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

Abstract

Purpose:Results from 2 patient-reported outcome studies of allergic conjunctivitis sufferers who used olopatadine 0.2% and azelastine 0.05% are analyzed.Methods:The PACE (Pataday Allergic Conjunctivitis Evaluation) multi-center, prospective, open-label study examined patient perceptions of olopatadine 0.2% once daily (qd) and previous twice daily (bid) allergic conjunctivitis medications via questionnaire in allergic conjunctivitis sufferers who had previously used bid medication and then initiated olopatadine. A second conjunctival antigen challenge (CAC) study evaluated comfort of 4 allergic conjunctivitis medications.Results:Forty-nine patients from the PACE study (N = 125) with prior azelastine use were examined. Significantly more patients rated themselves “very satisfied” with current olopatadine use compared with past azelastine use on drop comfort (p < 0.0001), speed of relief (p = 0.0004), and overall satisfaction (70% vs 16%, p < 0.0001). Significantly more patients reported olopatadine “very effective” against swelling compared with azelastine (47% vs 8%, p = 0.0404). In the CAC study (N = 36), data from olopatadine (n = 8), azelastine (n = 9) and placebo (N = 36) groups were reported. Olopatadine was rated significantly more comfortable than azelastine upon instillation (p = 0.0223), at 30 seconds (p = 0.0479), and at 1 minute after instillation (p = 0.0240).Conclusion:In the reported studies, olopatadine 0.2% qd was more comfortable than azelastine 0.05% and preferred by patients with allergic conjunctivitis by a ratio of 4:1.

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

“…13,22 The recent major multicenter, prospective, open-label PACE (Pataday Allergic Conjunctivitis Evaluation) study conducted by Ophthalmic Research Associates, which included 49 patients of allergic conjunctivitis showed that 42% of olopatadine treated patients reported an improvement in itching as compared to only 17% of them treated with azelastine. A reduction in congestion was also reported by a greater number of patients in the olopatadine group (46%) compared to the azelastine group (20%).…”

Antihistamines in Ocular Allergy: Are They All Created Equal?

“…Comfort is particularly important in treatment of ocular allergy because patients already have irritated eyes and are looking for relief rather than further stinging and burning. In two prospective studies, olopatadine 0.2% (Pataday; Alcon, Hünenberg, Switzerland) was more comfortable than azelastine 0.05% and was preferred by patients by a ratio of 4:1 [40]. Similar studies found that epinastine was more comfortable than azelastine and ketotifen [41].…”

Ameliorative Effect of Thymoquinone on Ovalbumin-induced Allergic Conjunctivitis in Balb/c Mice

“…10 Millions of allergic patients are trying to find suitable therapies for allergies, and over half of these patients present with ocular symptoms. 11 Depending on the severity of these symptoms, patients with ocular allergies experience discomfort that may affect their quality of life significantly. 12 Previously it was shown that the ocular administration of TQ had therapeutic potential in the treatment of corneal neovascularization and other allergic disease.…”