Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine versus ketotifen ophthalmic solutions: a double-masked, environmental study of patient preference
- PMID: 15324519
- DOI: 10.1185/030079904125004321
Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine versus ketotifen ophthalmic solutions: a double-masked, environmental study of patient preference
Abstract
Background: Ocular allergies cause itching, redness, chemosis, tearing, and swelling of the eyelids in sensitized individuals. The options available for treatment of ocular allergy include olopatadine 0.1% (Opatanol; Patanol [US]) and ketotifen 0.025% (Zaditen; Zaditor [US]). Patient preference for an eye drop can often be a primary factor in determining the level of compliance and satisfaction with any given therapy.
Objective: This study sought patient perspective on eye drop efficacy in controlling signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis and eye drop comfort. Also evaluated were the factors considered by patients when making decisions of preference.
Methods: One hundred patients with previous history and current symptoms of seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis were enrolled at two centers (Athens, Greece, N = 50; Padova, Italy, N = 50) for this two visit, double-masked study. Qualified patients received two masked bottles of medication (one olopatadine, one ketotifen) and were asked to use both medications as needed over the course of four weeks, but not to exceed usage of two drops of medication per eye per day. At the second visit, patients answered five questions comparing the two masked medications in terms of preference, drop comfort, and efficacy in treatment of signs and symptoms. Patients also defined the factors upon which they based these decisions.
Results: A significantly greater percentage of patients (81%) selected olopatadine when asked which medication they preferred; which they found more comfortable; which they found more efficacious in reducing symptoms of allergy; and which they would select if visiting the doctor's office (P < 0.0001). Seventy-six percent (76%) of patients considered both efficacy and comfort when making their preference decisions (P < 0.0001). No adverse events were volunteered or elicited.
Conclusion: In this study, patients preferred to use the anti-allergy eye drop olopatadine over ketotifen after using both drops and evaluating relative efficacy and comfort during the course of four weeks. A significantly greater percentage of the patients preferred to use olopatadine during the study period, found it more efficacious and comfortable, and would select olopatadine if visiting their doctor's office during allergy season.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of the effects of ketotifen fumarate 0.025% and olopatadine HCl 0.1% ophthalmic solutions in seasonal allergic conjunctivities: a 30-day, randomized, double-masked, artificial tear substitute-controlled trial.Clin Ther. 2005 Sep;27(9):1392-402. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2005.09.013. Clin Ther. 2005. PMID: 16291412 Clinical Trial.
-
A comparison of the relative efficacy and clinical performance of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival antigen challenge model.Clin Ther. 2000 Jul;22(7):826-33. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2918(00)80055-7. Clin Ther. 2000. PMID: 10945509 Clinical Trial.
-
Efficacy of olopatadine HCI 0.1%, ketotifen fumarate 0.025%, epinastine HCI 0.05%, emedastine 0.05% and fluorometholone acetate 0.1% ophthalmic solutions for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a placebo-controlled environmental trial.Acta Ophthalmol. 2009 Aug;87(5):549-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2008.01265.x. Epub 2008 Jul 9. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009. PMID: 18631332 Clinical Trial.
-
Mast cell stabilization and anti-histamine effects of olopatadine ophthalmic solution: a review of pre-clinical and clinical research.Curr Med Res Opin. 2005 Sep;21(9):1377-87. doi: 10.1185/030079905X56547. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005. PMID: 16197656 Review.
-
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.
Cited by
-
Ocular comfort assessment of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% in OPUS-3, a Phase III randomized controlled trial.Clin Ophthalmol. 2018 Jan 31;12:263-270. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S152841. eCollection 2018. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018. PMID: 29440868 Free PMC article.
-
Allergic Conjunctivitis Management: Update on Ophthalmic Solutions.Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2024 Jul;24(7):347-360. doi: 10.1007/s11882-024-01150-0. Epub 2024 Jun 13. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2024. PMID: 38869807 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers for treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 1;2015(6):CD009566. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009566.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. PMID: 26028608 Free PMC article.
-
Industrialization, Freight Transport and Environmental Quality: Evidence from Belt and Road Initiative Economies.Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020 Mar;27(7):7053-7070. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-07255-8. Epub 2019 Dec 27. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020. PMID: 31879891
-
Ocular allergy in pediatric practice.Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2006 Jul;6(4):306-11. doi: 10.1007/s11882-006-0064-x. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2006. PMID: 16822383 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources