AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the occurrence of ocular adverse effects observed after administration of anti-allergic eye drops with and without a preservative in patients with allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS: A total of 3090 patients with allergic conjunctivitis and treated with anti-allergic eye drops were included in an open nonrandomised prospective study by 507 general practitioners located throughout France. The symptoms of discomfort and pain experienced during instillations as well as the characteristics of the patients and of their allergic pathology were recorded. RESULTS: Two groups of patients (eyedrops without preservative [n = 2712] and with preservative [n = 121]) were identified. Sixty percent and 15% of the cases of allergic conjunctivitis were associated with rhinitis and asthma, respectively, and for 70% of the occurrences, an identifiable factor (pollen, dusts, animals etc.) was responsible for the appearance of the symptoms. Compliance was significantly higher for anti-allergic eye drops without preservative than for those with a preservative (average number of instillations 3.5 vs 2.9/day, p < 0.001; number of instillations omitted 3.6 vs 4.2, p = 0.01). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one adverse drug reaction was 24% for eye drops with no preservative and 89% for eye drops with a preservative (p < 0.001). The most frequently notified symptom was a sensation of prickling and burning (10% and 47%, respectively, for eye drops with no preservative and eye drops with a preservative; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prescription of eye drops with no preservative allows a significant decrease in ocular adverse drug reactions and a greater acceptance by the patient regarding his/her anti-allergic treatment.
AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the occurrence of ocular adverse effects observed after administration of anti-allergic eye drops with and without a preservative in patients with allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS: A total of 3090 patients with allergic conjunctivitis and treated with anti-allergic eye drops were included in an open nonrandomised prospective study by 507 general practitioners located throughout France. The symptoms of discomfort and pain experienced during instillations as well as the characteristics of the patients and of their allergic pathology were recorded. RESULTS: Two groups of patients (eyedrops without preservative [n = 2712] and with preservative [n = 121]) were identified. Sixty percent and 15% of the cases of allergic conjunctivitis were associated with rhinitis and asthma, respectively, and for 70% of the occurrences, an identifiable factor (pollen, dusts, animals etc.) was responsible for the appearance of the symptoms. Compliance was significantly higher for anti-allergic eye drops without preservative than for those with a preservative (average number of instillations 3.5 vs 2.9/day, p < 0.001; number of instillations omitted 3.6 vs 4.2, p = 0.01). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one adverse drug reaction was 24% for eye drops with no preservative and 89% for eye drops with a preservative (p < 0.001). The most frequently notified symptom was a sensation of prickling and burning (10% and 47%, respectively, for eye drops with no preservative and eye drops with a preservative; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prescription of eye drops with no preservative allows a significant decrease in ocular adverse drug reactions and a greater acceptance by the patient regarding his/her anti-allergic treatment.