BACKGROUND: Mast cell stabilizers, such as the ocular antiallergic agent nedocromil sodium 2% ophthalmic solution, are not rapid acting and often require a loading period of > or =2 weeks for maximal efficacy. Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution is a member of a new class of topical antiallergic agents that have combined antihistaminic and mast cell-stabilizing properties. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and comfort of olopatadine with those of nedocromil in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. METHODS: This was a single-center, 3-visit, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally controlled study. Seventy-five subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis were screened, and the 52 who responded to conjunctival allergen challenge at visits I and 2 were randomized by eye to receive olopatadine, nedocromil, or placebo (a "natural tears" lubricant eye drop). Because nedocromil may require a 2-week loading period for maximal efficacy, the eyes assigned to that agent received nedocromil for 14 days (between visits 2 and 3), whereas the eyes assigned to olopatadine or placebo received placebo during this period. Throughout the loading phase, subjects instilled 1 drop of the assigned masked medication in each eye twice daily. At the assessment visit (visit 3), subjects received I drop of masked olopatadine, nedocromil, or placebo in each eye and were asked to rate the comfort of each drop on a scale from 0 to 8. Fifteen minutes after instillation of medication, subjects were challenged with the allergen concentration that had elicited a positive conjunctival allergic response at the previous visits. Subjects then scored their itching on a scale from 0 to 4 at 3, 5, and 10 minutes after challenge. Mean itching scores for all eyes were compared by treatment. Paired t tests were performed on the mean itching and ocular comfort scores at each time point. At the end of the study, subjects were asked which treatment they preferred in terms of comfort and efficacy. RESULTS:Forty-nine subjects completed the study. Forty eyes received olopatadine, 36 received nedocromil, and 22 received placebo. Olopatadine was clinically and statistically superior to nedocromil at reducing itching in the conjunctival allergen challenge model (mean unit difference: -1.60 at 3 minutes, -1.68 at 5 minutes, -1.19 at 10 minutes; P < 0.001). One drop of olopatadine was more efficacious than 29 drops of nedocromil. Olopatadine-treated eyes were rated as being significantly more comfortable than nedocromil-treated eyes (0.73 vs 1.55; P = 0.034). Of the 14 subjects treated witholopatadine and nedocromil who stated a preference, 10 (71%) were more satisfied with olopatadine than with nedocromil. CONCLUSION: In the conjunctival allergen challenge model, olopatadine was more efficacious and comfortable than nedocromil in reducing the itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Mast cell stabilizers, such as the ocular antiallergic agent nedocromil sodium 2% ophthalmic solution, are not rapid acting and often require a loading period of > or =2 weeks for maximal efficacy. Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution is a member of a new class of topical antiallergic agents that have combined antihistaminic and mast cell-stabilizing properties. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and comfort of olopatadine with those of nedocromil in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. METHODS: This was a single-center, 3-visit, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally controlled study. Seventy-five subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis were screened, and the 52 who responded to conjunctival allergen challenge at visits I and 2 were randomized by eye to receive olopatadine, nedocromil, or placebo (a "natural tears" lubricant eye drop). Because nedocromil may require a 2-week loading period for maximal efficacy, the eyes assigned to that agent received nedocromil for 14 days (between visits 2 and 3), whereas the eyes assigned to olopatadine or placebo received placebo during this period. Throughout the loading phase, subjects instilled 1 drop of the assigned masked medication in each eye twice daily. At the assessment visit (visit 3), subjects received I drop of masked olopatadine, nedocromil, or placebo in each eye and were asked to rate the comfort of each drop on a scale from 0 to 8. Fifteen minutes after instillation of medication, subjects were challenged with the allergen concentration that had elicited a positive conjunctival allergic response at the previous visits. Subjects then scored their itching on a scale from 0 to 4 at 3, 5, and 10 minutes after challenge. Mean itching scores for all eyes were compared by treatment. Paired t tests were performed on the mean itching and ocular comfort scores at each time point. At the end of the study, subjects were asked which treatment they preferred in terms of comfort and efficacy. RESULTS: Forty-nine subjects completed the study. Forty eyes received olopatadine, 36 received nedocromil, and 22 received placebo. Olopatadine was clinically and statistically superior to nedocromil at reducing itching in the conjunctival allergen challenge model (mean unit difference: -1.60 at 3 minutes, -1.68 at 5 minutes, -1.19 at 10 minutes; P < 0.001). One drop of olopatadine was more efficacious than 29 drops of nedocromil. Olopatadine-treated eyes were rated as being significantly more comfortable than nedocromil-treated eyes (0.73 vs 1.55; P = 0.034). Of the 14 subjects treated with olopatadine and nedocromil who stated a preference, 10 (71%) were more satisfied with olopatadine than with nedocromil. CONCLUSION: In the conjunctival allergen challenge model, olopatadine was more efficacious and comfortable than nedocromil in reducing the itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis.