A comparison of olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution versus fluticasone furoate nasal spray for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis

Abstract

Allergic conjunctivitis is an inflammatory condition of the ocular surface characterized by ocular itching, redness, tearing, chemosis, and eyelid swelling. The purpose of this study was to assess the comparative efficacy of an ophthalmic antihistamine/mast cell stabilizer solution and an intranasal steroid at reducing the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis induced by the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. Sixty subjects were enrolled in a single center, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-treatment, four-visit CAC study. After titration and confirmation of the allergic reaction at visits 1 and 2, subjects were randomized at visit 3 into one of 4 treatment groups (olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution, fluticasone furoate nasal spray, a tear substitute, or saline nasal spray), dosed with study medication, and challenged 15 minutes later, after which ocular allergic signs and symptoms were assessed. Subjects continued treatment of the assigned medication for 6 days. At visit 4, subjects underwent similar procedures to those performed at visit 3. Fifty-nine subjects completed the study. Olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution showed statistical and clinical superiority over fluticasone furoate nasal spray at all post-CAC time points after a single dose (p < 0.001) and after a 1-week loading period (p < 0.01) for ocular itching, the primary end point. Similarly, olopatadine 0.2% showed statistical and clinical superiority over fluticasone furoate for the majority of time points for ocular redness, tearing, chemosis, and eyelid swelling. Olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution was statistically and clinically superior to fluticasone furoate nasal spray for the relief of signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis.