Robert D. Gross

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

BACKGROUND Previous studies have suggested that olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.2% administered once daily is effective for up to 24 hours after instillation and is well tolerated in adults and children aged > or =3 years. OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of olopatadine 0.2% compared with placebo in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS This was a 10-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked environmental study conducted during the spring allergy season (April-August) of 2003. Patients assessed their ocular signs and symptoms in terms of frequency (whole-unit scale from 0 to 5) and severity (half-unit scale from 0 to 4), and grass pollen counts were obtained daily for each investigative site. Responder analyses were conducted by pollen level (frequency based) and pollen period (severity based) to evaluate the clinical significance of differences in ocular itching and redness between treatment groups. RESULTS Two hundred sixty patients (137 females, 123 males) were enrolled in the study, including 28 children aged between 11 and 17 years; the overall population was 74% white, 11% black, 4% Hispanic, and 11% other. The frequency-based responder analyses of ocular itching and redness showed that when grass pollen counts were high (>20 gr/m(3) air), a respective 21% and 14% of patients in the olopatadine 0.2% group assessed the frequency of ocular itching and redness as >2, compared with 47% and 31% of patients in the placebo group (P < 0.001 for ocular itching; P < 0.003 for redness). The results of the severity-based responder analyses by peak pollen period were consistent with those of the frequency-based analyses. Compared with placebo, olopatadine 0.2% was associated with significant reductions in calculated mean scores for ocular itching and redness by pollen level and by pollen period. No patient was discontinued from the study because of a treatment-related adverse event, and no patient experienced a treatment-related serious adverse event. CONCLUSION In the patients studied, olopatadine 0.2% appeared to be effective and well tolerated when administered once daily for the treatment of the ocular signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis.

Olopatadine ophthalmic solution adjunctive to loratadine compared with loratadine alone in patients with active seasonal allergic conjunctivitis symptoms.

BACKGROUND Olopatadine ophthalmic solution 0.1% (Patanol, Alcon Laboratories, Fort Woth, TX) is approved for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Loratadine 10 mg (Claritin, Schering-Plough, Madison, NJ) is a nonsedating oral antihistamine approved for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of olopatadine used adjunctively with loratadine versus loratadine alone in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS This three-center, observer-masked, treatment-controlled, randomized, parallel-group study involved patients aged 7 to 74 years with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Patients were treated for 7 days with either olopatadine twice daily adjunctive to loratadine once daily or only loratadine once daily. Efficacy variables (ocular itching and redness, physicians impression, patients impression, patient diary ratings of ocular redness and itching), and safety parameters were evaluated during the screening visit and on days 0, 3, and 7. Patients completed the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire on days 0 and 7. RESULTS Ninety-four patients received study drug. Patients receiving olopatadine twice daily in addition to loratadine once daily exhibited less ocular itching (P = 0.0436) and rated their ocular condition as more improved compared with those receiving loratadine alone (P < 0.0022). Twenty minutes after initial dosing, olopatadine plus loratadine relieved ocular itching and redness significantly better than loratadine alone (P = 0.001). Both treatment groups showed clinically meaningful improvements in overall quality of life in all but one of the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire domains. Overall, and in most domains, olopatadine plus loratadine also provided significantly better (P < 0.05) quality of life than loratadine alone at day 7. CONCLUSIONS Compared with loratadine alone, olopatadine adjunctive to loratadine provides greater relief of ocular itching and redness, a better quality of life, and is well tolerated in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Perception and quality of life associated with the use of olopatadine 0.2% (Pataday™) in patients with active allergic conjunctivitis

This 28-d, open-label, multicenter, single-arm clinical study was designed to evaluate perceptions of olopatadine 0.2% in patients with active ocular allergic signs and symptoms. The study enrolled 330 patients, 5 to 94 y of age, who had previously used olopatadine 0.1% for active allergic conjunctivitis. Most patients were white (n=230; 70.1%) and female (n=239; 72.9%). Of all enrolled patients, 328 were evaluable for analysis. Throughout the study, patients instilled 1 drop of olopatadine 0.2% into each eye once daily; adverse events were documented and ocular evaluations were conducted to ensure patient safety. Direct evaluations of efficacy were not performed. On days 1 and 7, patients completed the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, recorded their perceptions of olopatadine 0.1 % (day 1) or 0.2% (day 7), and had their ocular allergies assessed globally. On each of the first 6 d of treatment, patients also completed a telephone-based perception questionnaire. On day 28, patients returned to the study center, reported their treatment perceptions, had their ocular allergies assessed, and exited the trial. Overall, patients had a positive perception of olopatadine 0.2%. Patients were more satisfied with olopatadine 0.2% than they remembered being with olopatadine 0.1% (289 vs 257 patients; 87.6% vs 77.8%; P< .05). The majority of the 48 patients who wore contact lenses (n=42; 88%) believed that they could wear their contacts as desired. Significant improvement was noted in all categories of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (P< .0001). No unexpected safety findings were reported. Patients perceived olopatadine 0.2% to be effective and well tolerated.

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

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 H1 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 physicians 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.

Kinetics of kill of bacterial conjunctivitis isolates with moxifloxacin, a fluoroquinolone, compared with the aminoglycosides tobramycin and gentamicin

Purpose: To compare the kinetics and speed of kill of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae on exposure to three topical ophthalmic antibiotic solutions. Materials and methods: Bacterial conjunctivitis isolates of S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae were exposed to 1:1000 dilutions of moxifloxacin 0.5%, tobramycin 0.3%, gentamicin 0.3%, and water (control). At 15, 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes after exposure, aliquots were collected, cells were cultured, and viable cell counts were determined using standard microbiological methods. Results: Moxifloxacin achieved 99.9% kill (3-log reduction) at approximately 2 hours for S. pneumoniae and at 15 minutes for H. influenzae. Tobramycin and gentamicin did not achieve 3-log reduction of S. pneumoniae during the 180-minute study period. An increase in bacterial growth was noted for these isolates. Gentamicin took more than 120 minutes to achieve the 3-log reduction of H. influenzae and tobramycin did not reach the 3-log reduction of this pathogen during the 180-minute study period. Conclusion: Moxifloxacin killed S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae in vitro faster than tobramycin and gentamicin, suggesting its potential clinical benefit as a first-line treatment for bacterial conjunctivitis to minimize patient symptoms and to limit the contagiousness of the disease.