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
Abstract
To cite this article: Zuberbier T, Oanta A, Bogacka E, Medina I, Wesel F, Uhl P, Antépara I, Jáuregui I, Valiente R, the 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 : 516–528. Abstract Background: Bilastine is a novel nonsedative H 1 ‐receptor antagonist, which may be used for the symptomatic treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria (CU). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of bilastine 20 mg vs levocetirizine 5 mg and placebo in CU patients with moderate‐to‐severe symptoms. Methods: Overall 525 male and female subjects aged 18–70 years were randomized to receive bilastine 20 mg, levocetirizine 5 mg or placebo, once daily for 28 days, in double‐blind manner, in 46 centres across Europe and Argentina. Patients rated symptoms of pruritus, number of wheals, and maximum size of wheals (on predefined scales) as reflective (over past 12 h) symptoms twice daily, for assessment of change from baseline in the total symptoms scores (TSS) over 28 days as the primary efficacy measure. Changes in reflective and instantaneous symptoms scores, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and CU‐associated discomfort and sleep disturbance were assessed as secondary outcomes. Safety was assessed according to adverse events, laboratory tests and…
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.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students on Application, Education, and Ethical Aspects
- Information quality of videos related to esophageal cancer on tiktok, kwai, and bilibili: a cross-sectional study
- The quality and reliability of short videos about hypertension on TikTok: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability evaluation of pancreatic cancer-related video content on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study
- Association between metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) and hypertension: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2007–2018
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.