Comparison of efficacy, safety, and cost‑effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of allergic rhinitis: A prospective, randomized, double‑blind, parallel group study

Objective: To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost‑effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of allergic rhinitis (AR). Materials and Methods: A 2‑week, single‑centered, randomized, double‑blind, parallel group comparative clinical study was conducted on patients with AR. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 67 patients were recruited and randomized to two treatment groups and received the respective drugs for 2 weeks. At follow‑up, parameters assessed were total nasal symptom score (TNSS), change in total and differential count of eosinophil. Results: In olopatadine group, there was a significantly higher reduction in TNSS (P < 0.05) than that of rupatadine. Both the drugs significantly reduced the absolute eosinophil count, but olopatadine (P < 0.001) was found to be superior. The incidence of adverse effects was found to be less in olopatadine group when compared with rupatadine group. Conclusion: Olopatadine is a better choice in AR in comparison to rupatadine due to its better efficacy and safety profile.