Efficacy of olopatadine ophthalmic solution 0.2% in reducing signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark B. Abelson ◽  
Paul J. Gomes ◽  
Terri Pasquine ◽  
Michael R. Edwards ◽  
Robert D. Gross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Signs And Symptoms

Comparison of Topical 0.05% Levocabastine and 0.1% Lodoxamide in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis

1998 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Richard ◽  
C. Trinquand ◽  
E. Bloch-Michel ◽  
F. Favennec ◽  
L. Helleboid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Eyelid Edema ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Allergy Symptom

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of 0.05% levocabastine eyedrops (H1 receptor blocker given BID + vehicle BID) compared with 0.1% lodoxamide ophthalmic solution (mast-cell stabilizer instilled QID) in reducing ocular signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Methods A randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study was conducted in seven centres in France, in which 93 patients suffering from seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis were randomly allocated to either 0.05% levocabastine (n = 47) or 0.1% lodoxamide (n = 46) in both eyes for a 14-day period. Efficacy was evaluated by subjective (prickling, burning, photophobia, itching) and objective (redness, chemosis, eyelid edema, tearing) sign scores at visits on days 7 and 14, and from data noted daily by the patient in a self-evaluation form. Safety was assessed as tolerance upon instillation and adverse event reports. Results The ocular allergy symptom and sign scores were comparable in the two treatment groups at baseline. With time, statistically and clinically significant reductions (p < 0.001) from baseline were observed for the subjective and objective scores, with no difference between the treatment groups. After the first instillation, signs were alleviated more rapidly in levocabastine-treated patients than in the lodoxamide group (p < 0.001). Overall assessments by the patient and investigator were similar in both groups. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions Levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% (BID) appears to be as effective and safe as lodoxamide 0.1% (QID) in the management of allergic conjunctivitis.

scholarly journals A study on the Therapeutic Efficacy of Olopatadine Hydrochloride in the Management of Allergic Conjunctivitis

1970 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Md Abu Nayeem Chowdhury ◽  
AKM Mosharrof Hossain ◽  
MA Hashem Chowdhury ◽  
Shakhawat Hossain Chowdhury
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
College Hospital ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Department Of Ophthalmology ◽  
Drug Adverse Effects ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Medicine Today ◽  
Olopatadine Hydrochloride

A prospective interventional study was conducted to see the efficacy and safety of a ophthalmic preparation olopatadine hydrochloride (0.1%) on 40 allergic conjunctivitis patients attended the out-patient department of Ophthalmology, Sylhet M.A.G. Osmani Medical College Hospital. One drop of ophthalmic solution was administered 12 hourly in each eye for 2 weeks. Scoring of hyperaemia, itching, tearing, and photophobia were estimated before and 2 weeks after administration of the drug. After 30 min. & 2 weeks of administration of drug adverse effects were assessed if there was any. The mean scores of hyperaemia, tearing, itching and photophobia were reduced after 2 weeks of treatment. The scores of hyperaemia, itching, tearing, photophobia were found to be lower compared to Day 0. This change was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Olopatadine appeared to reduce ocular signs and symptoms in Allergic conjunctivitis . Key words: Olopatadine hydrochloride; Allergic conjunctivitis; Hyperaemia; Tearing; Itching; Photophobia. DOI: 10.3329/medtoday.v22i1.5599 Medicine Today Vol.22(1) 2010. 15-19

scholarly journals Effect of Desonide 0.25% Ophthalmic Solution on Central Corneal Thickness and Intraocular Pressure of Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis

1970 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 156-158
Author(s):  
Ozlem Gurses Sahin
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Goldmann Applanation Tonometry ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Conjunctival Hyperaemia ◽  
Significant Difference

Aim: To evaluate whether a significant difference exists between the initial and final mean central corneal thickness that might affect Goldmann applanation tonometer recordings of patients with allergic conjunctivitis treated with desonide 0.25% ophthalmic solution, and to determine the effect of desonide on intraocular pressure by using adjusted intraocular pressure values.Methods: This double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial enrolled 30 patients (60 eyes) with allergic conjunctivitis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive desonide to 1 eye (study eye) and preservative-free tear supplement (Tears Naturale Free®) to the other eye (control eye) 3 times daily for 3 weeks. Goldmann applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness of both eyes were recorded on the day of presentation and 3 weeks later.Results: Regression of itching, tearing, conjunctival hyperaemia, and tarsal conjunctival papillary reaction were noted in the study eyes after 3 weeks of treatment. The control eyes showed mild regression of pruritis, tearing, conjunctival hyperaemia, and tarsal conjunctival papillary reaction after 3 weeks. There was a significant difference between the initial and final mean central corneal thickness values for the study eyes (p = 0.003). There were no statistically significant differences between the initial and final mean values of Goldmann applanation tonometry and adjusted intraocular pressure for the study eyes. No statistically significant differences were found between the initial and final mean values of any of the parameters for the control eyes.Conclusion: Inflammation-induced increase in central corneal thickness of patients with allergic conjunctivitis treated with desonide showed statistically significant regression. However, this regression did not significantly affect Goldmann applanation tonometry and adjusted intraocular pressure values of the treated eyes.

scholarly journals A prospective study of efficacy and safety of olopatadine versus azelastine in allergic conjunctivitis at a tertiary care hospital

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. 1948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayanthi C. R. ◽  
Nanthini R. ◽  
. Vijayalakshmi
Keyword(s):  
Mast Cell ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
H1 Receptor ◽  
Olopatadine Hydrochloride

Background: Allergic conjunctivitis, an ocular surface inflammatory disease with significant social and economic impact affects approximately 25% of the general population. H1 receptor blockers, mast cell stabilizers and drugs that block cytokine and prostaglandin formation form the treatment armamentarium. Olopatadine hydrochloride and Azelastine hydrochloride are dual-acting selective H1 receptor antagonist with mast-cell stabilizing property. This study was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% and Azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% in allergic conjunctivitis amongst Indians.Methods: After obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee approval and written informed consent, 120 patients diagnosed with allergic conjunctivitis fulfilling the inclusion/exclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Study was done from April 2014 to June 2015 at Minto eye hospital. Study subjects were treated with olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% and Azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% eye drops BD for 15 days. Ocular symptoms, instead of and signs and adverse events, if any were recorded on the day 8 and day 15 follow up visits.Results: At the end of the study period, the reduction in the ocular itching score from baseline was higher in the olopatadine group compared to the azelastine group (p<0.002). Similarly, the scores of ocular congestion (p<0.008), foreign body sensation (p<0.009), tearing (p<0.001), erythema (p<0.002) and chemosis (p<0.015) also showed larger reduction in the olopatadine treated patients. The common adverse events encountered in both the groups were stinging after instillation, burning, bitter taste and headache.Conclusions: In allergic conjunctivitis, both olopatadine and azelastine were found to be effective in relieving ocular signs and symptoms, but olopatadine was found to be superior in terms of efficacy, safety and tolerability with minimal side effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document