Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model
- PMID: 15324525
- DOI: 10.1185/030079904125004330
Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model
Abstract
Background: Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution (Patanol) and epinastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution (Elestat) are two topical antiallergic agents. Olopatadine is indicated for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis that include itching, redness, tearing, lid swelling, and chemosis. Epinastine is indicated for the prevention of itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis.
Objective: This study compared the clinical efficacy of olopatadine and epinastine in the prevention of itching and conjunctival redness in the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model.
Research design and methods: This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally-controlled, single center allergen challenge study. Ninety-six subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis were screened, and the 66 who responded to conjunctival allergen challenge at visits 1 and 2 were randomized into 1 of 3 treatment groups at visit 3 to receive one drop of study medication in each eye: (1) olopatadine in one eye and epinastine in the fellow eye, (2) olopatadine in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye, and (3) epinastine in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye. Five minutes after study drop instillation, subjects were bilaterally challenged with the allergen concentration that had elicited a positive conjunctival allergic response at Visits 1 and 2. Subjective itching assessments were given at 3 min, 5 min, and 7 min post challenge. Objective redness and chemosis assessments were made at 10 min, 15 min, and 20 min post challenge. Paired sample two-tailed t-tests were performed on the mean scores at each time point to assess statistical significance in the differences between treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES;
Results: Fifty-three subjects were randomized into the olopatadine/epinastine treatment group, the primary analysis group. Olopatadine treated eyes exhibited significantly lower mean itching and conjunctival redness scores than the contralateral epinastine treated eyes, -0.19 (p = 0.003) and -0.52 (p < 0.001), respectively. Olopatadine treated eyes also exhibited significantly less chemosis -0.24 (p < 0.001), ciliary redness -0.55 (p < 0.001), and episcleral redness -0.58 (p < 0.001) than epinastine treated eyes.
Conclusion: Olopatadine is significantly more effective than epinastine in controlling itching, redness and chemosis associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the CAC model.
Similar articles
-
Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine 0.2% versus epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution for treating itching and redness induced by conjunctival allergen challenge.Curr Med Res Opin. 2007 Jun;23(6):1445-52. doi: 10.1185/030079907X188206. Epub 2007 May 18. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007. PMID: 17559743 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.
-
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 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.
-
Topical Olopatadine in the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2017 Oct;25(5):663-677. doi: 10.3109/09273948.2016.1158282. Epub 2016 May 18. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2017. PMID: 27192186
Cited by
-
Management of allergic conjunctivitis: an evaluation of the perceived comfort and therapeutic efficacy of olopatadine 0.2% and azelastine 0.05% from two prospective studies.Clin Ophthalmol. 2009;3:329-36. doi: 10.2147/opth.s5223. Epub 2009 Jun 2. Clin Ophthalmol. 2009. PMID: 19668586 Free PMC article.
-
Efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen-challenge model.Clin Ophthalmol. 2015 Sep 14;9:1703-13. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S83263. eCollection 2015. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015. PMID: 26392751 Free PMC article.
-
Treatment of allergic conjunctivitis with olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops.Clin Ophthalmol. 2008 Sep;2(3):525-31. doi: 10.2147/opth.s3294. Clin Ophthalmol. 2008. PMID: 19668750 Free PMC article.
-
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.
-
Efficacy of olopatadine versus epinastine for treating allergic conjunctivitis caused by Japanese cedar pollen: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.Adv Ther. 2014 Oct;31(10):1045-58. doi: 10.1007/s12325-014-0156-2. Epub 2014 Oct 1. Adv Ther. 2014. PMID: 25269854 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources