Comparison of oral montelukast with oral ozagrel in acute asthma

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Rahul Magazine, Vyshak Uddur Surendra, Bharti Chogtu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The need for more effective management of acute asthma has led to research on drugs which are otherwise approved for use in chronic asthma. Objective: To study and compare the effects of oral montelukast with oral ozagrel in acute asthma. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty patients with acute asthma were recruited for the study. Out of 120 study patients, forty each were randomized into placebo, montelukast, and ozagrel groups. After the first dose of the drug or placebo was administered, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), number of rescue medications and also vital signs were noted at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, and at discharge. In addition, same recordings were done on the morning (8 a.m. - 10 a.m.) following admission. The difference in mean PEFR of each group at above-mentioned time points was the primary endpoint whereas need for rescue medications the secondary end-point. Results: The respective mean PEFR recordings of the placebo, montelukast, and ozagrel groups at various time points were as follows: at 6 h (235.19 ± 3.18, 242.86 ± 3.26, 228.18 ± 3.25); at 12 h (254.37 ± 5.23, 265.62 ± 5.38, 242.99 ± 5.36); at 24 h (267.46 ± 7.41, 291.39 ± 7.61, 268.14 ± 7.58); and at 48 h (277.99 ± 7.35, 303.22 ± 7.56, 285.27 ± 7.53); and discharge (301.94 ± 7.07, 317.32 ± 7.27, 298.99 ± 7.23). The mean PEFR between the treatment groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.102). The mean PEFR in the three groups at 8-10 a.m. following admission was 257.60 ± 5.52, 264.23 ± 5.98, and 249.94 ± 5.96; P = 0.266. Total number of rescue doses needed were 7, 4, and 13, respectively (P = 0.67). Conclusion: Montelukast or ozagrel when added to the standard treatment of acute asthma does not result in any additional benefit.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)16-20
Number of pages5
JournalLung India
Volume35
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-01-2018

Fingerprint

montelukast
Peak Expiratory Flow Rate
Asthma
Placebos
Vital Signs
Pharmaceutical Preparations
ozagrel

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

@article{f6292e8339b1499a8873b748364faa4e,
title = "Comparison of oral montelukast with oral ozagrel in acute asthma: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study",
abstract = "Background: The need for more effective management of acute asthma has led to research on drugs which are otherwise approved for use in chronic asthma. Objective: To study and compare the effects of oral montelukast with oral ozagrel in acute asthma. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty patients with acute asthma were recruited for the study. Out of 120 study patients, forty each were randomized into placebo, montelukast, and ozagrel groups. After the first dose of the drug or placebo was administered, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), number of rescue medications and also vital signs were noted at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, and at discharge. In addition, same recordings were done on the morning (8 a.m. - 10 a.m.) following admission. The difference in mean PEFR of each group at above-mentioned time points was the primary endpoint whereas need for rescue medications the secondary end-point. Results: The respective mean PEFR recordings of the placebo, montelukast, and ozagrel groups at various time points were as follows: at 6 h (235.19 ± 3.18, 242.86 ± 3.26, 228.18 ± 3.25); at 12 h (254.37 ± 5.23, 265.62 ± 5.38, 242.99 ± 5.36); at 24 h (267.46 ± 7.41, 291.39 ± 7.61, 268.14 ± 7.58); and at 48 h (277.99 ± 7.35, 303.22 ± 7.56, 285.27 ± 7.53); and discharge (301.94 ± 7.07, 317.32 ± 7.27, 298.99 ± 7.23). The mean PEFR between the treatment groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.102). The mean PEFR in the three groups at 8-10 a.m. following admission was 257.60 ± 5.52, 264.23 ± 5.98, and 249.94 ± 5.96; P = 0.266. Total number of rescue doses needed were 7, 4, and 13, respectively (P = 0.67). Conclusion: Montelukast or ozagrel when added to the standard treatment of acute asthma does not result in any additional benefit.",
author = "Rahul Magazine and Surendra, {Vyshak Uddur} and Bharti Chogtu",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_226_17",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "16--20",
journal = "Lung India",
issn = "0970-2113",
publisher = "Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd",
number = "1",

}

Comparison of oral montelukast with oral ozagrel in acute asthma : A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. / Magazine, Rahul; Surendra, Vyshak Uddur; Chogtu, Bharti.

