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

被引:15
|
作者
Ciprandi, G
Turner, D
Gross, RD
机构
[1] Alcon Res Ltd, Biostat & Clin Data Management, Ft Worth, TX 76134 USA
[2] Genova Univ Studies, Allerg & Immunol Dis Clin, Genoa, Italy
[3] Univ Texas, SW Med Ctr, Dept Ophthalmol, Dallas, TX USA
来源
CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL | 2004年 / 65卷 / 02期
关键词
seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis; eye drops; olopatadine; placebo; levocabastine; cromolyn sodium;
D O I
10.1016/S0011-393X(04)90032-X
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background: It is estimated that >50% of medications have not been tested in children. Physicians need pediatric data to guide them in treating children. Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% is a topical antiallergic agent that is both an antihistamine with high affinity and selectivity for the histamine H, receptor and a mast cell stabilizer that inhibits the release of histamine and other proinflammatory mediators from human conjunctival mast cells. The efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine has been demonstrated by comparative studies in adults and children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC). Objective: Pediatric patient data were extracted from 2 clinical trials to assess the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% compared with those of cromolyn sodium ophthalmic solution 2% and levocabastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% as treatment for SAC in children. Methods: In study 1, conducted at 15 centers in 7 countries (Europe and Australia) from October 1995 to December 1997, olopatadine was instilled BID and placebo (vehicle) BID for 6 weeks and compared with cromolyn instilled QID. Study 2, conducted at 17 centers in 8 countries (Europe and Australia) from November 1998 to June 2000, compared olopatadine BID with levocabastine BID. In both studies, children of either sex and any race, aged 4 to 11 years, and having proven grass pollen allergies were assigned to treatment in a double-masked, randomized fashion. Slit-lamp examination, the physician's impression scale, and self-ratings were used to obtain efficacy data. Data analyses were based on pollen concentrations. The tolerability assessments were based on visual acuity, pupil diameter, intraocular pressure, and a dilated fundus examination. Results: Study 1 comprised 30 children (olopatadine [n = 13] and cromolyn sodium [n = 17]; 18 boys, 12 girls; mean age, 7.9 years [range, 4-11 years]). Study 2 comprised 22 children (olopatadine [n = 10] and levocabastine [n = 12]; 12 boys, 10 girls; mean age, 8.6 years [range, 5-11 years]). In study 1, ocular itching (P = 0.010), redness seen on slit-lamp examination (P = 0.003), and eyelid swelling (P = 0.034) were significantly less intense with olopatadine than with cromolyn sodium during the peak pollen period. In study 2, redness seen on slit-lamp examination (P = 0.040) and self-rated ocular redness (P = 0.024) were significantly less intense with olopatadine than levocabastine during the peak pollen period. Olopatadine was well tolerated. Conclusion: Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1% was more effective than both cromolyn sodium 2% and levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic preparations in controlling ocular signs and symptoms of SAC in children and was well tolerated when administered twice daily for 6 weeks. Copyright (C) 2004 Excerpta Medica, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:186 / 199
页数:14
相关论文
共 6 条
  • [1] A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and cromolyn sodium 2% ophthalmic solution in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis
    Katelaris, CH
    Ciprandi, G
    Missotten, L
    Turner, FD
    Bertin, D
    Berdeaux, G
    CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2002, 24 (10) : 1561 - 1575
  • [2] 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
    Abelson, MB
    Turner, D
    CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2003, 25 (03) : 931 - 947
  • [3] 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
    Abelson, MB
    Gomes, PJ
    Vogelson, CT
    Pasquine, TA
    Gross, RD
    Turner, FD
    Wells, DT
    Bergamini, MVW
    Robertson, SM
    CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2004, 26 (08) : 1237 - 1248
  • [4] 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
    Avunduk, AM
    Tekelioglu, Y
    Turk, A
    Akyol, N
    CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2005, 27 (09) : 1392 - 1402
  • [5] Loteprednol Etabonate Suspension 0.2% Administered QID Compared With Olopatadine Solution 0.1% Administered BID in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Conjunctivitis: A Multicenter, Randomized, Investigator-Masked, Parallel Group Study in Chinese Patients
    Gong, Lan
    Sun, Xinghuai
    Qu, Jia
    Wang, Lili
    Zhang, Mingzhi
    Zhang, Hong
    Wang, Linnong
    Gu, Yangshun
    Elion-Mboussa, Albert
    Roy, Lipika
    Zhu, Byron
    CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2012, 34 (06) : 1259 - 1272
  • [6] NOVATIVE: A Phase II/III, Multicenter, Double-masked, Randomized Study of Cyclosporine A 0.05% and 0.1% Ophthalmic Cationic Emulsion Versus Vehicle in Patients with Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis
    Leonardi, Andrea
    Pisella, Pierre-Jean
    Benitez-del-Castillo, Jose Manuel
    Amrane, Mourad
    Ismail, Dahlia
    Doan, Serge
    Bremond-Gignac, Dominique
    CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2023, 45 (12) : 1284 - 1288