patients and no side effects like sedation or dryness of mouth were observed in any patient with loratadine. Yet to establish superior action of loratadine clinical study should be done in large number of patients and it should be compared with other non-sedative antihistaminics like cetirizine or terfenadine.


  Acknowledgment Top


The authors are thankful to M/s Cadila Laboratories Limited, Ahmedabad for providing loratadine [10 mg].

 
  References Top

1.Clissold SP, Eugene M, et al. Loratadine: A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drug 1989;87:42-57.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Brenholtz HA, Mcleod DC. Loratadine: A non-sedative antihistamine with once daily dosing. Ann Pharmacother 1989;23:445-50.  Back to cited text no. 2    


    Figures

[Figure - 1]

    Tables

[Table - 1]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

Online since 15th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow