AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research
*Corresponding Author: Richmond Ronald Gomes, Associate Professor, Medicine Ad-din Women’s Medical College Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Citation: K Rahman, R R Gomes, D Aktar, SM M Rahman, S M Rahman. (2021) Comparison of Rupatadine monotherapy and Combined Levocetirizine with Ranitidine dual therapy for the treatment of Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria. Dermatology and Dermatitis. 6(2); Doi:10.31579/2578-8949/081
Copyright: ©2021 Richmond Ronald Gomes, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of The Creative Commons. Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 21 July 2021 | Accepted: 07 August 2021 | Published: 13 August 2021
Keywords: chronic idiopathic urticarial; antihistamine; itching; relapse
Background: Effective treatment for chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) with conventional combined therapy comprising H1 and H2 antihistamine is effective but associated with high relapse rate. Newer H1 blocker rupatadine alone is similarly effective with less relapse rate. Also it is convenient for the patient as similar efficacy is obtained with single dosage compared to 3 times dosing in combined therapy. This study was done to compare the traditional treatment with levocetirizine and ranitidine to a newly introduced antihistamine rupatadine for CIU.
Materials and Methods: The study was a hospital based prospective randomized control trial among 40 patients with CIU in Dermatology and Venereology department of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University(BSMMU), Dhaka from April 2020 to September 2020.Forty patients of CIU were randomly enrolled into two equal groups (group A and B). Patients of group-A were treated with 5 mg of levocetirizine once daily plus 150 mg of ranitidine twice orally daily and group-B were treated with rupatadine 10 mg once daily for one month. The efficacy was assessed 1st and 4th week during treatment and 4 weeks after completion of treatment by observing reduction of itching, regression of the size and shape of lesions and appearance of new lesions. Adverse effects and patient satisfaction were also noted.
Results: 75% patients in group A and 80% patients in group B responded to treatment (p>0.05).80% in group A and 85% in group B showed improvement in itching in the first week (p>0.05). . At the end of 4 weeks 95% showed improvement in each group. Appearance of new lesions in first week was 10% and 5% (p>0.05) and at 4th week, 5% and 0% respectively (p>0.05). 75% in group A and 80% in group B had regression in their lesions at the end of first week (p>0.05). At the end of 4th week, it was 85% and 90% (p>0.05). 40% in group A and 25% in group B had relapse of itching at follow up (p<0.05). Relapse of lesions were 35% and 20% (p<0.05). Overall occurrence of side effects (3 compared to 1) was more in group A.
Conclusion: The result of the present study show that both conventional treatment with levocetirizine and ranitidine combination and newer agent rupatadine alone has similar efficacy in reducing clinical sign and symptoms of CIU. But rupatadine has significantly reduced the relapse rate and so it is a more efficacious and also safer option with less adverse effects for the treatment of CIU in comparison to conventional treatment. Rupatadine is also more convenient option for patients in term of dosage schedule.
CIU is a relatively common skin condition with a 0.5% worldwide lifelong prevalence across different populations, affecting between 0.1% and 3% people in Europe and the ASIA [1]. The etiology is often unknown and a predominant physical urticaria and urticarial vasculitis have been excluded [1,2]. Studies investigating the natural history of CIU in adults have indicated that about 30–55% of patients go into remission within 12 months, although the disease may persist in some patients for several years [3-5].
Besides being severely debilitating and disfiguring, CIU may also be potentially stigmatizing, CIU get worse the Quality of Life, primarily as a result of sleep disruption, energy loss, fatigue, social isolation and emotional/sexual disturbances [6]. This condition follows a chronic course with spontaneous remission and relapses for several years [2]. Chronic urticaria etiology is often unknown [1]. There is increasing evidence for basophil and mast cell-mediated inflammation in urticaria and angio-oedema. Histamine and other mast cell mediators [including eicosanoids, cytokines, proteases, kinins and platelet activating factor (PAF) are involved in wheal development [1,2]. Because the symptoms of CIU, including oedema, erythema and pruritus, are primarily associated with histamine release from dermal mast cells, oral H1- receptor inverse agonists (H1 antihistamines) are the treatment of choice [2,7]. There is evidence that PAF and histamine have mutually complementary activities in vivo. Each mediator is able to promote the release of the other by different tissues and cells [8,9]. Dual blockades of these mediators is likely to be a more effective treatment strategy for CIU.
