DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20164103

Comparative analysis of epinastine vs olopatadine eye drops in moderate allergic conjunctivitis patients

Preet Sood, Manmohan Bhanot, Narinder Singh, Rahat Kumar

Abstract


Background: Allergic conjunctivitis is a perennial ocular allergic disease. It is the inflammatory response of the conjunctiva to allergens such as pollen, animal dander, and other environmental allergens. The treatment consists of avoidance of the offending antigen, topical decongestants, antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids.

Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution (Patanol) and Epinastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution (Elestat) are two topical ant allergic agents.

Methods: After taking institutional ethics committee approval, total n= 62 (33, 29) patients were enrolled. Patients were randomized and divided into two study groups (1-olopatadine, 2-epinastine). After prescribing the drug therapy (day 1), patients were asked to visit at 3,7,15 day and at 1month. At every visit, slit lamp examination was done. Changes in all sign/symptoms were recorded. For the statistical testing of the data Chi-square test is used to find the association of variable. Mann Whitney -u test is applied for the statistically analysing the two group.

Results: Both the study drugs found to be equally efficacious except at few points. Only statistically marked difference was observed in papillary hyperaemia (p<0.001) at 1 month where olopatadine found to be highly effective.

Conclusions: Both drugs are found to be equally effective in moderate allergic conjunctivitis. Olopatadine is found effective in palpebral hyperaemia so it can be recommended in only moderate to severe conjunctivitis.


Keywords


Allergic conjunctivitis, Anti histaminic, Epinastine, Mast cell stabilizers, Olopatadine

Full Text:

PDF

References


Lanier BQ, Finegold I, D'Arienzo P, Granet D, Epstein AB, Ledgerwood GL. Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Aug;20(8):1227-33.

Ousler GW, Workman DA, Torkildsen GL. An open-label, investigator-masked, crossover study of the ocular drying effects of two antihistamines, topical epinastine and systemic loratadine, inadult volunteers with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Clin Ther. 2007 Apr;29(4):611-612.

Bielory L. Allergic conjunctivitis: the evolution of therapeutic options. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2012;33(2):129-39.

Bielory L, Lien KW, Bigelsen S. Efficacy and tolerability of newer antihistamines in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Drugs. 2005;65(2):215-28.

Abelson MB, Gomes P, Crampton HJ, Schiffman RM, Bradford RR. Efficacy and tolerability of ophthalmic epinastine assessed using the conjunctival antigen challenge model in patients with a history of allergic conjunctivitis. 2004.

Pradhan S, Abhishek K, Mah F. Epinastine: topical ophthalmic second generation antihistamine without significant systemic side effects. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2009 Sep;5(9):1135-4.

Bielory BP, O’Brien TP, Bielory L. Management of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: guide to therapy. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90(5):399-407.

Owen CG, Shah A, Henshaw K. Topical treatments for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and effectiveness. Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54(503):451-6.

Yaylali V, Demirlenk I, Tatlipinar S. Comparative study of 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride and 0.5% ketorolac tromethamineinthe treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2003;81(4):378-82.

Donshik PC, Pearlman D, Pinnas J. Efficacy and safety of ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% and levocabastine 0.05%: a multi centre comparison in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Adv Ther. 2000;17(2):94-102.

Rosario N, Bielory L. Epidemiology of allergic conjunctivitis. Curr Opin Allergy ClinImmunol. 2011;11(5):471-6.