title: Comparative clinical evaluation of ketotifen and montelukast sodium in asthmatic Iraqi patients.
abstract: Asthma is a common and chronic inflammatory condition of the airways whose cause is not completely understood. Although many classes of drugs are used for management of asthma, the response is variable due to multifactor reasons. This study was designed to evaluate the outcome of using ketotifen or montelukast sodium in Iraqi asthmatic patients. Single blinded randomized clinical trial was utilized, in which 100 asthmatic patients were recruited from Al-Karama hospital and randomized into two groups; 1st group (50 patients, treated with ketotifen for 4 weeks) and 2nd group (50 patients treated with montelukast sodium for 4 weeks). Asthma symptom score and wheezing were recorded at the beginning (first visit) and at the end of the study (after one month). Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were performed by spirometry, and the patients' use of asthma drugs and their symptoms were evaluated at each visit. The result showed that asthma symptom, chest wheezing, and PFT values were significantly improved in the two groups at the end of the study compared to first visit (p < 0.05). All symptoms were significantly lower and PFT values were higher in the 2nd group compared to 1st group (p < 0.05). In conclusion, both ketotifen and montelukast sodium showed significant changes in asthma symptoms and PFT after one month of treatment, but the changes were more significant with montelukast group (2nd group) compared with ketotifen group (1st group) and this indicate that montelukast was more effective than ketotifen in treatment of asthmatic patients.
authors: College of Pharmacy, University of Baghdad, Clinical Pharmacy Department, Iraq.
authors: Fadyia Y
authors: FY
authors: Al-Hamdani
keywords: Asthma symptom score; Ketotifen; Montelukast sodium; Pulmnory function test
references: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2000 Jul;85(1):46-52
references: 10923604
references: Drugs. 2003;63(10):991-1019
references: 12699401
references: Clin Exp Allergy. 1995 Jun;25(6):568-73
references: 7648464
references: J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):547-53
references: 10482826
references: Pharmacol Rev. 1998 Dec;50(4):515-96
references: 9860804
references: Clin Exp Allergy. 1999 Oct;29(10):1382-9
references: 10520059
references: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Dec;160(6):1905-9
references: 10588604
references: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005 Feb 15;171(4):315-22
references: 15542792
references: Br J Pharmacol. 1992 Jan;105(1):19-22
references: 1596681
references: Clin Allergy. 1980 Sep;10(5):519-25
references: 6777076
references: J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1989 Sep;84(3):286-96
references: 2674262
references: Arch Intern Med. 1998 Jun 8;158(11):1213-20
references: 9625400
references: Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2003 Jun;2(2):61-7
references: 17301358
references: J Exp Med. 1996 Apr 1;183(4):1303-10
references: 8666888
references: Pediatr Res. 2003 Aug;54(2):198-203
references: 12736396
references: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998 Jul;158(1):36-41
references: 9655704
references: Lancet. 1997 Oct;350 Suppl 2:SII5-9
references: 9343097
references: Thorax. 1997 Jan;52(1):45-8
references: 9039239
references: Monogr Allergy. 1977;12:145-9
references: 72350
references: Br Med J. 1980 Feb 9;280(6211):360-1
references: 6102487
references: J Allergy. 1966 Sep;38(3):127-42
references: 5223700
references: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995 Sep;152(3):1107-36
references: 7663792
references: Annu Rev Med. 2002;53:477-98
references: 11818486
references: Clin Exp Allergy. 2003 Jul;33(7):887-94
references: 12859443
references: Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1995 Sep;16(9):304-9
references: 7482995
references: Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 Aug;23(4):399-410
references: 16088633
references: Drugs. 1990 Sep;40(3):412-48
references: 2226222
references: Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2005 Jun;16(4):306-9
references: 15943593