In chronic urticaria there are clinical trials and isolated observations with multiple treatments either as monotherapy or in combination, involving first and second-generation antihistamines, H2blockers, corticosteroids and many other drugs. Rupatadine is a novel selective long-acting histamine H1-receptor inverse agonist (H1 antihistamine), which is currently approved as a once daily dose of 10 mg. Rupatadine has recently been shown to have a higher affinity for the H1-receptor than fexofenadine and levocetirizine [10]. Rupatadine has shown both antihistamine and anti-PAF effects through its interaction with specific receptors and not due to physiological antagonism [11]. A previous dose-ranging study demonstrated that rupatadine 10 mg once daily for 4 weeks significantly decreased the severity of pruritus, the number of wheals and the total symptom score in patients with CIU, compared with placebo [12]. The aim of the present study was to compare efficacy and safety on CIU symptoms, treatment and patients’ satisfaction improvement with rupatadine monotherapy and combined levocetirizine and ranitidine dual therapy.
The study was conducted complying the declaration of Helsinki 1964.This prospective, randomized controlled trial was carried out in the outpatient department of dermatology and venereology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka from April, 2020 to September 2020. Total 40 cases of CIU were selected. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups in a single blind fashion, group A and group B. Group A received conventional combination therapy (levocetirizine 5mg once daily plus ranitidine 150 mg twice daily for 4 weeks) while group B received oral rupatadine (10 mg once daily for 4 weeks.). The participants were evaluated one, and four weeks after commencement of the study. They were evaluated for improvement in symptoms (mainly pruritus), appearance of new lesions or resolution of previous ones. Count of lesions on the body was documented on every visit, for further evaluation of response to treatment. Data were collected anonymously. Confidentiality of data was ensured adequately and any unauthorized access to data was not possible. Collected data was analyzed statistically by using SPSS-12 (Chicago, Illinois).
Inclusion criteria: Patients with CIU (i.e. episodes of hives of characteristic wheal and flare appearance, occurring regularly, at least three times a week) for a period of at least 6 weeks during the last 3 months without an identifiable cause whose age was between 18 to 60 and attending OPD of Dermatology and Venereology, BSMMU, were recruited into the study.
Exclusion criteria:
1. Patients with physical urticaria (e.g. solar, heat, cold, aquagenic, cholinergic, contact, pressure, etc.),
2. Drug-induced urticaria, urticarial vasculitis, senile pruritus or hereditary angioedema.
3. Patients with any dermatological or any other clinically significant disease.
4. Patients who had received systemic and topical corticosteroids within last 4 weeks, desloratadine, loratadine, levocetirizine or cetirizine within 10 days, astemizole within 12 weeks, ketotifen within 2 weeks and patients who had received CNS acting agents (including tranquilizers, antidepressants, sedatives, hypnotics or antiepileptic) at any time.
5. Pregnant or breast feeding women.
This prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in the department of Dermatology and Venereology, BSMMU, Dhaka to compare the safety and efficacy and adverse effect between oral levocetirizine plus ranitidine combination and oral rupatadine alone therapy in CIU.A total of forty patients were included, twenty of them were given oral levocetirizine 5 mg once daily and oral ranitidine 150 mg twice daily. This group was designated as Group-A. .Twenty of them was given oral rupatadine 10 mg once daily .This group was designated as Group-B. In this study, 26 patients were male and 14 patients were female, male- female ratio was 1.86:1.Both groups were treated for one month. After collection of data, the data were assessed and analyzed with SPSS 12. The comparison between means was done by Independent sample‘t’ test for continuous variable. The result was considered significant if p value was ≤0.05.
