A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution versus placebo for controlling the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and rhinoconjunctivitis
- PMID: 12852709
- DOI: 10.1016/s0149-2918(03)80115-7
A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution versus placebo for controlling the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and rhinoconjunctivitis
Abstract
Background: The most common form of allergic ocular disease is seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, coinciding with the pollen season and generally associated with rhinitis. Symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis include ocular itching, hyperemia, tearing, mucus production, foreign body sensation, chemosis, and lid edema. Similarly, the primary symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis are nasal itching, irritation, sneezing, watery rhinorrhea, and congestion combined with ocular itching, tearing, and swelling.
Objective: This study compared olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution with placebo eyedrops (over-the-counter artificial tear product), instilled in the eye, with regard to the prevention and relief of the ocular and nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and rhinoconjunctivitis.
Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, conducted at 7 US centers, to instill either olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution or placebo eyedrops (artificial tears) in both eyes twice daily for 10 weeks. Patients were evaluated for efficacy (intent-to-treat) and safety. Only patients with proven grass pollen allergy (dermal and conjunctival allergen challenge tests) were selected; all patients were studied during the same period, historically shown to be grass season; and grass pollen counts were obtained.
Results: A total of 131 patients (64 olopatadine; 67 placebo) were assessed for efficacy (intent-to-treat); 132 patients were assessed for safety. The mean (SD) age of participants was 38.53 (11.61) years (range, 18 to 87 years), and 58.0% were women (76/131), with no significant differences between groups for age or sex. In the olopatadine group, 1.6% of patients were black (1/64), compared with 14.9% of the placebo group (10/67) (P = 0.005). Mean scores of ocular itching and hyperemia were lower at all assessment times with olopatadine than placebo. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05) for itching on days 7, 14, 35, 63, and 70, and for hyperemia on days 14, 28, 42, and 63, after correction for multiplicity. Linear regression slopes predicting ocular itching and hyperemia from the pollen count were significantly lower (P < 0.003 and P < 0.035, respectively) with olopatadine than with placebo. Similar results were obtained for rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal itching (P < 0.006, P < 0.012, and P < 0.034, respectively). With placebo, the proportion of patients with frequent ocular itching and hyperemia increased as a function of pollen level; however, with olopatadine, the proportions remained low and virtually constant.
Conclusion: In the population studied, olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution controlled ocular and nasal symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis and rhinocojunctivitis and was well tolerated when administered twice daily for 10 weeks.
Similar articles
-
Randomized, double-masked comparison of olopatadine ophthalmic solution, mometasone furoate monohydrate nasal spray, and fexofenadine hydrochloride tablets using the conjunctival and nasal allergen challenge models.Clin Ther. 2003 Aug;25(8):2245-67. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(03)80217-5. Clin Ther. 2003. PMID: 14512132 Clinical Trial.
-
A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and cromolyn sodium 2% ophthalmic solution in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.Clin Ther. 2002 Oct;24(10):1561-75. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(02)80060-1. Clin Ther. 2002. PMID: 12462286 Clinical Trial.
-
Evaluation of the efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.Clin Ther. 2001 Aug;23(8):1272-80. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(01)80106-5. Clin Ther. 2001. PMID: 11558863 Clinical Trial.
-
A review of olopatadine for the treatment of ocular allergy.Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2004 Sep;5(9):1979-94. doi: 10.1517/14656566.5.9.1979. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2004. PMID: 15330735 Review.
-
Olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution: the first ophthalmic antiallergy agent with once-daily dosing.Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2008 Apr;4(4):453-61. doi: 10.1517/17425255.4.4.453. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2008. PMID: 18433347 Review.
Cited by
-
A review of the use of olopatadine in allergic conjunctivitis.Int Ophthalmol. 2004 May;25(3):171-9. doi: 10.1007/s10792-004-1818-x. Int Ophthalmol. 2004. PMID: 15847317 Review.
-
Role of oxidative stress and vascular endothelial growth factor expression in pterygium pathogenesis and prevention of pterygium recurrence after surgical excision.Int Ophthalmol. 2020 Oct;40(10):2593-2606. doi: 10.1007/s10792-020-01440-2. Epub 2020 Jun 6. Int Ophthalmol. 2020. PMID: 32506294
-
The expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in pterygium tissue of atopic patients.Int Ophthalmol. 2014 Dec;34(6):1175-81. doi: 10.1007/s10792-013-9876-6. Epub 2014 Oct 26. Int Ophthalmol. 2014. PMID: 25344752
-
Antihistamines in ocular allergy: are they all created equal?Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2011 Jun;11(3):205-11. doi: 10.1007/s11882-011-0188-5. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2011. PMID: 21437647 Review.
-
A contemporary look at allergic conjunctivitis.Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2020 Jan 21;16:5. doi: 10.1186/s13223-020-0403-9. eCollection 2020. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2020. PMID: 31993069 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical