Comprehensive report of the efficacy, safety, quality of life, and work impact of Olopatadine 0.6% and Olopatadine 0.4% treatment in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

Abstract

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) treatment should reduce symptoms and help patients resume normal function. This study was performed to determine the effect of olopatadine (Olo) nasal spray on symptoms, quality of life (QoL), work, and activities of SAR patients. A pooled analysis was conducted of two Institutional Review Board-approved, randomized, double-blind clinical trials that compared 2-week treatment with Olo 0.6% and Olo 0.4% to placebo. Symptoms were assessed with the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) from daily diaries. Health outcomes were measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Allergy Specific (WPAI-AS) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). The studies included 1240 SAR patients with a mean age of 37 years; 64% were women. TNSS and RQLQ improvements were significantly different from placebo: TNSS, Olo 0.6% (p < 0.0001) and Olo 0.4% (p < 0.0037); RQLQ, Olo 0.6% (p < 0.001) and Olo 0.4% (p < 0.05). WPAI-AS improvements also were significant for overall work impact and activity impairment in the Olo 0.6% (p < 0.001) and Olo 0.4% (p < 0.05). Correlations between Olo 0.6% TNSS scores and work impact were r = 0.45 (p < 0.0001); activities, r = 0.55 (p < 0.0001); and RQLQ score, r = 0.61 (p < 0.0001), indicating that symptom reduction with Olo therapy was associated with improvements in function and QoL. Adverse events were nonserious and infrequent in all treatment groups. The most frequent adverse events were unpleasant taste and headache. This analysis indicates that Olo is a safe and effective intranasal treatment and is associated with significant improvement in QoL and ability to perform work and conduct usual activities of SAR patients.

Impact of disease severity on work productivity and activity impairment in Japanese patients with atopic dermatitis

“…percentage of impairment while working) and total activity impairment (TAI) other than work due to AD during the previous week can be evaluated. The impact of allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis on work productivity and activity using WPAI allergy‐specific (WPAI‐AS) has been assessed . In addition, the impact of certain skin diseases such as chronic spontaneous urticaria, chronic hand dermatitis and psoriasis using WPAI has been evaluated in Western countries .…”

“…The impact of allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis on work productivity and activity using WPAI allergyspecific (WPAI-AS) has been assessed. 3,4 In addition, the impact of certain skin diseases such as chronic spontaneous urticaria, chronic hand dermatitis and psoriasis using WPAI has been evaluated in Western countries. [5][6][7] Murota et al 8,9 also determined the impact of antihistamines on the impaired productivity of patients with pruritic skin diseases including eczema/dermatitis, urticaria, AD, pruritus cutanea, prurigo and psoriasis using the WPAI-AS in Japan.…”

Safety and efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% in pediatric subjects with allergic rhinitis

“…These results are comparable with two additional studies in older children (Ͼ12 years of age) and adults that showed significant improvements in quality-of-life outcomes for subjects suffering from seasonal SAR who used OLO. 18,19 Although the study was not designed to examine differences between the two active dosing regimens, the efficacy outcomes in each of the active dosing groups suggest that, whereas both regimens provide efficacy, there is no benefit achieved from increased dosing.…”

Use of olopatadine ophthalmic solution and reactivity of histamine skin testing

“…2 Fortunately, the past decades have afforded tremendous insights into the pathophysiology and mechanisms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, 1 leading to diverse and effective treatment strategies, ranging from antihistamines to specific immunotherapy. 3,4 Consequently, the use of first-and second-generation antihistamines has become the standard of therapy for symptom management, but their ability to impede the wheal and flare responses to allergen skin testing makes the diagnosis of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis especially challenging in those individuals who regularly use histamine-antagonizing medications. For example, the oral administration of astemizole, 5,6 azelastine, 5 cetirizine, 5,7-9 chlorpheniramine, 10,11 diphenhydramine, 11 doxepin, 12 fexofenadine, 13 and loratidine, 5,8,9,13 among others, has been documented to suppress the wheal and flare response during allergy skin tests.…”

“…[1][2][3][4] Such a prevalent disease contributes greatly to diminished quality of life as well as to enormous economic costs, both direct and indirect. 2 Fortunately, the past decades have afforded tremendous insights into the pathophysiology and mechanisms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, 1 leading to diverse and effective treatment strategies, ranging from antihistamines to specific immunotherapy.…”