In: Lung India, Vol. 35, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 16-20.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of oral montelukast with oral ozagrel in acute asthma

T2 - A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

AU - Magazine, Rahul

AU - Surendra, Vyshak Uddur

AU - Chogtu, Bharti

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background: The need for more effective management of acute asthma has led to research on drugs which are otherwise approved for use in chronic asthma. Objective: To study and compare the effects of oral montelukast with oral ozagrel in acute asthma. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty patients with acute asthma were recruited for the study. Out of 120 study patients, forty each were randomized into placebo, montelukast, and ozagrel groups. After the first dose of the drug or placebo was administered, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), number of rescue medications and also vital signs were noted at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, and at discharge. In addition, same recordings were done on the morning (8 a.m. - 10 a.m.) following admission. The difference in mean PEFR of each group at above-mentioned time points was the primary endpoint whereas need for rescue medications the secondary end-point. Results: The respective mean PEFR recordings of the placebo, montelukast, and ozagrel groups at various time points were as follows: at 6 h (235.19 ± 3.18, 242.86 ± 3.26, 228.18 ± 3.25); at 12 h (254.37 ± 5.23, 265.62 ± 5.38, 242.99 ± 5.36); at 24 h (267.46 ± 7.41, 291.39 ± 7.61, 268.14 ± 7.58); and at 48 h (277.99 ± 7.35, 303.22 ± 7.56, 285.27 ± 7.53); and discharge (301.94 ± 7.07, 317.32 ± 7.27, 298.99 ± 7.23). The mean PEFR between the treatment groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.102). The mean PEFR in the three groups at 8-10 a.m. following admission was 257.60 ± 5.52, 264.23 ± 5.98, and 249.94 ± 5.96; P = 0.266. Total number of rescue doses needed were 7, 4, and 13, respectively (P = 0.67). Conclusion: Montelukast or ozagrel when added to the standard treatment of acute asthma does not result in any additional benefit.

AB - Background: The need for more effective management of acute asthma has led to research on drugs which are otherwise approved for use in chronic asthma. Objective: To study and compare the effects of oral montelukast with oral ozagrel in acute asthma. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty patients with acute asthma were recruited for the study. Out of 120 study patients, forty each were randomized into placebo, montelukast, and ozagrel groups. After the first dose of the drug or placebo was administered, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), number of rescue medications and also vital signs were noted at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, and at discharge. In addition, same recordings were done on the morning (8 a.m. - 10 a.m.) following admission. The difference in mean PEFR of each group at above-mentioned time points was the primary endpoint whereas need for rescue medications the secondary end-point. Results: The respective mean PEFR recordings of the placebo, montelukast, and ozagrel groups at various time points were as follows: at 6 h (235.19 ± 3.18, 242.86 ± 3.26, 228.18 ± 3.25); at 12 h (254.37 ± 5.23, 265.62 ± 5.38, 242.99 ± 5.36); at 24 h (267.46 ± 7.41, 291.39 ± 7.61, 268.14 ± 7.58); and at 48 h (277.99 ± 7.35, 303.22 ± 7.56, 285.27 ± 7.53); and discharge (301.94 ± 7.07, 317.32 ± 7.27, 298.99 ± 7.23). The mean PEFR between the treatment groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.102). The mean PEFR in the three groups at 8-10 a.m. following admission was 257.60 ± 5.52, 264.23 ± 5.98, and 249.94 ± 5.96; P = 0.266. Total number of rescue doses needed were 7, 4, and 13, respectively (P = 0.67). Conclusion: Montelukast or ozagrel when added to the standard treatment of acute asthma does not result in any additional benefit.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040064138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85040064138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_226_17

DO - 10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_226_17

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 16

EP - 20

JO - Lung India

JF - Lung India

SN - 0970-2113

IS - 1

ER -