A total of forty patients were included, twenty of them were given oral levocetirizine 5 mg once daily and oral ranitidine 150 mg twice daily(Group-A.) Other twenty were given oral rupatadine 10 mg once daily. (Group-B). Both groups were treated for one month. Among the respondents, most of the patients (60%) in group A and (50%) in group B) were in the < 30> 40 years age group (Table 1). The mean age of the patients was 28.5 years and 30.85 years for group A and group B respectively. Lowest and highest ages were 18 and 55 years respectively. It appears from the study that 70% in group A and 60% in group B were male and 30% in group A and 40 % in group B were female (Table 1).
Current study revealed that 75% patients in group A and 80% patients in group B responded to treatment initially (Figure 2). In the first follow up visit, doctors examined each patient. The enrolled patient who had no itching, whales was considered cured. Patients whose itching was reduced and size and number of the lesions decreased, was considered responding to treatment. The patients who had new or persistent lesions were considered not cured. At first week of intervention uncured patients were prescribed repeat interventions. There was no significant difference in response to treatment between the two groups.
Current study showed 80% patients in group A and 85% patients in group B showed improvement in itching in the first week. At the end of 4 weeks 95% patients showed improvement and it was equal in each group (Table 2).
At 1st week, 2 patients in group A and 1 patient in group B had new lesions i.e. lesions at sites different from the primary lesions. After 4 week, 1 patient in group - A still had new lesion whereas, there was no new lesion appearing in the group - B patients (Table 3). Result was slightly better for group B, but not statistically significant.
Current study revealed 75% of the patients in group A and 80% patients in group B had regression in their lesions in terms of disappearance, decrease in size, shape and distribution of the lesion at the end of first week. At the end of 4th week, 85% patients in group A and 90% patients in group B showed clinical improvement (Figure 3). The difference is again statistically insignificant.
All the three drugs included in this study were safe and was associated with very few side effects. Only one patient among 40 complained of mild sedation with rupatidine 10 mg after 1 week of treatment. Two patients in group A (levocetirizine plus ranitidine) complained of headache which is known side effect of levocetirizine. Another patient complained of somnolence which was again in the group A and was due to livocetirizine. Other common side effects of drugs like anaemia, jaundice, skin rashes were not seen among any group of patients. Overall occurrence of side effects (3 compared to 1) was more in group A and although clinically mild, difference was statistically significant (Table 4).
Post treatment follow up of patients was done 4 weeks after completion of treatment. It showed that 40% patients in group A and 25% patients in group B had relapse of itching in the previous site which was statistically significant. 20% patients in group A and 15% patients in group B had new lesions at sites different from the primary lesion. 35% patients in group A and 20% patients in group B had relapse of their previous lesions (Table 5). The differences were statistically significant. Thus, rupatadine showed significant improvement in relapse rate of CIU lesion over conventional treatment which is the main concern of CIU treatment at present.
It was quite evident that patient preferred single daily dosing (rupatadine) then taking 3 drugs daily at two different times. Patient’s satisfaction about treatment regime was randomly categorized as A (excellent), B (moderate) and C (not satisfied). 95% of Group– B patients were highly satisfied regarding treatment regime and described dose schedule as easy and convenient. On the other hand, 65% of the patients in group – A were moderately satisfied (B), 5% not satisfied at all (C) complaining of cumbersome dosing schedule (Table 6). Difference was statistically significant.
CIU is a highly prevalent in the general population which affects the quality of life [7, 14, 15, 16]. It is defined as the presence of wheals on a recurrent basis, more than twice a week, and during over six consecutive weeks [15,16]. Some studies show CIU accounts for nearly 75% of all cases of chronic urticaria [13]. Besides being severely debilitating and disfiguring, CIU may also be potentially stigmatizing. Chronic urticaria etiology is often unknown [1]. There is increasing evidence for basophil and mast cell-mediated inflammation in urticaria and angio-oedema. Histamine and other mast cell mediators [including eicosanoids, cytokines, proteases, kinins and platelet activating factor (PAF) are involved in wheal development [1,2]. There is evidence that PAF and histamine have mutually complementary activities in vivo. Each mediator is able to promote the release of the other by different tissues and cells [8,9]. Dual blockades of these mediators is likely to be a more effective treatment strategy for CIU.
