Objective: To compare the efficacy 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 significantly 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 significantly 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 efficacy and safety profile.
Keywords: Seasonal allergic rhinitis; olopatadine; rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire scoring; rupatadine; total nasal symptom score.