Cargando…

Efficacy of Olopatadine versus Epinastine for Treating Allergic Conjunctivitis Caused by Japanese Cedar Pollen: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olopatadine versus epinastine in healthy Japanese adults with a history of allergic conjunctivitis to Japanese cedar pollen. METHODS: This Phase IV double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial comprised three cl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fukushima, Atsuki, Ebihara, Nobuyuki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25269854
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0156-2
_version_ 1782341222302482432
author Fukushima, Atsuki
Ebihara, Nobuyuki
author_facet Fukushima, Atsuki
Ebihara, Nobuyuki
author_sort Fukushima, Atsuki
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olopatadine versus epinastine in healthy Japanese adults with a history of allergic conjunctivitis to Japanese cedar pollen. METHODS: This Phase IV double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial comprised three clinical visits over 30 days. Screening tests were performed to identify subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis to Japanese cedar pollen in terms of skin sensitivity and positive bilateral reactions to a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) with Japanese cedar pollen at Visit 1, and confirmation by a positive bilateral CAC reaction at Visit 2. At Visit 3, the subjects were randomized to receive one drop of olopatadine HCl ophthalmic solution 0.1% (olopatadine) in the left or right eye (1:1 ratio). All subjects received one drop of epinastine HCl ophthalmic solution 0.05% (epinastine) in the contralateral eye as an active control. Five min later, the subjects underwent bilateral CAC tests with one drop of the allergen solution at the concentration that elicited positive reactions at Visits 1 and 2. Efficacy outcomes included the severity of ocular itching at 5, 7, and 15 min and the severity of conjunctival hyperemia at 7, 15, and 20 min after the CAC test, as graded by the investigator by biomicroscopy. RESULTS: Fifty people participated in this study (25 per group). Olopatadine significantly reduced ocular itching at 7 and 15 min (both p < 0.05) and conjunctival hyperemia at 7 and 20 min (p = 0.0010 and p < 0.05, respectively) after allergen exposure compared with epinastine. There were no adverse events for either treatment. CONCLUSION: The results of this single-dose study suggest that olopatadine is superior to epinastine in terms of suppressing ocular itching and hyperemia induced by Japanese cedar pollen during CAC tests. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in real-life settings. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0156-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4209092
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42090922014-10-28 Efficacy of Olopatadine versus Epinastine for Treating Allergic Conjunctivitis Caused by Japanese Cedar Pollen: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Fukushima, Atsuki Ebihara, Nobuyuki Adv Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olopatadine versus epinastine in healthy Japanese adults with a history of allergic conjunctivitis to Japanese cedar pollen. METHODS: This Phase IV double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial comprised three clinical visits over 30 days. Screening tests were performed to identify subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis to Japanese cedar pollen in terms of skin sensitivity and positive bilateral reactions to a conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) with Japanese cedar pollen at Visit 1, and confirmation by a positive bilateral CAC reaction at Visit 2. At Visit 3, the subjects were randomized to receive one drop of olopatadine HCl ophthalmic solution 0.1% (olopatadine) in the left or right eye (1:1 ratio). All subjects received one drop of epinastine HCl ophthalmic solution 0.05% (epinastine) in the contralateral eye as an active control. Five min later, the subjects underwent bilateral CAC tests with one drop of the allergen solution at the concentration that elicited positive reactions at Visits 1 and 2. Efficacy outcomes included the severity of ocular itching at 5, 7, and 15 min and the severity of conjunctival hyperemia at 7, 15, and 20 min after the CAC test, as graded by the investigator by biomicroscopy. RESULTS: Fifty people participated in this study (25 per group). Olopatadine significantly reduced ocular itching at 7 and 15 min (both p < 0.05) and conjunctival hyperemia at 7 and 20 min (p = 0.0010 and p < 0.05, respectively) after allergen exposure compared with epinastine. There were no adverse events for either treatment. CONCLUSION: The results of this single-dose study suggest that olopatadine is superior to epinastine in terms of suppressing ocular itching and hyperemia induced by Japanese cedar pollen during CAC tests. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in real-life settings. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0156-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Healthcare 2014-10-01 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4209092/ /pubmed/25269854 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0156-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2014 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Fukushima, Atsuki
Ebihara, Nobuyuki
Efficacy of Olopatadine versus Epinastine for Treating Allergic Conjunctivitis Caused by Japanese Cedar Pollen: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
title Efficacy of Olopatadine versus Epinastine for Treating Allergic Conjunctivitis Caused by Japanese Cedar Pollen: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
title_full Efficacy of Olopatadine versus Epinastine for Treating Allergic Conjunctivitis Caused by Japanese Cedar Pollen: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
title_fullStr Efficacy of Olopatadine versus Epinastine for Treating Allergic Conjunctivitis Caused by Japanese Cedar Pollen: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of Olopatadine versus Epinastine for Treating Allergic Conjunctivitis Caused by Japanese Cedar Pollen: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
title_short Efficacy of Olopatadine versus Epinastine for Treating Allergic Conjunctivitis Caused by Japanese Cedar Pollen: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
title_sort efficacy of olopatadine versus epinastine for treating allergic conjunctivitis caused by japanese cedar pollen: a double-blind randomized controlled trial
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25269854
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0156-2
work_keys_str_mv AT fukushimaatsuki efficacyofolopatadineversusepinastinefortreatingallergicconjunctivitiscausedbyjapanesecedarpollenadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ebiharanobuyuki efficacyofolopatadineversusepinastinefortreatingallergicconjunctivitiscausedbyjapanesecedarpollenadoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrial