Giorgio Ciprandi1, Darell Turner2, Robert D Gross3. 1. Genova University of the Studies, Allergic and Immunological Diseases Clinic, Genova, Italy. 2. Biostatistics and Clinical Data Management, Alcon Research, Ltd., Fort Worth, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is estimated that >50% of medications have not been tested in children. Physicians need pediatric data to guide them in treating children. Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% is a topical antiallergic agent that is both an antihistamine with high affinity and selectivity for the histamine H1 receptor and a mast cell stabilizer that inhibits the release of histamine and other proinflammatory mediators from human conjunctival mast cells. The efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine has been demonstrated by comparative studies in adults and children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC). OBJECTIVE: Pediatric patient data were extracted from 2 clinical trials to assess the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% compared with those of cromolyn sodium ophthalmic solution 2% and levocabastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% as treatment for SAC in children. METHODS: In study 1, conducted at 15 centers in 7 countries (Europe and Australia) from October 1995 to December 1997, olopatadine was instilled BID and placebo (vehicle) BID for 6 weeks and compared with cromolyn instilled QID. Study 2, conducted at 17 centers in 8 countries (Europe and Australia) from November 1998 to June 2000, comparedolopatadine BID with levocabastine BID. In both studies, children of either sex and any race, aged 4 to 11 years, and having proven grass pollen allergies were assigned to treatment in a double-masked, randomized fashion. Slit-lamp examination, the physician's impression scale, and self-ratings were used to obtain efficacy data. Data analyses were based on pollen concentrations. The tolerability assessments were based on visual acuity, pupil diameter, intraocular pressure, and a dilated fundus examination. RESULTS: Study 1 comprised 30 children (olopatadine [n = 13] andcromolyn sodium [n = 17]; 18 boys, 12 girls; mean age, 7.9 years [range, 4-11 years]). Study 2 comprised 22 children (olopatadine [n = 10] andlevocabastine [n = 12]; 12 boys, 10 girls; mean age, 8.6 years [range, 5-11 years]). In study 1, ocular itching (P = 0.010), redness seen on slit-lamp examination (P = 0.003), and eyelid swelling (P = 0.034) were significantly less intense with olopatadine than with cromolyn sodium during the peak pollen period. In study 2, redness seen on slit-lamp examination (P = 0.040) and self-rated ocular redness (P = 0.024) were significantly less intense with olopatadine than levocabastine during the peak pollen period. Olopatadine was well tolerated. CONCLUSION:Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% was more effective than both cromolyn sodium 2% and levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic preparations in controlling ocular signs and symptoms of SAC in children and was well tolerated when administered twice daily for 6 weeks.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: It is estimated that >50% of medications have not been tested in children. Physicians need pediatric data to guide them in treating children. Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% is a topical antiallergic agent that is both an antihistamine with high affinity and selectivity for the histamine H1 receptor and a mast cell stabilizer that inhibits the release of histamine and other proinflammatory mediators from human conjunctival mast cells. The efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine has been demonstrated by comparative studies in adults and children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC). OBJECTIVE: Pediatric patient data were extracted from 2 clinical trials to assess the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% compared with those of cromolyn sodium ophthalmic solution 2% and levocabastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% as treatment for SAC in children. METHODS: In study 1, conducted at 15 centers in 7 countries (Europe and Australia) from October 1995 to December 1997, olopatadine was instilled BID and placebo (vehicle) BID for 6 weeks and compared with cromolyn instilled QID. Study 2, conducted at 17 centers in 8 countries (Europe and Australia) from November 1998 to June 2000, compared olopatadineBID with levocabastineBID. In both studies, children of either sex and any race, aged 4 to 11 years, and having proven grass pollen allergies were assigned to treatment in a double-masked, randomized fashion. Slit-lamp examination, the physician's impression scale, and self-ratings were used to obtain efficacy data. Data analyses were based on pollen concentrations. The tolerability assessments were based on visual acuity, pupil diameter, intraocular pressure, and a dilated fundus examination. RESULTS: Study 1 comprised 30 children (olopatadine [n = 13] and cromolyn sodium [n = 17]; 18 boys, 12 girls; mean age, 7.9 years [range, 4-11 years]). Study 2 comprised 22 children (olopatadine [n = 10] and levocabastine [n = 12]; 12 boys, 10 girls; mean age, 8.6 years [range, 5-11 years]). In study 1, ocular itching (P = 0.010), redness seen on slit-lamp examination (P = 0.003), and eyelid swelling (P = 0.034) were significantly less intense with olopatadine than with cromolyn sodium during the peak pollen period. In study 2, redness seen on slit-lamp examination (P = 0.040) and self-rated ocular redness (P = 0.024) were significantly less intense with olopatadine than levocabastine during the peak pollen period. Olopatadine was well tolerated. CONCLUSION:Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% was more effective than both cromolyn sodium 2% and levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic preparations in controlling ocular signs and symptoms of SAC in children and was well tolerated when administered twice daily for 6 weeks.
Authors: J M Yanni; D J Stephens; S T Miller; L K Weimer; G Graff; D Parnell; L S Lang; J M Spellman; M T Brady; D A Gamache Journal: J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Date: 1996 Impact factor: 2.671