Management of allergic conjunctivitis: an evaluation of the perceived comfort and therapeutic efficacy of olopatadine 0.2% and azelastine 0.05% from two prospective studies

Allergic Conjunctivitis Management: Update on Ophthalmic Solutions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review, is to present an updated revision of topical management of SAC and PAC, based on the available scientific evidence and focused on the impact of ophthalmic solution formulations on eye surface.

RECENT FINDINGS

Physicians treating ocular allergy should be aware of tear film and tear film disruption in SAC and PAC, and how eye drop composition and additives affect the physiology of the allergic eye. Seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis (SAC and PAC) are the most frequent causes of ocular allergy (OA), and both conditions are underdiagnosed and undertreated. SAC and PAC are immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated hypersensitivity reactions. The additional tear film disruption caused by the release of inflammatory mediators increases and exacerbates the impact of signs and symptoms and may trigger damage of the ocular surface. Comorbidities are frequent, and dry eye disease in particular must be considered. Clinical guidelines for the management of SAC and PAC recommend topical therapy with antihistamines, mast cells stabilizers or dualaction agents as first-line treatment, but care should be taken, as many medications contain other compounds that may contribute to ocular surface damage.

Evidence-based use of antihistamines for treatment of allergic conditions

Available since the 1940s, H1 antihistamines are mainstay treatments for allergic conditions such as allergic rhinitis and urticaria. They function as inverse agonists that bind to the H1 receptor to inhibit histamine-induced inflammation. The older, first-generation drugs are no longer recommended for patient use because of their well-documented negative adverse effect profile. Evidence has been accumulating to support a newer generation of H1 antihistamines in oral and intranasal formulations, including in combination with intranasal corticosteroids. The literature is replete with large meta-analyses and systematic reviews establishing the safety and efficacy of second-generation H1 antihistamines in adult and pediatric allergic rhinitis populations, including combination nasal spray agents (eg, MP29-02 or MP-AzeFlu). Although intraclass differences do exist, patient preference, access, and costs should be the priority. Robust data on the regular, not as needed use of H1 antihistamines for urticaria have been published, including in the management of children and pregnant or lactating women. In addition, H1 antihistamines can be used in other related allergic conditions, such as the secondary symptoms of anaphylaxis, to provide patients with greater comfort, including in allergic asthma, depending on the individual.

Topical Olopatadine Hydrochloride versus Ketotifen Fumarate for Allergic Conjunctivitis

Purpose:

Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is associated with itching, redness, tearing, pain, and burning sensation in the eyes. The inflammatory process is caused by the mechanism of immediate hypersensitivity due to direct contact with the allergen. This process triggers mast cells in the conjunctiva to activate and release mediators. The purpose of this study was to compare topical olopatadine and ketotifen in terms of effectiveness and safety for the management of AC.

Methods:

Patients clinically diagnosed with AC were randomized into two groups of 60 patients each and received either topical olopatadine HCl 0.1% or ketotifen fumarate 0.025%. They were followed up on the 4^th, 15^th, and 30^th days to evaluate symptoms, signs, and quality of life (QOL) scoring.

Results:

There were a total of 120 patients (67 men and 53 women) with a mean age of 36.35 ± 11 years. Compared to baseline, scores of itching, tearing, redness, eyelid swelling, chemosis and papillae addition of all the individual scores mentioned above and QOL scores reduced significantly (P = 0.001) by the 4^th and 15^th days of olopatadine and ketotifen application. Compared with ketotifen, olopatadine significantly reduced itching, tearing, hyperemia, and total AC scores by the 4^th day (P = 0.001) and conjunctival papillae by the 15^th day (P = 0.001). Adverse reactions were reported in 10% and 18% of patients treated with olopatadine and ketotifen, respectively.

Conclusion:

Compared to ketotifen, olopatadine provided quicker relief of symptoms, and improved symptoms of AC and QOL, with fewer side effects.

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.

Comparative efficacy of bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic solution versus olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% ophthalmic solution evaluated by patient preference

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare patient-perceived relief of ocular itch, nasal symptoms, and eye drop comfort when allergic conjunctivitis was treated with bepotastine besilate 1.5% versus olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2%.

METHODS

This randomized, observer-masked, single-center, crossover study included 30 patients with ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis accompanied by nasal symptoms. Patients were treated with bepotastine besilate 1.5% twice daily (7 am and 4 pm) or olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% once daily (7 am) for 14 days. Following a 7-day washout period during which only preservative-free artificial tears were used twice daily, patients were crossed over to the alternative treatment for 14 days. Parameters evaluated by twice-daily patient diaries included each treatment's ability to relieve ocular itch, ability to relieve itchy/runny nose, ability to relieve ocular allergy symptoms, and eye drop comfort. At the conclusion of the study, patients were also asked to identify which agent provided better all-day relief of ocular itching, better all-day relief of itchy/runny nose, superior comfort, and for which treatment they would prefer a prescription.

RESULTS

According to the mean daily diary responses, bepotastine besilate 1.5% provided significantly better relief of evening ocular itch, relief of morning and evening itchy/runny nose, and relief of morning and evening ocular allergy symptoms. At study end, 63.3% and 66.7% of patients preferred bepotastine besilate 1.5% for all-day relief of ocular itching and all-day relief of itchy/runny nose, respectively. At study end, there was no significant difference in the number of patients preferring one treatment over the other for comfort. Overall, 66.7% of patients stated that they would prefer to treat their allergic conjunctivitis with bepotastine besilate 1.5% over olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2%.

CONCLUSION

Based on their evaluation of therapeutic performance, patients preferred bepotastine besilate 1.5% over olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% by two-to-one for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Azelastine hydrochloride, a dual-acting anti-inflammatory ophthalmic solution, for treatment of allergic conjunctivitis

Over 50% of patients who seek treatment for allergies present with ocular symptoms. Our current ability to control ocular allergic symptoms is greater than ever before. Newer dual-acting topical eyedrops attack multiple facets of the allergic cascade. Azelastine has antihistaminic effects providing immediate relief, mast cell stabilization providing early-phase intervention, and inhibition of expression and activation of anti-inflammatory mediators which characterize the late phase of the immune reaction. The ophthalmic eyedrop formulation is approved for treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in adults and children aged over 3 years. In clinical trials comparing azelastine with other dual-acting eyedrops, such as levocabastine and olopatadine, azelastine was reported to be slightly less efficacious and to sting briefly upon administration. Even so, many patients experienced the full benefit of symptom relief, and preferred azelastine. As a broad-spectrum drug, azelastine offers many desirable properties for management of ocular allergies. Because it can often produce maximal effect with just twice-daily dosing, azelastine is a particularly good choice for the allergic population in whom minimizing exposure to topical products and preservatives is a key concern.