Topical Olopatadine in the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

REFERENCES

• Bogacka E. [Epidemiology of allergic eye diseases]. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2003;14:714–715.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wan KH, Chen LJ, Rong SS, et al. Topical cyclosporine in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2197–2203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butrus S, Portela R. Ocular allergy: diagnosis and treatment. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2005;18:485–492.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McGill JI. A review of the use of olopatadine in allergic conjunctivitis. Int Ophthalmol. 2004;25:171–179.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rosenwasser LJ, O’Brien T, Weyne J. Mast cell stabilization and anti-histamine effects of olopatadine ophthalmic solution: a review of pre-clinical and clinical research. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21:1377–1387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanni JM, Stephens DJ, Miller ST, et al. The in vitro and in vivo ocular pharmacology of olopatadine (AL-4943A), an effective anti-allergic/antihistaminic agent. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 1996;12:389–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharif NA, Xu SX, Miller ST, et al. Characterization of the ocular antiallergic and antihistaminic effects of olopatadine (AL-4943A), a novel drug for treating ocular allergic diseases. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1996;278:1252–1261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Shetty S, Korchak M, et al. Advances in pharmacotherapy for allergic conjunctivitis. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2015;16:1219–1231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Section 7.7.3: Data extraction for continuous outcomes. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA; Cochrane Statistical, Methods Group CBMG. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Schaefer K. Conjunctivitis of allergic origin: immunologic mechanisms and current approaches to therapy. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993;38 Suppl:115–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borazan M, Karalezli A, Akova YA, et al. Efficacy of olopatadine HCI 0.1%, ketotifen fumarate 0.025%, epinastine HCI 0.05%, emedastine 0.05% and fluorometholone acetate 0.1% ophthalmic solutions for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a placebo-controlled environmental trial. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 2009;87:549–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avunduk AM, Tekelioglu Y, Turk A, et al. Comparison of the effects of ketotifen fumarate 0.025% and olopatadine HCl 0.1% ophthalmic solutions in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a 30-day, randomized, double-masked, artificial tear substitute-controlled trial. Clin Ther. 2005;27:1392–1402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganz M, Koll E, Gausche J, et al. Ketotifen fumarate and olopatadine hydrochloride in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis: a real-world comparison of efficacy and ocular comfort. Adv Ther. 2003;20:79–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarker SJ, Chowdhury AN, Hussain Z, et al. Comparison of the therapeutic efficacy of 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride and 0.025% ketotifen fumarate in allergic conjunctivitis. Therapy. 2011;8:545–553.
   Google Scholar
• Berdy GJ, Spangler DL, Bensch G, et al. A comparison of the relative efficacy and clinical performance of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival antigen challenge model. Clin Ther. 2000;22:826–833.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukushima A, Ebihara N. Efficacy of olopatadine versus epinastine for treating allergic conjunctivitis caused by Japanese cedar pollen: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Adv Ther. 2014;31:1045–1058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujishima H, Ohashi Y, Takamura E. Efficacy of epinastine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution in allergic conjunctivitis by conjunctival cedar pollen allergen challenge. Ann Allergy, Asthma Immunol. 2014;113:476–481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mah FS, Rosenwasser LJ, Townsend WD, et al. Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine 0.2% versus epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution for treating itching and redness induced by conjunctival allergen challenge. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:1445–1452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanier BQ, Finegold I, D’Arienzo P, et al. Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20:1227–1233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaurin EB, Marsico NP, Ackerman SL, et al. Ocular itch relief with alcaftadine 0.25% versus olopatadine 0.2% in allergic conjunctivitis: pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials. Adv Ther. 2014;31:1059–1071.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman S, D’Ambrosio F Jr, Greiner JV, et al. A multicenter evaluation of the efficacy and duration of action of alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. J Asthma Allergy. 2013;6:43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greiner JV, Edwards-Swanson K, Ingerman A. Evaluation of alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution in acute allergic conjunctivitis at 15 min and 16 h after instillation versus placebo and olopatadine 0.1%. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:87–93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abelson MB, Gomes PJ, Pasquine T, et al. Efficacy of olopatadine ophthalmic solution 0.2% in reducing signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2007;28:427–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deschenes J, Discepola M, Abelson M. Comparative evaluation of olopatadine ophthalmic solution (0.1%) versus ketorolac ophthalmic solution (0.5%) using the provocative antigen challenge model. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999; Suppl:47–52.
   Google Scholar
• Leonardi A, Abelson MB. Double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study of the mast cell-stabilizing effects of treatment with olopatadine in the conjunctival allergen challenge model in humans. Clin Ther. 2003;25:2539–2552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spangler DL, Bensch G, Berdy GJ. Evaluation of the efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ther. 2001;23:1272–1280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greiner JV, Udell IJ. A comparison of the clinical efficacy of pheniramine maleate/naphazoline hydrochloride ophthalmic solution and olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ther. 2005;27:568–577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Pratt S, Mussoline JE, et al. One-visit, randomized, placebo-controlled, conjunctival allergen challenge study of scanning and imaging technology for objective quantification of eyelid swelling in the allergic reaction with contralateral use of olopatadine and artificial tears. Clin Ther. 2003;25:2070–2084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Welch DL. An evaluation of onset and duration of action of patanol (olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1%) compared to Claritin (loratadine 10 mg) tablets in acute allergic conjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000; Suppl:60–63.
   Google Scholar
• 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 Ophthalmol. 1998;125:797–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scoper SV, Berdy GJ, Lichtenstein SJ, et al. Perception and quality of life associated with the use of olopatadine 0.2% (Pataday) in patients with active allergic conjunctivitis. Adv Ther. 2007;24:1221–1232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger WE. Once-daily olopatadine ophthalmic solution 0.2% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis and rhinoconjunctivitis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2007;7:221–226.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lanier BQ, Gross RD, Marks BB, et al. Olopatadine ophthalmic solution adjunctive to loratadine compared with loratadine alone in patients with active seasonal allergic conjunctivitis symptoms. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2001;86:641–648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castillo M, Scott NW, Mustafa MZ, et al. Topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers for treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;6:CD009566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson MB, Turner D. A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution versus placebo for controlling the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and rhinoconjunctivitis. Clin Therapeutics. 2003;25:931–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butrus S, Greiner JV, Discepola M, et al. Comparison of the clinical efficacy and comfort of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and nedocromil sodium 2% ophthalmic solution in the human conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Therapeutics. 2000;22:1462–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamis U, Ozturk BT, Ozkagnici A, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and artificial tears in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica. 2006;84:148–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rosenwasser LJ, Mahr T, Abelson MB, et al. A comparison of olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution versus fluticasone furoate nasal spray for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Allergy and Asthma Proceedings: The Official Journal of Regional and State Allergy Societies. 2008;29:644–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaylali V, Demirlenk I, Tatlipinar S, et al. Comparative study of 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride and 0.5% ketorolac tromethamine in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica. 2003;81:378–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar