Comparison of the therapeutic efficacy of 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride and 0.025% ketotifen fumarate in allergic conjunctivitis

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.

Topical Olopatadine in the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of topical olopatadine versus placebo and other topical anti-allergic medications in treating allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

We systematically searched the literature for randomized-controlled trials that included patients with allergic conjunctivitis, compared olopatadine versus placebo or alternative anti-allergic medications, and examined itch, conjunctival hyperemia, composite symptom or sign scores, and/or occurrence of adverse events. We assessed the safety and efficacy of topical olopatadine when compared with placebo or alternative anti-allergic medications using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

When compared with placebo, topical olopatadine is associated with a pooled-mean difference (MD) in ocular itch of -1.33 (p < 0.00001) and ocular hyperemia of -0.92 (p < 0.00001). When compared with other agents, olopatadine was inferior to alcaftadine on ocular itch (pooled-MD = 0.39; p < 0.00001) but comparable with epinastine and ketotifen.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical olopatadine is a safe and effective treatment modality for allergic conjunctivitis, whereas alcaftadine appears to be superior to olopatadine in reducing ocular itch.

Topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers for treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis is the most common allergic conjunctivitis, usually with acute manifestations when a person is exposed to allergens and with typical signs and symptoms including itching, redness, and tearing. The clinical signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis are mediated by the release of histamine by mast cells. Histamine antagonists (also called antihistamines) inhibit the action of histamine by blocking histamine H1 receptors, antagonising the vasoconstrictor, and to a lesser extent, the vasodilator effects of histamine. Mast cell stabilisers inhibit degranulation and consequently the release of histamine by interrupting the normal chain of intracellular signals. Topical treatments include eye drops with antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, combinations of the previous treatments, and corticosteroids. Standard treatment is based on topical antihistamines alone or topical mast cell stabilisers alone or a combination of treatments. There is clinical uncertainty about the relative efficacy and safety of topical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, for use in treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 July 2014. We also searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trial reports for details of further relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, with placebo, no treatment or to any other antihistamine or mast cell stabiliser, or both, that examined people with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis, or both. The primary outcome was any participant-reported evaluation (by questionnaire) of severity of four main ocular symptoms: itching, irritation, watering eye (tearing), and photophobia (dislike of light), both separately and, if possible, by an overall symptom score. We considered any follow-up time between one week and one year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among review authors and the involvement of a third review author. We followed standard methodological approaches used by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 trials with a total of 4344 participants randomised, with 17 different drugs or treatment comparisons. The following antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers were evaluated in at least one RCT: nedocromil sodium or sodium cromoglycate, olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine, emedastine, levocabastine (or levocabastine), mequitazine, bepotastine besilate, combination of antazoline and tetryzoline, combination of levocabastine and pemirolast potassium. The most common comparison was azelastine versus placebo (nine studies).We observed a large variability in reporting outcomes. The quality of the studies and reporting was variable, but overall the risk of bias was low. Trials evaluated only short-term effects, with a range of treatment of one to eight weeks. Meta-analysis was only possible in one comparison (olopatadine versus ketotifen). There was some evidence to support that topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo. There were no reported serious adverse events related to the use of topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It seems that all reported topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo in the short term. However, there is no long-term data on their efficacy. Direct comparisons of different antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers need to be interpreted with caution. Overall, topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers appear to be safe and well tolerated. We observed a large variability in outcomes reported. Poor quality of reporting challenged the synthesis of evidence.

Comparing the effects of ketotifen fumarate eye drops and ketotifen oral pills on symptom severity and quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of nasal mucosa. Previous studies have shown the therapeutic effects of ketotifen eye drops on allergic conjunctivitis and rhinitis patients. This study was designed to compare the effects of ketotifen drops and oral ketotifen pills on symptoms and quality of life in allergic rhinitis patients.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, patients with mild allergic rhinitis who were referred to the allergy clinic of Baqiyatallah Hospital from March to April 2014 were randomly allocated to 2 groups; the first group received ketotifen drops (1 drop every 12 hours) with placebo pills (2 pills daily), and the second group received placebo eye drops with ketotifen pills for 4 weeks. Symptoms (sneezing, runny nose, itching, and nasal obstruction) severity were examined and Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores were evaluated in the second and fourth weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were evaluated in 2 groups. The mean age was 30.33 years. There were no significant differences in demographic data between the groups (p > 0.05). Both groups showed a significant improvement in rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itching, coughing, sneezing, RQLQ, and nasal smear eosinophil percent compared to baseline amounts (p < 0.05). Improvements were significantly more in the drops group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Because of the absence of systemic complications in ketotifen eye drops in patients with allergic rhinitis and their easy availability in Iran, using this medication instead of systemic therapies is suggested. Nevertheless, more studies are required to evaluate the long-term effects of using this drug and the recurrence rate of symptoms.