Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Abstract
Fulltext PDF
References
Research Article
 
Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Olopatadine and Emedastine in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis



Shiyan Cao, Shining Cao, Aiwei Chen, Lanlan Yang and Yuan Chen
 
ABSTRACT

Background and Objective: Anti-histamine and anti-inflammatory agents are used in treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. The objective of the study was to compare efficacy and safety of emedastine with olopatadine in Chinese allergic conjunctivitis patients. Materials and Methods: Total, 2,745 allergic conjunctivitis affected eyes were subjected to simple randomization. Patients received normal saline (VG group; n = 915), 0.2% olopatadine (OG group; n = 915) or emedastine (EG group; n = 915) in affected eyes. Interventions run for 15 days. The signs, symptoms and treatment-emergent adverse-effects were evaluated. Results: Olopatadine and emedastine were effective and safe in allergic conjunctivitis. In the morning, patients had the same satisfaction for the relief of symptoms for olopatadine and emedastine (4.32±0.25 vs. 4.29±0.38, p = 0.051). In the evening, patients had a higher satisfaction for the relief of symptoms for emedastine treatment than olopatadine treatment (4.12±0.11 vs. 2.14±0.11, p<0.0001). About 35% patients from OG group and 60% patients from the EG group have preferred their next prescription with the same treatment. Olopatadine was effective in all types of allergic conjunctivitis and emedastine was effective in seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis only. For OG group, pharyngitis and for EG group, increased heart rates were reported as adverse effects. Conclusion: Olopatadine recommended in all types of conjunctivitis and emedastine recommended in seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis only.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Similar Articles in this Journal
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
Received: October 30, 2018; Accepted: November 15, 2018; Published: February 13, 2019

REFERENCES
Ackerman, S., Jr.F. D'Ambrosio, J.V. Greiner, L. Villanueva, J.B. Ciolino and D.A. Hollander, 2013. A multicenter evaluation of the efficacy and duration of action of alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. J. Asthma Allergy, 6: 43-52.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Ashara, K.C. and K.V. Shah, 2017. Emulsion of Chloramphenicol: An overwhelming approach for ocular delivery. Folia Med., 59: 23-30.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Ashara, K.C. and K.V. Shah, 2018. The study of chloramphenicol for ophthalmic formulation. Int. J. Sci. Res. Rev., 7: 173-181.
Direct Link  |  

Berdy, G.J. and S.S. Berdy, 2009. Ocular allergic disorders: Disease entities and differential diagnoses. Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep., 9: 297-303.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Bielory, L., E.O. Meltzer, K.K. Nichols, R. Melton, R.K. Thomas and J.D. Bartlett, 2013. An algorithm for the management of allergic conjunctivitis. Allergy Asthma Proc., 34: 408-420.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Borazan, M., A. Karalezli, Y.A. Akova, A. Akman, H. Kiyici and S.S. Erbek, 2009. Efficacy of olopatadine HCI 0.1%, ketotifen fumarate 0.025%, epinastine HCI 0.05%, emedastine 0.05% and fluorometholone acetate 0.1% ophthalmic solutions for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: A placebo-controlled environmental trial. Acta Ophthalmol., 87: 549-554.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Carr, W., J. Schaeffer and E. Donnenfeld, 2016. Treating allergic conjunctivitis: A once-daily medication that provides 24-hour symptom relief. Allergy Rhinol., 7: 107-114.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Donnenfeld, E.D., L.D. Nichamin, D.R. Hardten, M.B. Raizman and W. Trattler et al., 2011. Twice-daily, preservative-free ketorolac 0.45% for treatment of inflammation and pain after cataract surgery. Am. J. Ophthalmol., 151: 420-426.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

European Medicines Agency, 2016. Summary of EMADINE characteristics. http://www.ema.europa.eu.

Fukushima, A. and N. Ebihara, 2014. Efficacy of olopatadine versus epinastine for treating allergic conjunctivitis caused by Japanese cedar pollen: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. Adv. Ther., 31: 1045-1058.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Gong, L., X. Sun, J. Qu, L. Wang and M. Zhang et al., 2012. Loteprednol etabonate suspension 0.2% administered QID compared with olopatadine solution 0.1% administered BID in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: A multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel group study in Chinese patients. Clin. Ther., 34: 1259-1272.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Heinzerling, L., A. Mari, K.C. Bergmann, M. Bresciani and G. Burbach et al., 2013. The skin prick test-European standards. Clin. Transl. Allergy, Vol. 3. 10.1186/2045-7022-3-3

Hong, J., T. Zhong, H. Li, J. Xu and X. Ye et al., 2016. Ambient air pollution, weather changes and outpatient visits for allergic conjunctivitis: A retrospective registry study. Sci. Rep., Vol. 6. 10.1038/srep23858

Lanier, B.Q., I. Finegold, P. D'Arienzo, D. Granet, A.B. Epstein and G.L. Ledgerwood, 2004. Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Curr. Med. Res. Opin., 20: 1227-1233.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Li, N., X.G. Deng and M.F. He, 2012. Comparison of the Schirmer I test with and without topical anesthesia for diagnosing dry eye. Int. J. Ophthalmol., 5: 478-481.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Liu, R.F., X.X. Wu, X. Wang, J. Gao, J. Zhou and Q. Zhao, 2017. Efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1%, emedastine difumarate 0.05% and loteprednol etabonate 0.5% for Chinese children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: A randomized vehicle-controlled study. Int. Forum Allergy Rhinol., 7: 393-398.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

McCabe, C.F. and S.E. McCabe, 2012. Comparative efficacy of bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic solution versus olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% ophthalmic solution evaluated by patient preference. Clin. Ophthalmol., 6: 1731-1738.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

McLaurin, E., A. Narvekar, P. Gomes, A. Adewale and G. Torkildsen, 2015. Phase 3 randomized double-masked study of efficacy and safety of once-daily 0.77% olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution in subjects with allergic conjunctivitis using the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Cornea, 34: 1245-1251.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Mortemousque, B., T. Bourcier, M. Khairallah, R. Messaoud and F. Brignole-Baudouin et al., 2014. Comparison of preservative-free ketotifen fumarate and preserved olopatadine hydrochloride eye drops in the treatment of moderate to severe seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. J. Francais d'Ophtalmol., 37: 1-8.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

O'Brien, T.P., 2013. Allergic conjunctivitis: An update on diagnosis and management. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol., 13: 543-549.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

PATADAY., 2010. Highlights of prescribing information for PATADAYâ„¢. NDA 21545/S-013. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/021545s013lbl.pdf.

Reginster, J.Y., V. Rabenda and A. Neuprez, 2006. Adherence, patient preference and dosing frequency: Understanding the relationship. Bone, 38: S2-S6.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

SFDA., 2016. Good clinical practice of China. State Food and Drug Administration. http://www.sfda.gov.cn/WS01/CL0053/24473.html.

Sanchez, M.C., B.F. Parra, V. Matheu, A. Navarro and M.D. Ibanez et al., 2011. Allergic conjunctivitis. J. Invest. Allergol. Clin. Immunol., 21: 1-19.
Direct Link  |  

Smets, K., J. Werbrouck, A. Goossens and L. Gilissen, 2017. Sensitization from ketotifen fumarate in eye drops presenting as chronic conjunctivitis. Contact Dermatitis, 76: 124-126.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

Torkildsen, G., A. Narvekar and M. Bergmann, 2015. Efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis using a conjunctival allergen-challenge model. Clin. Ophthalmol., 9: 1703-1713.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

©  2019 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved
Fulltext PDF References Abstract