Evidence Hub

A Randomised Study to Assess and Compare the Efficacy of Cyclosporine Versus Azathioprine in the Treatment of Chronic Refractory Urticaria

ClinicalTrials.gov · COMPLETED, 2017

56 participants

Abstract

Fifty six patients of CRU attending the urticaria clinic in the department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh will be recruited in the study calculated by using equivalence analysis assuming power of 90%, significance level of 5% and standard deviation of 1 and adjusting 5% of expected drop-outs after taking written informed consent. This study is undertaken with an intention to treat the patients of chronic refractory urticaria completely. Patients will be randomized into two groups A and B using computer generated random number tables, group A will receive Cyclosporine and group B will receive Azathioprine; wherein, 28 random single and double-digit numbers from 1-56 will be selected before recruitment, and patients coming on these numbers will be randomized in a particular group. Random number generation, recruitment and randomization, were all done by the same investigator..

Conditions: Chronic Refractory Urticaria.

Primary outcome: Change in UAS7(urticaria activity score) ranging between( numerical value) 0-6 average of 7 days( primary end point).

Enrollment: 56 participants.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 56 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free