Comparative Study of Clinical Efficacy and Tolerance in Seasonal Allergic Conjunctivitis Management with 0.1% Olopatadine Hydrochloride versus 0.05% Ketotifen Fumarate

Abstract

ABSTRACT.Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and tolerance of 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride (OHC) versus 0.05% ketotifen fumarate (KF) in the management of allergic conjunctivitis. Materials and Methods: Eighty adult patients with a history of allergy (allergic conjunctivitis, hay fever, asthmatic bronchitis and dermatitis) that were showing allergic conjunctivitis signs and symptoms (itching, hyperemia, mucous discharge and tearing) at the time of inclusion in this study were evaluated. Patients were divided in two groups, A and B. Group A patients were treated with OHC and group B patients were treated with KF. Both groups received one drop in the affected eye every 12 hrs. The start time of this study was the first patient visit, in which the medication was instilled for the first time. Both groups of patients were evaluated 30 min, 48 hr., 7 days and 14 days later. Local tolerance of each medication was evaluated. Results: Clinical improvement of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis occurred in 42.5% to 62.5% of the patients in Group A when assessed 30 min following the first topical ocular dose of olopatadine. However, mucous discharge was not affected. Forty-eight (48) hrs. after the first instillation, improvements in 57.5% to 75% of the patients were shown in every evaluated parameter. After 7 days of treatment, positive clinical results were observed in 80% to 87.5% of the treated patients. Except for the patients that were dismissed from the study before the seventh day of treatment due to the absence of therapeutic response (4/40), all patients satisfactorily completed the therapeutic plan by the seventh day. No intolerance reactions were observed in patients of this group. In Group B patients (KF), clinical improvement of the signs and symptoms measured in the study was shown in 20.0% to 47.5% 30 min after instillation. As observed with olopatadine, no improvement in the number of patients showing mucous discharge was noted at the 30-min time point. At 48 hr. after the first instillation, 27.5% to 48% of patients showed improvement in every evaluated parameter. After 7 days of treatment, improvement was observed in 60% to 75% of patients. On Day 14, positive responses were observed in 67.5% to 75% of patients. Seventeen and one-half percent of the patients were dismissed from the study before the seventh day of treatment due to the absence of a therapeutic response. Approximately 23% of the patients had mild reactions of intolerance (stinging) which was not a cause to discontinue the treatment. Conclusion: Olopatadine hydrochloride controlled allergic conjunctivitis symptoms and signs more rapidly and to a greater extent than ketotifen fumarate. A O S 2000 53Fewer cases of treatment failure were noted with OHC, and no local intolerance reactions were observed, while KF triggered mild reactions (stinging) in 23% of patients.

Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of olopatadine eyedrops and sodium cromoglycate in clinical practice: a prospective study

“…[20][21][22] According to aguilar et al olopatadine 0.1% shows superior efficacy in the rapid resolution of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. 23 Patient preference for olopatadine is also better compared to ketotifen. 24 In the CAC studies, olopatadine 0.1% twice daily was found to be more efficient than epinastine and loteprednol etabonate 0.2% in decreasing the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis such as itching, redness and chemosis.…”

Double-masked, randomized, parallel-group study comparing olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution with cromolyn sodium 2% and levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic preparations in children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

“…However, SAC accounts for more than half of all ocular allergy cases, and many patients suffer ocular symptoms only, as did most patients in the present samples. 7,12,13 The present methodologic concerns would not normally arise in routine clinical practice.…”

“…Paracetamol and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride were allowed during the studies. Clinic visits were scheduled for days 0 (randomization and start of study treatment), 3,7,14,30, and 42 (last day of treatment). A final visit followed 2 to 3 days later.…”

“…[4][5][6] The efficacy of olopatadine has been demonstrated by comparative studies in patients with SAC and rhinoconjunctivitis; the agent was well tolerated when administered BID for 2 weeks. [6][7][8][9] *Trademark: Patanolா (US and Canada) or Opatanolா (Europe) (Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, Texas).…”

Does allergic conjunctivitis always require prescription eyedrops?

“…On the other hand, a study from the United Kingdom 4 found that patients using olopatadine made fewer visits to their general practitioner than patients using cromolyn, resulting in lower overall cost of healthcare. Results of studies of patient preferences and effi cacy of olopatadine 0.1% (twicedaily preparation) vs ketotifen 0.025% are mixed, [5][6][7][8] and no study has compared olopatadine 0.2% (once-daily preparation) with overthe-counter ketotifen.…”