Double-masked, paired-comparison clinical study of ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% ophthalmic solution compared with placebo eyedrops in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

Sustained Delivery of Olopatadine from Vitamin-E Loaded Contact Lenses

Purpose: Topical antihistamines, such as olopatadine hydrochloride, an H1 receptor antagonist, are commonly prescribed for treating allergic conjunctivitis. Drug delivery via eye drops has many deficiencies including a short residence time due to tear drainage via the nasolacrimal duct, which results in a low bioavailability and potential for side effects. These deficiencies could be mitigated by a drug-eluting contact lens such as the recently approved ACUVUE® THERAVISION™ WITH KETOTIFEN which is a daily disposable etafilcon, a drug-eluting contact lens with ketotifen (19 μg per lens). Here, we investigate the feasibility of designing a drug-eluting lens with sustained release of olopatadine for treating allergies using an extended wear lens. Methods: Nanobarrier depots composed of vitamin-E (VE) are formed through direct entrapment by ethanol-driven swelling. The drug-loaded lenses are characterized for transparency and water content. In vitro release is measured under sink conditions and fitted to a diffusion control release model to determine diffusivity and partition coefficient. Results: In vitro studies indicate that ACUVUE OASYS® and ACUVUE TruEye™ lenses loaded with ∼0.3 g of VE/g of hydrogel effectively prolong olopatadine dynamics by 7-fold and 375-fold, respectively. Incorporation of VE into the lenses retains visible light transmission and other properties. Conclusion: The VE incorporation in commercial lenses significantly increases the release duration offering the possibility of antiallergy extended wear lenses.

Diclofenac Versus Corticosteroids Following Strabismus Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The purpose of the current study was to compare outcomes of diclofenac versus corticosteroids following strabismus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. An electronic search was performed to include comparative studies of diclofenac versus corticosteroids following strabismus surgery. The analysis was based on fixed and random effect models. Primary outcomes included discomfort, chemosis, inflammation, conjunctival gap, intraocular pressure, and conjunctival injection. Secondary outcomes were conjunctival congestion, discharge, and drop intolerance. Eight studies with a sample of 469 eyes were included. At weeks 1 and 4 postoperatively, there were no statistically significant differences between the diclofenac and corticosteroid groups, except for conjunctival injection at week 1 (mean difference [MD] = -0.21, P = .04) favoring diclofenac. Interestingly, all primary outcomes significantly favored diclofenac at week 2: discomfort (MD = -0.34, P = .03), conjunctival chemosis (MD = -0.16, P = .04), conjunctival inflammation (MD = -0.16, P = .02), conjunctival gap (MD = -0.17, P = .002), intraocular pressure (MD = -2.53, P < .00001), and conjunctival injection (MD = -0.30, P = .03). Moreover, conjunctival congestion was significantly improved for dexamethasone, whereas discharge and drop intolerance was not statistically different. Diclofenac is comparable to various corticosteroids when used following strabismus surgery. However, it is important to note that diclofenac yielded significant improvements in discomfort, conjunctival chemosis, inflammation, conjunctival gap, intraocular pressure, and conjunctival injection, mainly at 2 weeks postoperatively. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2023;60(5):312-322.].

Total IgE in tears accurately reflects the severity and predicts the prognosis of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

Background

Although immunoglobulin E (IgE) increases significantly in tears and serum during seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC), it is unclear whether tear total IgE can reflect the severity and prognosis of SAC more accurately than serum total IgE. We aimed to investigate the usefulness of measuring the total IgE in tears to evaluate the severity and determine the treatment of SAC.

Methods

This prospective, nonrandomized study involved 55 patients with SAC and 10 age‐ and sex‐matched healthy controls. Serum and tears were collected before and after treatment to analyze the total IgE. SAC patients received the same topical anti‐allergy treatment and were followed‐up every 2 weeks for 1 month. The relationship of tear and serum total IgE concentrations with pollen concentrations and symptom severity before and after treatment was assessed.

Results

The total IgE concentration in tears was higher in SAC patients than in healthy participants with significant correlations between tear and serum total IgE concentrations. The total IgE concentration in tears, but not in serum, correlated with the pollen concentration and severity of ocular symptoms and reactions in SAC. Treatment‐associated improvements in symptoms and reactions in SAC correlated with decreased concentrations of the tear total IgE. Patients with disease recurrence following treatment demonstrated significantly higher tear total IgE concentrations than patients with no recurrence.

Conclusion

The total tear IgE level can indicate the severity and predict the prognosis of SAC more accurately than the serum total IgE.

Ocular nonsteroidal inflammatory drugs: where do we stand today?

Since their first introduction in ophthalmology, the use of NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) has been exponentially expanded, with numerous therapeutic applications. Despite their controversial history, they have proven their efficacy as anti-inflammatory agents in a variety of diseases. Nowadays, NSAIDs are part of surgical protocols of the most commonly performed ophthalmic operations, such as cataract or ocular surgery. They are universally implicated in the management of conjunctivitis, retinal and choroidal disease and miscellaneous inflammatory diseases. Moreover, although linked with serious adverse events and toxicities, their therapeutic magnitude in Ophthalmology should not be affected. This review systematically portrays the variety of ocular NSAIDs available to date, along with their differences in their way of action, indications and potential side effects in various ophthalmologic conditions.

Use of topical bromfenac for treating ocular pain and inflammation beyond cataract surgery: a review of published studies

Topical ophthalmic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat postoperative inflammation and pain following cataract surgery and for treatment and prophylaxis of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (CME). Bromfenac is a brominated NSAID with strong in vitro anti-inflammatory potency. Like other ophthalmic NSAIDs, bromfenac is often used outside of the cataract surgery setting. This paper provides an overview of bromfenac’s preclinical ocular pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, followed by a review of 23 published clinical studies in which various marketed bromfenac formulations were used for conditions other than cataract surgery or pseudophakic CME. These include: post-refractive eye surgery; macular edema associated with diabetes, uveitis, or retinal vein occlusion; inflammation associated with age-related macular degeneration; pain related to intravitreal injections; and other ocular anterior segment and surface disorders with an inflammatory component. The published evidence reviewed supports the safety and effectiveness of bromfenac in these additional ophthalmic indications. Bromfenac was well tolerated when given alone or in combination with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, topical corticosteroids, or topical mast-cell stabilizers. The most common adverse event reported was ocular irritation. No serious adverse events (ie, corneal epithelial disorders) were reported, although the majority of studies did not systematically evaluate potential side effects. Corneal complications, such as melts reported with diclofenac and ketorolac, were not observed with bromfenac in the studies. In summary, published study data support the clinical utility of bromfenac in various ocular disorders beyond post-cataract surgery. Additional studies are warranted to further define the potential role of bromfenac ophthalmic solution in clinical practice.

Ocular itch associated with allergic conjunctivitis: latest evidence and clinical management

Allergic conjunctivitis is one of the most common allergic conditions worldwide. Its incidence is increasing due to changing climate, pollution, increased pollen loads, and the subject's heightened immunological sensitivity in response to these environmental changes. The pathophysiology predominantly involves immunoglobulin E-related mast-cell activation, with release of histamine and other mediators contributing to the propagation of the response by calling in other immune cells and further inflammation. This article presents the evolution of ocular allergy treatments, from vasoconstrictors, to antihistamines and mast-cell stabilizers, to the dual-acting agents, as well as corticosteroid and immunomodulatory options. Future targets for allergy treatment are also discussed.

Comparing the Efficacy of Ophthalmic NSAIDs in Common Indications

Objective: To review the commercially available ophthalmic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), identify opportunities for therapeutic substitutions within and outside of their Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications, and identify clinically superior drugs within the class for specific indications. Data Source: A PubMed search (1992 through January 2014) was performed on the terms diclofenac, ketorolac, flurbiprofen, bromfenac, and nepafenac. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Clinical trials, meta-analyses, and review articles were evaluated if they were written in English and pertained to human subjects. Studies were excluded if they were in vitro studies, solely evaluated pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties, did not relate to the topical ophthalmic route, did not evaluate the FDA-approved indications of any available ophthalmic NSAID, or compared a reviewed drug with a nonreviewed drug (without placebo comparison). Data Synthesis: A total of 67 articles met the criteria for evaluation. Article quality, study design, and dosing of the medications were assessed to determine the clinical applicability of the results. The quality of the article was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence 1. Conclusions: Many formulations of the 5 reviewed NSAIDs have been studied across the 4 primary indications. These indications are (1) pain and inflammation associated with cataract surgery, (2) pain associated with corneal refractive surgery, (3) inhibition of intraoperative miosis, and (4) seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Several studies have directly compared drugs within this class and have identified instances in which certain selections are therapeutically superior or equivalent to another. This information provides practitioners with guidance in selecting an optimal medication.

Comparative study of the ocular efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium (0.1%) ophthalmic solution with that of ketorolac tromethamine (0.5%) ophthalmic solution in patients with acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

Background:

Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) is the most common and most prevalent of allergic disorders which afflict the ocular surface. Of the several treatments available, ophthalmic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, are generally very safe and tolerable.

Aim:

The aim of this study is to compare the ocular efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium (0.1%) ophthalmic solution with that of ketorolac tromethamine (0.5%) ophthalmic solution in patients with acute SAC.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty patients with signs and symptoms of SAC were evaluated in an open, randomized, parallel group study. The principle symptoms (ocular itching, burning, discharge, photophobia) and signs (ocular inflammation, lid edema, chemosis, conjunctival mucous, keratitis) were evaluated.

Study Design:

Patients were randomized into two groups of 30 each. Patients in group A received one drop of diclofenac sodium 0.1% and patients in group B received ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% in both the eyes four times a day for fourteen days. Evaluations were performed at day 0, 3, 7 and 14 of the therapy. At each visit, the signs and symptoms were rated using a scale from 0-3 (mild-1, moderate-2 and severe-3).

Results:

Significant clinical and statistical reductions in signs and symptoms from baseline were observed in both groups. Diclofenac sodium 0.1% was superior to ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% in reducing ocular itching (P < 0.05) and ocular inflammation (P < 0.05), at the final examination.

Conclusion:

Diclofenac sodium showed statistically significant better results at day 3 and 7 compared to ketorolac.

Dry eye disease and microbial keratitis: is there a connection?

Dry eye is a common ocular surface disease of multifactorial etiology characterized by elevated tear osmolality and inflammation leading to a disrupted ocular surface. The latter is a risk factor for ocular surface infection, yet overt infection is not commonly seen clinically in the typical dry eye patient. This suggests that important innate mechanisms operate to protect the dry eye from invading pathogens. This article reviews the current literature on epidemiology of ocular surface infection in dry eye patients and laboratory-based studies on innate immune mechanisms operating at the ocular surface and their alterations in human dry eye and animal models. The review highlights current understanding of innate immunity in dry eye and identifies gaps in our knowledge to help direct future studies to further unravel the complexities of dry eye disease and its sequelae.

Atopic keratoconjunctivitis

Atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC) is a potentially blinding disease characterized by a bilateral chronic keratoconjunctivitis associated with atopic dermatitis. The disease usually manifests as severe itching and burning, excessive tearing, foreign body sensation, and mucoid discharge. The clinical characteristics of AKC show a broad spectrum including lid dermatitis, chronic blepharitis, cicatrizing conjunctivitis with fornix foreshortening and symblepharon formation, punctate epithelial keratitis, persistent epithelial defects, corneal scarring and neovascularization, lipid keratopathy, conjunctivalization of peripheral cornea, and peripheral ulcerative keratitis. The underlying pathophysiologic mechanism in AKC involves a combination of type-I IgE-mediated, and type-IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions. The immunoregulatory defect responsible for the overproduction of allergen-specific IgE antibody, the key component responsible for antigen binding, and subsequent mast cell degranulation, is probably multifactorial. The histopathologic characteristics of the conjunctiva in AKC include a mast cell and eosinophil invasion of the epithelium, epithelial pseudotubule formation, and prominent mast cell and mononuclear cell infiltration of the substantia propria. A number of ocular conditions have been reported to be associated with AKC, including keratoconus, herpes simplex keratitis, and cataracts. Successful long-term control of this potentially blinding disease requires a multidisciplinary approach involving systemic and environmental aspects. Scrupulous long-term environmental control of allergens is the single most important aspect in the management of patients with AKC. Systemic anti-histamine therapy, and long-term topical mast cell stabilizing therapy are also mandatory. Topical steroids should be reserved for exacerbations of the disease.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in ophthalmology

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are increasingly employed in ophthalmology to reduce miosis and inflammation, manage scleritis, and prevent and treat cystoid macular edema associated with cataract surgery. In addition, they may decrease postoperative pain and photophobia associated with refractive surgery and may reduce the itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. In recent years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved new topical NSAIDs, and previously approved NSAIDs have been reformulated. These additions and changes result in different pharmacokinetics and dosing intervals, which may offer therapeutic advantages. For example, therapeutic effects on diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration may now be achievable. We provide an updated review on NSAIDs and a summary of their current uses in ophthalmology with attention to potential future applications.

Vernal conjunctivitis

Vernal conjunctivitis is a bilateral, seasonal, external ocular inflammatory disease of unknown cause. Afflicted patients experience intense itching, tearing, photophobia, and mucous discharge, and usually demonstrate large cobblestone papillae on their superior tarsal conjunctiva and limbal conjunctiva. It primarily affects children, may be related to atopy, and has environmental and racial predilections. Although usually self-limited, vernal conjunctivitis can result in potentially blinding corneal complications. Treatment of chronic forms of ocular allergies may necessitate collaborative efforts between the ophthalmologist and the allergist or immunologist.

Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in allergic conjunctivitis: meta-analysis of randomized trial data

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of topical Non-Steroidal Anti Inflammatory drugs in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

METHOD

Systematic Review.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Reports of comparative randomized trials of topical NSAIDs and placebo identified by searches of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers assessed trials for eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. Data were synthesized (random effects model) and results expressed results for dichotomous outcomes as relative risk and continuous outcomes as weighted mean difference. Sensitivity analysis was used to examine potential heterogeneity by differences in study quality.

RESULTS

Eight studies incorporating 712 patients were included. The difference between the decrease in allergic sign and symptom score for NSAID treatment compared to placebo was between 4 and 19 percentage points. Topical NSAIDs produced significantly greater relief for conjunctival itching (cardinal symptom) than did placebo (combined standardized mean difference -0.54 (p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval -0.84 to -0.24). The results for the other allergic symptoms: ocular burning/pain, eyelid swelling, photophobia and foreign sensation were not significant. Topical NSAIDs produced significantly greater reduction of conjunctival injection than did placebo (combined standardized mean difference -0.51 (p = 0.03; 95% confidence interval -0.97 to -0.05). Topical NSAIDs did not reduce the allergic signs of conjunctival chemosis, conjunctival mucus, eyelid swelling and corneal disturbance. Topical NSAIDs had a significantly higher rate of burning/stinging on application of medication compared to placebo (P < 0.0001; odds ratio 3.97 (95% CI 2.67 to 5.89).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirms that topical NSAID are significantly more effective at relieving the cardinal symptom: conjunctival itching and improving the cardinal sign: conjunctival injection than placebo treatment. A systematic review comparing topical NSAIDs to topical antihistamines/mast cell stabilizers in treatment of allergic conjunctivitis is warranted as this will compare the topical NSAIDs to current therapeutic guidelines.

Toxic keratolysis from combined use of nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs and topical steroids following vitreoretinal surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the corneal complications associated with the combined use of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and topical steroids following vitreoretinal surgery.

METHOD

Description of corneal lesions in three patients after vitrectomy with use of topical ketorolac and prednisolone acetate.

RESULTS

Three eyes of three patients developed an atrophic central corneal ulcer with stromal thinning following a pars plana vitrectomy under local anesthesia. Lesions were asymptomatic and were found during a routine examination 2, 3, and 8 weeks after surgery, respectively. Surgical indications were as follows: a preretinal membrane, choroidal neovascularization, and massive uveal effusion following cataract surgery. Topical postoperative treatment was as follows: ketorolac 4 times a day, a combination of prednisolone acetate, polymyxin B, and neomycin 6 times a day, and 1% cyclopentolate 3 times a day. Suspension of ketorolac and ocular occlusion led to the resolution of corneal lesions between 2.5 and 3 months later, yielding a central superficial scarring, which showed no changes after a follow-up of 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Toxic keratolysis may appear as a secondary effect of the combined use of topical NSAIDs and steroids following vitreo retinal surgery and must be taken into account in the differential diagnosis of postoperative corneal lesions.

Emerging drugs for ocular allergy

Ocular allergy is a common condition that usually affects the conjunctiva of the eye and is, therefore, often referred to as allergic conjunctivitis. The severity of the disease can range from mild itching and redness, as seen in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, to the more severe, sight-threatening forms such as vernal and atopic keratoconjunctivitis. The central mechanism in the pathogenesis of these diseases is IgE-mediated mast cell degranulation and activation of T lymphocytes, eosinophils and conjunctival structural cells. The pharmacotherapy of allergic conjunctivitis consists of several classes of drugs: antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, dual-acting agents and corticosteroids. None of the available drugs completely abolishes the development of ocular allergy. For this reason, new topical antiallergic/anti-inflammatory agents are currently and continually under clinical trials. This review provides a background to ocular allergic diseases, the medical need for therapy and current and potential new treatments.

A randomised, double-blind trial of topical ketorolac vs artificial tears for the treatment of episcleritis

PURPOSE

To determine whether topical ketorolac (Acular) is more effective than artificial tears in treating the signs and symptoms of idiopathic episcleritis.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomised, double-blind study, 38 eyes of 37 patients presenting with idiopathic episcleritis were allocated to receive either topical ketorolac (0.5%) or artificial tears three times a day for 3 weeks. The severity of patients' signs (episcleral injection and the number of clock hours affected) were recorded at weekly intervals. Patients' symptoms (perceived redness and pain scores) were recorded using a daily diary.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the ophthalmic signs between the two groups at each assessment, including intensity of episcleral injection and the number of clock hours affected. No significant difference was found in the time to halve the baseline redness intensity scores (4.4 vs 6.1 days, P=0.2) or pain scores (3.6 vs 4.3 days, P=0.55). Significantly more patients on ketorolac reported stinging at the first follow-up visit (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Topical ketorolac is not significantly better than artificial tears in treating the signs or symptoms of idiopathic episcleritis.

Comparative study of 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride and 0.5% ketorolac tromethamine in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

PURPOSE

To compare the therapeutic effects of two ophthalmic solutions (0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride and 0.5% ketorolac tromethamine) with different pharmacological mechanisms on the clinical signs and Symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC).

METHODS

Forty patients with the signs and symptoms of SAC (i.e. hyperaemia, itching, mucus discharge, tearing) were included in this placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel group, single centre study. In group 1 (20 patients) one eye of each patient was treated with olopatadine and the other with placebo. In group 2 (20 patients) one eye of each patient was treated with ketorolac solution and the other with placebo. The principal signs and symptoms of SAC (hyperaemia and itching) were evaluated at 30 mins and at 2, 7 and 15 days.

RESULTS

In group 1, both parameters improved significantly in eyes treated with olopatadine compared with those receiving placebo at all control examinations (all p < 0.05). Similarly, eyes treated with ketorolac showed significant reductions in signs and symptoms compared with those receiving placebo (all p < 0.05). When the clinical parameters of eyes treated with olopatadine were compared with those treated with ketorolac, the mean score of hyperaemia was found to be lower in the olopatadine group, but the difference was not statistically significant (all p > 0.05). However, the itching score was significantly lower in the olopatadine group from the second day through to the end of the study (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both olopatadine and ketorolac ophthalmic solutions were found to be effective in alleviating the clinical signs and symptoms of SAC compared to placebo. However, olopatadine reduces ocular itching significantly more than ketorolac.

Ocular Allergic Disease: Mechanisms, Disease Sub-types, Treatment

Ocular allergy refers to a variety of hypersensitivity disorders that affect the lid, conjunctiva, and/or cornea. Its incidence is estimated at over 20% of the general population in the United States. This review will discuss the various forms of ocular allergy, their pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment. New frontiers in mechanisms, therapy, and management in the office are emphasized throughout.

A combined analysis of two studies assessing the ocular comfort of antiallergy ophthalmic agents

BACKGROUND

Many topical agents with similar efficacies are available for the treatment of ocular allergies. In addition to efficacy, comfort is an important criterion because it affects overall patient satisfaction, compliance, and in turn efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to compare the comfort profiles of permirolast, ketorolac, cromolyn, and nedocromil ophthalmic solutions using combined results from 2 separate clinical trials.

METHODS

Two clinical trials were conducted. Adults with asymptomatic eyes were included in the first study. In this single-center, 7-day, prospective, double-blind, single-dose, crossover, parallel-group study, subjects were randomized to be bilaterally dosed with pemirolast, cromolyn, or ketorolac at each of 3 visits. Study 2 was a single-center, 1-day, prospective, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, contralateral, active-control study in which subjects received pemirolast in 1 eye and nedocromil in the contralateral eye. In both studies, subjects completed a pre- and postinstillation ocular comfort questionnaire: the primary variable was overall ocular discomfort, measured on a 4-point scale original to these studies (0 = absent, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). Half-increments were permitted. Secondary variables included burning/stinging, foreign-body sensation, tearing, and photophobia.

RESULTS

Forty-five subjects (29 women, 16 men; mean [SD] age, 35.9 [12.6] years) were enrolled in study 1; 48 subjects (30 women, 18 men; mean [SD] age, 33.6 [10.2] years) were enrolled in study 2. In study 1, overall discomfort was significantly lower with pemirolast than with cromolyn (P = 0.001) or ketorolac (P < 0.001). In terms of overall discomfort, the number of subjects with a clinically significant increase (>/=1 unit) in score was significantly lower with pemirolast compared with ketorolac (P = 0.021). Burning/stinging and tearing were also significantly lower with pemirolast than with cromolyn (P < 0.001 and P = 0.014, respectively). Mean changes in score compared with preinstillation were consistently lower with pemirolast than with cromolyn for both burning/stinging (P < 0.001) and tearing (P = 0.014). In study 2, overall discomfort was significantly lower with pemirolast than with nedocromil (P < 0.001). The number of subjects with a clinically significant increase in overall discomfort score was significantly lower with pemirolast than with nedocromil (P = 0.007). No changes in ocular tolerability parameters were reported in either study.

CONCLUSION

In these single-dose studies, pemirolast was found to be significantly more comfortable than cromolyn, ketorolac, or nedocromil.

Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for ophthalmic use: a safety review

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used agents that despite chemically heterogeneity, share similar therapeutic properties and adverse effects. Topical ophthalmic NSAIDs are limited to the relatively water soluble phenylacetic and phenylalkanoic acids as well as indole derivatives, which are more suitable for ophthalmic use. Topical ophthalmic NSAIDs are commonly used in the treatment of post-operative inflammation following cataract extraction and various surgical refractive procedures. They are also used in the prevention and treatment of cystoid macular oedema and for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Absorption of topical ophthalmic NSAIDs through the nasal mucosa results in systemic exposure and the occurrence of adverse systemic events, including exacerbation of bronchial asthma. Local irritant effects of topical ophthalmic NSAIDs include conjunctival hyperaemia, burning, stinging and corneal anaesthesia. A more serious complication involves the association of topical ophthalmic NSAIDs with indolent corneal ulceration and full-thickness corneal melts. Analysis of NSAID-associated corneal events implicates the now defunct generic dicolfenac product, diclofenac sodium ophthalmic solution as the agent primarily responsible. However, these events generated a renewed interest in the safety of ophthalmic NSAIDs and a scrutiny of the pharmacology regarding NSAID action in the eye. An elucidation of possible pharmacodynamic explanations of NSAID-induced corneal injury includes the role of epithelial hypoxia, which not only appears to aid in determining the metabolic destination of arachidonate, it may play a key role in orchestrating a novel inflammatory response unrelated to prostanoid formation. The use of NSAIDs under conditions of corneal hypoxia may therefore not only result in a disappointing therapeutic response, it may result in a paradoxical inflammatory exacerbation. Other potential mechanisms include the relationship between NSAIDs and corneal matrix metalloproteinase and direct toxicity due to cytotoxic excipients such as surfactants, solubilisers and preservatives found in topical NSAID ophthalmic preparations. In general, ophthalmic NSAIDs may be used safely with other ophthalmic pharmaceuticals; however, concurrent use of agents known to adversely effect the corneal epithelium, such as gentamicin, may lead to increased corneal penetration of the NSAID. The concurrent use of NSAIDs with topical corticosteorids in the face of significant pre-existing corneal inflammation has been identified as a risk factor in precipitating corneal erosions and melts and should be undertaken with caution. Until clinical evidence dictates otherwise, data supporting theories of potential pharmacodynamic mechanisms of NSAID injury do not alter the favorable benefit-risk ratio of ophthalmic NSAID use when employed in an appropriate and judicious manner.

Ocular allergy guidelines: a practical treatment algorithm

The treatment of ocular allergy requires a better understanding of the spectrum of clinical disorders involving various components of the immune system, and of interactions at the conjunctival surface. The immune response focuses primarily on the different levels of activity of Th2 lymphocytes and various other immune cells associated with allergic disorders, including mast cells, eosinophils, fibroblasts, and epithelial and endothelial cells. Ocular allergic disorders include seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC), perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC), vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC), giant papillary conjunctivitis (GPC) and atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC), which, through immunopathological and molecular immunological techniques, can all be better appreciated as being part of a larger spectrum of an atopic disease state. In SAC, pathological changes, such as increased mast-cell activation, the presence of migratory inflammatory cells, and early signs of cellular activation at the molecular level, are minimal. In PAC, these changes are more pronounced in line with the increased duration of allergenic stimulation. In more chronic forms of allergic conjunctivitis, such as VKC in children and AKC in adults, the following changes are evident: a persistent state of mast cell, eosinophil and lymphocyte activation; noted switching from connective-tissue to mucosal-type mast cells; increased involvement of corneal pathology; and follicular development and fibrosis. The treatment of acute and more chronic forms of allergic conjunctivitis has focused in the past on symptomatic relief of symptoms, but with a better understanding of the mechanisms involved we can now provide interventional therapeutic strategies and symptomatic relief. Our advances in the basic understanding of these conditions are providing the foundation for guidelines that improve the ocular health of patients with ocular allergies.

Effects of a non-steroidal (ketorolac tromethamine) and a steroidal (dexamethasone) anti-inflammatory drug on refractive state and ocular growth

Topical steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (SAID) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are known to affect fluid balance. The effects of twice daily topical applications of Maxidex (dexamethasone, a SAID), Acular (ketorolac, a NSAID), and saline were examined biometrically on the development of refractive errors and eye growth in chicks raised from days 3-12 wearing either a monocular +10 D, 0 D, or -10 D lens. Biometric analysis showed that neither SAID nor NSAID nor saline affected refractive error compensation but that the anti-inflammatory drugs affected eye growth. In chicks reared with a +10 D lens, dexamethasone induced a decrease in axial length (AL), vitreous chamber (VC) and anterior chamber (AC) depth, while ketorolac only induced a decrease in AC. In -10 D lens chicks dexamethasone again induced a decrease in AL and VC, but did not affect AC depth, whereas ketorolac only induced an increase in AC depth. Taken together, these results suggest that anti-inflammatory drugs can induce changes in ocular size without affecting refractive state and, as such, have implications for the management of progressive myopia.

Corneal complications associated with topical ophthalmic use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs

PURPOSE

To explore the potential association between adverse corneal events and the use of topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

SETTING

Practice-based reports.

METHODS

A detailed case-reporting form and request for medical records were sent to all practices reporting cases of corneal or conjunctival pathology in association with the use of topical NSAIDs to the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. Cases were classified as "mild," "moderate," or "severe" according to predetermined clinical criteria.

RESULTS

Records of 140 eyes (129 patients) were reviewed; 51 cases (36.4%) were mild, 55 (39.3%) moderate, and 34 (24.3%) severe. An association with a specific topical NSAID was confirmed in 117 cases (81.8%). Most confirmed cases (53.8%) involved generic diclofenac (Falcon). Cases associated with brand diclofenac (Voltaren, CIBA Vision) and ketorolac (Acular, Allergan) were more likely to have ocular comorbidity and to have received significantly higher total doses of NSAIDs. Neither "off-label" use nor use of any specific agent was associated with severe compared to mild or moderate disease. However, patients with more severe adverse events were more likely to have a history of diabetes, previous surgery in the affected eye, and surgery other than cataract. Cases not occurring in the perioperative period had significantly worse outcomes, had significantly more ocular comorbidities, and received nearly 3 times the dose of NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

While topical NSAIDs as a class may be associated with severe adverse events, such events appeared to require potentiation in the form of high total doses, ocular comorbidities, or both with Acular and Voltaren. Severe adverse events might have been more likely to occur at lower doses and in routine postoperative settings with generic diclofenac.

Allergic and immunologic disorders of the eye. Part II: ocular allergy

Allergy affects more than 15% of the world population, and some studies have shown that up 30% of the US population has some form of allergy. Most of these patients have various target organs for their allergies, and most have ocular involvement. The ocular component may be the most prominent and sometimes disabling feature of their allergy. Some are affected for only a few weeks to months, whereas others have symptoms that last throughout the year. The seasonal forms may present to clinical allergists, whereas the more chronic forms may present to ophthalmologists. Thus, in the second of this 2-part review series (Part I: Ocular Immunology appeared in the November issue of the Journal), an overview is provided of the spectrum of ocular allergy that ranges from acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis to chronic variants of atopic keratoconjunctivitis. With a better understanding of the immunologic mechanisms, we now can develop better treatment approaches and design further research in intervention of allergic eye diseases.

Comparison of the topical ocular antiallergic efficacy of emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution to ketorolac 0.5% ophthalmic solution in a clinical model of allergic conjunctivitis

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical efficacy of emedastine ophthalmic solution to that of ketorolac ophthalmic solution using a conjunctival allergen challenge model.

METHODS

The conjunctival allergen challenge model was used in this randomized, double-masked, single center, crossover study. The titer of allergen that elicited a positive allergic reaction was selected. After at least 14 days, 36 subjects were randomized into two groups of 18 to receive either emedastine in one eye and placebo in the contralateral eye, or ketorolac in one eye and placebo in the contralateral eye. Ten minutes after drug instillation, subjects were challenged with antigen. At 3, 10 and 20 minutes following challenge subjects graded ocular itching and were assessed for hyperemia in conjunctival, ciliary, and episcleral vessel beds. Approximately 14 days later, subjects received the alternate treatment in one eye and placebo in the contralateral eye. They were again challenged with allergen and their responses were rated in the same manner. Ocular discomfort was assessed by the subjects after administration of each study drug.

RESULTS

Emedastine significantly (p < 0.05) inhibited ocular itching and redness in vascular beds following topical ocular administration. In contrast, ketorolac failed to significantly inhibit ocular itching or redness in this study. Patient assessment of comfort indicated emedastine was significantly (p < 0.05) more comfortable than ketorolac upon topical ocular administration.

CONCLUSION

Emedastine is superior to ketorolac in controlling itching and redness, the cardinal symptom and sign of allergic conjunctivitis.

Comparative evaluation of olopatadine ophthalmic solution (0.1%) versus ketorolac ophthalmic solution (0.5%) using the provocative antigen challenge model

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of olopatadine ophthalmic solution (0.1%) with ketorolac ophthalmic solution (0.5%) in a clinical model of acute allergic conjunctivitis. Olopatadine is a dual acting H1 histamine receptor antagonist and a mast cell stabilizer, shown to be effective in treating allergic conjunctivitis. Ketorolac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug approved in the United States for the relief of ocular itching associated with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

The provocative antigen challenge model was used in this randomized, double-blind, single-center, crossover study. The allergen and concentration that consistently elicited a positive allergic reaction was used for challenge. After at least 14 days, subjects were randomized to receive either olopatadine in one eye and placebo in the contralateral eye, or ketorolac in one eye and placebo in the contralateral eye. Twenty-seven minutes after drug instillation subjects were challenged with allergen. At 3, 10, and 20 minutes following allergen challenge, subjects graded ocular itching and were assessed for hyperemia in conjunctival, ciliary, and episcleral vessel beds. Approximately 14 days later, subjects received the alternate treatment in one eye and placebo in the contralateral eye. They were again challenged with allergen and their responses were rated in the same manner.

RESULTS

Olopatadine significantly (p < 0.0001) reduced both ocular itching and hyperemia in all three vessel beds compared to placebo at all time points tested following allergen challenge. Ketorolac did not significantly reduce itching and showed a trend of increased hyperemia compared to placebo. Olopatadine was significantly (p < 0.001) more effective than ketorolac in reducing hyperemia and ocular itching at all time points and was also significantly (p < 0.05) more comfortable than ketorolac as reported by subjects immediately following drug instillation.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that olopatadine is effective and safe in preventing and treating ocular itching and hyperemia associated with acute allergic conjunctivitis and is more effective and more comfortable than ketorolac.

Efficacy and safety of ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% and levocabastine 0.05%: a multicenter comparison in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

This multicenter, double-masked, randomized, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% ophthalmic solution with levocabastine 0.05% and ketorolac tromethamine vehicle in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. One drop of ketorolac, levocabastine, or vehicle was instilled in each eye four times daily for 6 weeks. In the majority of efficacy variables, ketorolac produced the greatest improvements, followed by levocabastine and vehicle. Ketorolac was significantly more effective (P < .05) than vehicle in reducing mean itching scores, palpebral hyperemia, bulbar hyperemia, and edema. Patients treated with ketorolac reported significant improvements (P < .05) in their ability to sleep and to concentrate on work, compared with those who received vehicle. No significant differences were noted among the treatment groups in safety or tolerability. Ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% ophthalmic solution instilled four times daily is effective and safe in reducing the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% and prednisolone acetate 1% after cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the anti-inflammatory and analgesic efficacy and safety of ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% ophthalmic solution with those of prednisolone acetate 1% in patients having cataract surgery.

SETTING

Shawnee Mission Eye Care, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, USA.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, single-site study comprised 59 healthy men and women with a clinical diagnosis of routine ocular cataract requiring surgical removal. All patients had extracapsular cataract extraction and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. After surgery, patients were randomized to receive ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% or prednisolone acetate 1%, self-instilled in the treated eye, according to the following schedule: 1 to 2 drops 4 times daily (week 1); 3 times daily (week 2); 2 times daily (week 3); once daily (week 4). Patients were examined postoperatively on days 1, 7, and 28. Intraocular anti-inflammatory efficacy was assessed by lid edema, lid injection, conjunctival injection, corneal edema, ciliary flush, and anterior chamber cells. Analgesic efficacy was assessed by patient self-rated pain severity, pain frequency, total symptom sum, and overall global improvement.

RESULTS

Both treatments produced comparable reductions in intraocular inflammation and pain after cataract surgery and were well tolerated by patients. No adverse events were reported, and there were no significant changes in intraocular pressure in either group. Improvements in visual acuity were also similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% ophthalmic solution was as effective and well-tolerated as prednisolone acetate 1% solution in controlling postoperative inflammation and pain after cataract surgery.

Efficacy and safety profile of ketorolac 0.5% ophthalmic solution in the prevention of surgically induced miosis during cataract surgery

This multicenter, double-masked, randomized, parallel study compared the efficacy and safety profile of ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% ophthalmic solution with that of its vehicle in the maintenance of pupillary mydriasis during cataract surgery. A total of 176 adult patients scheduled to undergo unilateral extracapsular cataract extraction and posterior-chamber intraocular lens implantation received either ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% (n = 89) or vehicle (n = 87), starting 2 hours before surgery. One drop of study medication was instilled every 30 minutes for a total of 4 drops. No epinephrine was used in the intraoperative irrigating solution. Pupil diameter was measured with a caliper at 3 time points during surgery. To ensure participant safety, biomicroscopy, ophthalmoscopy, intraocular pressure, adverse events, and preoperative and postoperative visual acuity and refractive error were also monitored. The mean change in horizontal and vertical pupil diameter from the time of the first incision to after cortical irrigation and aspiration was significantly less with active ketorolac than with vehicle (P < or = 0.014). Consequently, mean pupil diameter after cortical irrigation and aspiration was significantly greater with ketorolac than with vehicle (P < or = 0.030). No significant between-group differences were observed in the change in pupil diameter between the end of surgery and postoperative administration of a miotic agent, safety variables, or occurrence of adverse events. In this study, ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% ophthalmic solution provided effective and well-tolerated inhibition of surgically induced miosis during cataract surgery.

A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled parallel study of loteprednol etabonate 0.2% in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of loteprednol etabonate (LE) 0.2% in reducing the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel group multicenter study of 6 weeks duration.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 135 patients with signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis participated.

INTERVENTION

All patients received either LE 0.2% or placebo (vehicle) four times a day in both eyes for 42 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Bulbar conjunctival injection (primary sign) and itching (primary symptom) over the first 2 weeks of treatment was measured.

RESULTS

A reduction in severity was seen in both LE and placebo groups for bulbar conjunctival injection (1.5 vs. 1.0 units on a 0-3 scale) and itching (3.4 vs. 3.0 units on a 0-4 scale) over the first 2 weeks. The treatment effect by these measures was -0.5 and -0.4 units in favor of LE (P < or = 0.008). Resolution (i.e., the proportion of patients with signs or symptoms no longer present) at day 14 strongly favored LE-treated patients (36% and 15%; 58% and 38%, for injection and itching, respectively). Both treatments were well tolerated. One patient in each treatment group (1 of 67 and 1 of 68, respectively) had an elevation of intraocular pressure of 10 mmHg or greater during the 6 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Loteprednol etabonate 0.2% was more effective than placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Loteprednol etabonate 0.2% had a safety profile comparable to placebo.

Efficacy and safety of nonpreserved ketorolac ophthalmic solution in postoperative ocular pain following radial keratotomy

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of nonpreserved ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% ophthalmic solution in relieving pain following radial keratotomy (RK).

SETTING

Multicenter clinical trial.

METHODS

Topical ketorolac was compared with its vehicle in a double-masked, randomized, parallel-group study involving 170 RK patients. Patients were treated with nonpreserved ketorolac 0.5% ophthalmic solution or the vehicle 4 times daily beginning immediately after surgery and continuing for 3 days or until they no longer had ocular pain.

RESULTS

At several intervals, patients treated with ketorolac reported significantly greater pain relief and less pain intensity than patients treated with the vehicle. The time required for patients to first report "complete relief" or "no pain" was shorter in the ketorolac than in the vehicle group (P < or = .006). Patients in the ketorolac group used less escape medication (acetaminophen) (P < or = .001) and had fewer sleep difficulties (P < or = .031), fewer symptoms of ocular discomfort (P < or = .028), and less difficulty performing activities of daily living (P = .048). Patients treated with ketorolac experienced the same low rate of treatment-related adverse events as those treated with the vehicle and exhibited the same improvement in visual acuity and manifest refraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonpreserved ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% ophthalmic solution was significantly more effective than, and as safe as, the vehicle in alleviating the postoperative pain associated with RK. This resulted in significant improvements in patient quality of life and less need for oral analgesics, suggesting that topical ketorolac is an appropriate treatment option for ocular pain following RK.

Ocular medications in children

Many ocular medications are used by pediatricians or ophthalmologists caring for pediatric patients. Topical antibiotics are commonly prescribed for bacterial conjunctivitis, nasolacrimal duct obstructions, and ophthalmia neonatorum. Many new antiallergy eye drops are now available for the treatment of seasonal (hay fever) conjunctivitis. Dilating eye drops and antiglaucoma medications are generally used or prescribed by ophthalmologists, but pediatricians must be aware of their potentially serious systemic side effects. Before initiating treatment, physicians should evaluate the risks and benefits of ophthalmic medications, establish minimum dosages necessary to achieve a therapeutic benefit, and monitor children for local and systemic side effects.

Evaluation of olopatadine, a new ophthalmic antiallergic agent with dual activity, using the conjunctival allergen challenge model

BACKGROUND

An ophthalmic antiallergic agent with selective H1 antihistaminic and mast cell stabilizing properties has been developed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate efficacy and safety, determine optimal concentration, and demonstrate onset and duration of action of this new drug, olopatadine.

METHODS

This was a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, single-center study with five outpatient visits at least 7 days apart. Ninety-eight healthy, allergy-positive, subjects with a recent history of active allergic conjunctivitis not receiving current treatment participated. Conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) tests were performed on visits 1 and 2 to identify an allergen and concentration that consistently elicited signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. On visits 3, 4, and 5, CAC was performed 27 minutes, 8 hours, and 6 hours, respectively, after instillation of one drop of olopatadine (0.01%, 0.05%, 0.1%, or 0.15%) in one eye and placebo in the other. Both eyes were scored for the intensity of itching and redness at 3, 10, and 20 minutes after the CAC.

