Efficacy of once-daily olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution compared to twice-daily olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution for the treatment of ocular itching induced by conjunctival allergen challenge

Current Eye Research

Volumn 32, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 1017-1022

  Abelson, Mark B ^a,b   Spangler, Dennis L ^c   Epstein, Arthur B ^d   Mah, Francis S ^e   Crampton, H Jerome ^b,f  

^a SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Ophthalmic Research Associates   (United States)

^c Atlanta Allergy and Asthma Clinic   (United States)

^d North Shore Contact Lens & Vision Consultants PC   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Allergic conjunctivitis; Allergy; Conjunctival allergen challenge; Olopatadine; Ophthalmic; Pataday; Patanol; Rhinoconjunctivitis

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN; EYE DROPS; OLOPATADINE; PATADAY; PLACEBO; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; DIBENZOXEPIN DERIVATIVE; HISTAMINE H1 RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST;

ABSENCE OF SIDE EFFECTS; ADULT; ALLERGIC CONJUNCTIVITIS; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSAGE SCHEDULE COMPARISON; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG DOSE COMPARISON; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; OCULAR PRURITUS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROVOCATION TEST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCORING SYSTEM; CHEMICALLY INDUCED DISORDER; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONJUNCTIVA; DRUG EFFECT; PRURITUS; SKIN TEST; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; ALLERGENS; CONJUNCTIVA; CONJUNCTIVITIS, ALLERGIC; DIBENZOXEPINS; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HISTAMINE H1 ANTAGONISTS, NON-SEDATING; HUMANS; MALE; OPHTHALMIC SOLUTIONS; PRURITUS; SKIN TESTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 39149085368     PISSN: 02713683     EISSN: 14602202     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02713680701736558     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abelson MB, Smith L, and Chapin M. Ocular allergic disease: Mechanisms, disease sub-types, treatment. Ocular Surface. 2003;1:127-149.
2. Phipatanakul W. Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: Epidemiology. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2005;25:263-281.
3. Abelson MB, George M, and Garafalo C. Differential diagnosis of ocular allergic disorders [published correction appears in Ann Allergy 1993;70:192]. Ann Allergy. 1993;70:95-109.
4. Abelson MB, Allansmith MR. Histamine in the eye. In: Silverstein A, O'Connor G, eds. Immunology and Immunopathology of the Eye. New York: Masson Publishing, 1979:362-364.
5. Yanni J, Stephens D, Miller S, et al. The in vitro and in vivo ocular pharmacology of olopatadine (al-4943a), an effective antiallergic/ antihistaminic agent. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 1996;12:389-400.
6. Brockman HL, Momsen MM, Knudtson JR, et al. Interactions of olopatadine and selected antihistamines with model and natural membranes. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2003;11:247-268.
7. Artal MN, Luna JD, Discepola M. A forced choice comfort study of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% versus ketotifen fumarate 0.05%. Acta Ophthalmol Scan. 2000;78:63-65.
8. Katelaris CH, Cipriandi G, Missotten L, et al. A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and cromolyn sodidum 2% ophthalmic solution in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Clin Ther. 2002;24:1561-1575.
9. Leonardi A, Zafirakis P. Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine versus ketotifen ophthalmic solutions: A double-masked environmental study of patient preference. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20:1167-1173.
10. Ciprandi G, Turner D, Gross RD. Double-masked, randomized, parallel-group study comparing olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution with cromolyn sodium 2% and levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic preparations in children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Curr Ther Res. 2004;65:186-199.
11. Abelson MB. Evaluation of olopatadine, a new ophthalmic antiallergic agent with dual activity, using the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1998;81:211-218.
12. Abelson MB, Gomes PJ, Vogelson CT, et al. Clinical efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.2% compared with placebo in patients with allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis: A randomized, double-masked environmental study. Clin Ther., 2004;26:1237-1248.
13. Vogelson C, Abelson M, Pasquine T, et al. Preclinical and clinical antiallergic effect of olopatadine 0.2% solution 24 hours after topical ocular administration. Allergy Asthma Proc, 2004;25:69-75.
14. Lichtenstein S, Vogelson C, Wells D, et al. Olopatadine is safe and well-tolerated in adults and children as young as three years of age. Presented at Western Society of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Annual Meeting; Jan 19-23, 2003; Wailea, HI.
15. Abelson M, Chambers W, Smith L. Conjunctival allergen challenge: A clinical approach to studying allergic conjunctivitis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108:84-88.
16. Lanier R, Finegold I, D'Arienzo P, Granet D, Epstein AB, Ledgerwood G. Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20:2644-2651.
17. Abelson MB, Spitalny L. Combined analysis of two studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge model to evaluate olopatadine hydrochloride, a new ophthalmic antiallergic agent with dual activity. Am J Ophthal. 1998;125:797-804.
18. Olopatadine HCl 0.1% Summary Basis of Approval. FDA NDA 020688. April 11, 1997.
19. Richter A, Anton SE, Koch P, Dennett SL. The impact of reducing dose frequency on health outcomes. Clin Ther. 2003;25:2307-2335.
20. Yanni JM, Miller ST, Gamache DA, Spellman JM, Xu S, Sharif NA. Comparative effects of topical ocular anti-allergy drugs on human conjunctival mast cells. Annal Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1997;79:541-545.
21. Edwards MR, Pasquine T, Gross RD, Robertson SM. Frequency of treatment-related ocular adverse events associated with olopatadine 0.2% (Pataday™) in clinical trials. Presented at Western Society of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Annual Meeting; Jan 23, 2007; Wailea, HI
22. Lichtenstein SJ, Pasquine TA, Edwards MR, et al. Safety and tolerability of olopatadine 0.2% in children and adolescents. J Ocular Pharmcol Ther. 2007;23:366-371.
23. Giger R, Pasche P, Cheseauz C, et al. Comparison of once- versus twice-daily use of beclomethasone dipropionate aqueous nasal spray in the treatment of allergic and non-allergic chronic rhinosinusitis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2003;260:135-140.
24. Scoper SV, Berdy GJ, Lichtenstein SJ, et al. Physician assessment, patient perception, and safety of once-a-day olopatadine in treating allergic conjunctivitis. Presented at American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; Nov. 11-12, 2006; Philadelphia, PA.
25. Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C. A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin Ther. 2001;23:1296-1310.
26. Kardas P. The DIACOM study (effect of dosing frequency of oral antidiabetic agents on the compliance and biochemical control of type 2 diabetes). Diabetes Obes Metab. 2005;7:722-728.
27. Granger AL, Fehnel SE, Hogue SL, Bennett L, Edin HM. An assessment of patient preference and adherence to treatment with Wellbutrin SR: A web-based survey. J Affect Disord. 2006;90:217-221.
28. McDonald HP, Garg AX, Haynes RB. Interventions to enhance patient adherence to medication prescriptions: scientific review. JAMA. 2002;288:2868-2879.
29. Guest JF, Davie AM, Ruiz FJ, Greener MJ. Switching asthma patients to a once-daily inhaled steroid improves compliance and reduces healthcare costs. Prim Care Respir J. 2005;14:88-98.
30. Schenker H, Maloney S, Liss C, Gormley G, Hartenbaum D. Patient preference, efficacy, and compliance with timolol maleate ophthalmic gel-forming solution versus timolol maleate ophthalmic solution in patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma. Clin Ther. 1999;21:138-147.