Clinical trials revealed multiple treatment options such as first- and/or second generation antihistamines, H2 antihistamines, leukotriene antagonists, corticoids,cyclosporine and other immunosuppressors, calcineurin inhibitors, sulfasalazine, intravenous immunoglobulins, plasmapheresis or phototherapy [15]. Consequently, non-sedating (or second-generation) H1 antihistamines are considered as the first line symptomatic treatment [15, 16]. Rupatadine is a new potent nonsedative reverse H1 agonist and 10 mg of rupatadine is a fast, long-acting, efficacious and safe treatment option for the management of CIU [21]. There have been fewer studies with head to head comparison of individual antihistamines and combination of multiple options with a single antihistamine [7, 12, 15, 16].
In this study, 75% patients in group A and 80% patients in group B responded to treatment, however, the difference was not statistically significant. The study revealed that, 80% patients in group A and 85% patients in group B showed improvement in itching in the first week. In this study, at 1st week, 2 patients in group A and 1 patient in group B had new lesions and after 4 week, 1 patient in group - A still had new lesion whereas, there was no new lesion appearing in the group - B patients. Again, the difference was not statistically significant. In this study, 75% of the patients in group A and 80% patients in group B had regression in their lesions in terms of disappearance, decrease in size, shape and distribution of the lesion at the end of first week and at the end of 4th week, 85% patients in group A and 90% patients in group B showed clinical improvement. Current study revealed 40% patients in group A and 25% patients in group B had relapse of itching in the previous site; 20% patients in group A and 15% patients in group B had new lesions at sites different from the primary lesion; 35% patients in group A and 20% patients in group B had relapse of their previous lesions. The differences were statistically significant. This finding is also supported by other studies [2, 7, 12, 15, 16]. Thus rupatadine showed significant improvement in relapse rate of CIU lesion over conventional treatment which is the main concern of CIU treatment at present which is supported by other placebo control studies [16]. Though, head to head studies is yet too compared. All the three drugs included in this study were safe and was associated with very few side effects. Only one patient among 40 complained of mild sedation with rupatadine 10 mg after 1 week of treatment. Two patients in group - A (levocetirizine plus ranitidine) complained of headache which is known side effect of levocetirizine. Another patient complained of somnolence which was again in the group A and was due to livocetirizine. Other common side effects of drugs like anaemia, jaundice, skin rashes were not seen among any group of patients. Overall occurrence of side effects (3 compared to 1) was more in group A and although clinically mild, difference was statistically significantIt was quite evident that patient preferred single daily dosing (rupatadine) then taking 3 drugs daily at two different times. Patient’s satisfaction in found more in rupatadine group than the other group and the difference was statistically significant. This finding is supported by other repeated studies [2, 7, 12, 15, 16].
The present study had the following limitations. Factors should be kept in mind while deciding on the implications of the findings of the study such as the small sample size, lack of objective assessment tools, single center-based study. Additional rigorously conducted prospective randomized trials with large sample sizes, full reporting of outcomes and double blinding of assessors are required. Increase transparency is needed if the sample cohort of patients is reported on in different studies and avoidance of multiple publications is strongly recommended.
The result of the present study show that both conventional treatment with levocetirizine and ranitidine combination and newer agent rupatadine alone has similar efficacy in reducing clinical sign and symptoms of CIU. But rupatadine has significantly reduced the relapse rate and so it is more efficacious and also safer option with less adverse effects for the treatment of CIU in comparison to conventional treatment. Rupatadine is also more convenient option for patients in term of dosage schedule.
The present study did not represent the actual scenario in Bangladesh because it was conducted in one tertiary level hospital (BSMMU) in Dhaka city only. Sample size and duration of the study was short. The long term results of the operative procedure could not be assessed. There is also lack of appropriate disease severity assessment tool.
There were no conflicts of interests
Appropriately taken
Self-funded
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
