Literature DB >> 10945509

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.

G J Berdy1, D L Spangler, G Bensch, S S Berdy, R C Brusatti.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare 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.
METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally controlled, single-center, antigen challenge study. Of the 53 subjects screened, 32 were enrolled and completed the study. The study comprised 3 visits. Primary efficacy variables were ocular itching (assessed at visits 2 and 3) and subject satisfaction (assessed at visit 3). Tolerability variables were slit-lamp findings (all visits), visual acuity (all visits), ocular comfort after drug instillation (visit 3), and adverse events (visits 2 and 3). At visit 1, the antigen concentration that elicited a positive ocular allergic response was determined, and this concentration was confirmed at visit 2. Subjects graded itching on a 5-point scale at 3, 5, and 10 minutes postchallenge. The scores from this visit were used as baseline scores and compared with scores from visit 3 to determine drug efficacy. At visit 3, subjects were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups. Group A received 1 drop of olopatadine in the right eye and I drop of ketotifen in the left eye. Group B received 1 drop of olopatadine in the left eye and 1 drop of ketotifen in the right eye. Following drug instillation, the subjects assessed the comfort level in each eye. Twelve hours after instillation, subjects were challenged with the antigen concentration that elicited a positive response at the previous visits. Itching was subjectively graded at 3, 5, and 10 minutes postchallenge. Subjects were asked to choose which therapy they were more satisfied with.
RESULTS: Twelve hours after administration, efficacy scores for olopatadine were significantly higher than those for ketotifen at 3 and 5 minutes postchallenge (1.84 and 1.75 vs 1.25 and 1.34; P < 0.05). Olopatadine-treated eyes were rated significantly more comfortable than those treated with ketotifen immediately after drug instillation (1.25 vs 2.09; P < 0.05) and 12 hours later, as measured by patient ratings of ocular comfort. Of the 22 subjects who had a preference, 16 (73%) were more satisfied with olopatadine than with ketotifen.
CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine is more effective than ketotifen in reducing the itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the antigen challenge model. Olopatadine caused less ocular discomfort than ketotifen and was preferred by approximately 3 times as many patients as was ketotifen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10945509     DOI: 10.1016/S0149-2918(00)80055-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Ther        ISSN: 0149-2918            Impact factor:   3.393


  15 in total

Review 1.  Conjunctival allergen challenge: models in the investigation of ocular allergy.

Authors:  Mark B Abelson; Oliver Loeffler
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.806

2.  Brain histamine H receptor occupancy of orally administered antihistamines measured by positron emission tomography with (11)C-doxepin in a placebo-controlled crossover study design in healthy subjects: a comparison of olopatadine and ketotifen.

Authors:  Manabu Tashiro; Hideki Mochizuki; Yumiko Sakurada; Kenji Ishii; Keiichi Oda; Yuichi Kimura; Toru Sasaki; Kiichi Ishiwata; Kazuhiko Yanai
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 3.  Ocular allergy in pediatric practice.

Authors:  Mark B Abelson; David Granet
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 4.806

Review 4.  A review of the use of olopatadine in allergic conjunctivitis.

Authors:  James I McGill
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.031

5.  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.

Authors:  Arthur B Epstein; Peter T Van Hoven; Alan Kaufman; Warner W Carr
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-06-02

Review 6.  Ocular allergy guidelines: a practical treatment algorithm.

Authors:  Leonard Bielory
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 9.546

7.  Treatment of allergic conjunctivitis with olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops.

Authors:  Eiichi Uchio
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-09

8.  Comparative efficacy of bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic solution versus olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% ophthalmic solution evaluated by patient preference.

Authors:  Craig F McCabe; Shannon E McCabe
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-10-29

Review 9.  Ocular allergy treatment comparisons: azelastine and olopatadine.

Authors:  Leonard Bielory; Praveen Buddiga; Stephen Bigelson
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.919

10.  The effect of ketotifen on inflammatory markers in allergic conjunctivitis: an open, uncontrolled study.

Authors:  Andrea P Martín; Julio Urrets-Zavalia; Alejandro Berra; Ana Lía Mariani; Norberto Gallino; Eduardo Gomez Demel; Julio Gagliardi; Carlos E Baena-Cagnani; Enrique Urrets-Zavalia; Horacio M Serra
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-01-06       Impact factor: 2.209

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.