RESULTS

All four concentrations of olopatadine were clinically and statistically superior to placebo in preventing ocular itching at all evaluations and preventing redness at most evaluations from immediately and 8 hours after drug administration. No drug-related adverse events were reported. The 0.1% concentration was found to be most effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that olopatadine ophthalmic solution is safe and effective in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis, with the 0.1% concentration of olopatadine being optimal. The rapid onset and at least 8 hour duration of action of olopatadine indicates that the drug can be used twice daily.

Azelastine eye-drops in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

This study was carried out to assess the efficacy of 0.025% and 0.05% azelastine eye-drops in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis of > or = 1 year's duration. A total of 151 patients received 0.025% or 0.05% azelastine eye-drops or placebo b.i.d. for 14 days according to a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-dosing design; 129 patients completed the study as planned. The three target symptoms, scored on 4-point scales, were itching, lacrimation, and redness of the eyes; responders were patients whose symptom sum score decreased by > or = 3 from a baseline score of > or = 6 by day 3. Mean scores of these and five other symptoms were recorded also on days 7 and 14, and patients kept daily diaries of the three main symptoms and swollen eyelids. Responder rates were 73% for 0.025% (P=0.115 vs placebo) and 82% for 0.05% azelastine eye-drops (P=0.011 vs placebo) and 56% for placebo. The time courses of the mean (investigators' and patients') scores for the three main symptoms reflected the dose-dependent effect of azelastine eye-drops. One patient each from the two azelastine groups and three from the placebo group withdrew because of inefficacy. Adverse drug reactions were reported by 14 and 24 patients receiving 0.025% and 0.05% azelastine eye-drops, respectively, and by eight placebo patients. These reactions were mainly slight application site reactions and taste perversion (bitter or unpleasant taste). Azelastine eye-drops are effective and well tolerated at a dose of 0.05% for the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Analgesic efficacy and safety of nonpreserved ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution following radial keratotomy. Ketorolac Radial Keratotomy Study Group

PURPOSE

To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of nonpreserved ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% with those of its vehicle in the treatment of postsurgical ocular pain following radial keratotomy.

METHODS

This study employed a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, parallel-group design. Radial keratotomy patients were treated with either nonpreserved ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% or its vehicle four times daily for up to 3 days following surgery. Patients were provided with an escape medication (acetaminophen) for use only as needed for intolerable pain.

RESULTS

Patients treated with ketorolac reported significantly greater pain relief (P < or =.023), less pain intensity (P < or =.047), less use of escape medication (P < or =.001), fewer symptoms of ocular discomfort (P=.024), and fewer sleep disturbances (P < or =.013) than did patients treated with vehicle. No treatment-related adverse events were reported in the ketorolac group, and only one treatment-related adverse event was reported in the vehicle group. Most other safety findings were equivalent in the two treatment groups except that there were significantly less eyelid erythema (P=.026) and eyelid edema (P < or =.001) in the ketorolac group.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonpreserved ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% ophthalmic solution was significantly more effective than, and as safe as, vehicle in the treatment of postoperative pain associated with radial keratotomy. Therefore, topical ketorolac may be a valuable treatment option for the maintenance of patient comfort following refractive surgery.

Ketorolac, prednisolone, and dexamethasone for postoperative inflammation

This 6-week, partially masked, three-arm, multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the postoperative anti-inflammatory efficacy of ketorolac, a cyclooxygenase inhibitor. The study setting was the clinical practice of six ophthalmic surgeons. The study enrolled 157 candidates for routine extracapsular cataract extraction or phaco-emulsification and posterior-chamber intraocular lens implantation. Patients who received any glucocorticoid or cyclooxygenase inhibitor within 1 week of surgery were excluded. All patients were treated with solutions of 0.5% ketorolac, 1% prednisolone acetate, or 0.1% dexamethasone instilled into the operative eye three times daily from 1 day before surgery to 4 weeks after surgery. Efficacy variables included the signs of anterior-segment inflammation, primarily cells and flare in the anterior chamber, as observed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy; fluorescein leakage across the blood-aqueous barrier as measured by fluorophotometry; and the rating of efficacy by the investigator. No significant differences were seen between ketorolac and either glucocorticoid in cells and flare. No significant differences were found in other signs of inflammation, except conjunctival hyperemia and Descemet's folds at week 2. Ketorolac showed significantly greater efficacy than the glucocorticoids against blood-aqueous barrier breakdown at day 5 and week 2, as demonstrated by the difference in fluorescein concentration between the operated and nonoperated eyes. Investigators did not detect any significant difference in rating for overall effectiveness and acceptability. These findings support the use of ketorolac as an alternative to glucocorticoids for the treatment of postoperative inflammation.

Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study of two concentrations of azelastine eye drops in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis

This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study was carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of 0.025% and 0.05% azelastine eye drops twice daily administered for 14 days to patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis. A total of 278 patients were recruited and 226 patients were evaluable for per protocol analysis. The target parameter was the response rate. Four eye symptoms, including the main symptom (itching) were recorded by patients in diaries and eight symptoms were assessed by physicians before and after seven and 14 days of treatment. Severity of symptoms was measured on a four-point scale. The response rates for itching (improvement of at least one score point within the first three days) according to patient assessment were 43% for placebo, 52% for 0.025% and 56% for 0.05% azelastine (NS). However, a more objective assessment of the three main eye symptoms by physicians showed a concentration-dependent improvement in response rate compared with placebo (a decrease of > or = 3 points from a baseline total score of > or = 6), which reached statistical significance for 0.05% azelastine on Day 7 (p < 0.002). In the evaluable patient population, the scores of the three main eye symptoms as well as of all eight recorded eye symptoms, as assessed by the physician, were significantly (p < 0.05) lower in the 0.05% azelastine eye drops group in comparison with the placebo group at Day 7. Inefficacy was the cause of withdrawal in five and three patients on 0.025% and 0.05% azelastine, respectively, and in six patients on placebo. Adverse drug effects, mainly a mild, transient irritation and a bitter or unpleasant taste, were reported by 14% (0.025%), 20% (0.05%) and 15% (placebo) of the patients. No serious side-effects occurred. Azelastine eye drops are effective and well tolerated at a concentration of 0.05% for the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.