Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ketotifen fumarate and olopatadine hydrochloride in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis: A real-world comparison of efficacy and ocular comfort

  • Published:
Advances in Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This 3-week prospective, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study compared ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution and olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution in 66 patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. The drugs were instilled twice daily. Signs and symptoms were assessed on days 5 (visit 2) and 21 (visit 3). Other efficacy variables were the responder rate (patients with excellent or good global efficacy on days 5 and 21) and patient and investigator ratings of global efficacy. Comfort was evaluated immediately after instillation of the first drop and at each follow-up visit. The frequency of adverse events was the safety assessment. The responder rate was higher with ketotifen than with olopatadine on day 5 (72% vs 54% for patient assessment, 88% vs 55% for investigator assessment) and day 21 (91% vs 55%, 94% vs 42%). Global efficacy ratings were higher with ketotifen, and severity scores for hyperemia and itching were significantly lower. Both drugs elicited comparable comfort ratings. The most common adverse events were burning/stinging and headache.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abelson MB, George MA, Garofolo C. Differential diagnosis of ocular allergic disorders.Ann Allergy. 1993;70:95–107.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Buckley RJ. Allergic eye disease: a clinical challenge.Clin Exp Allergy. 1998;28(suppl 6):39–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Friedlander MH. A review of the causes and treatment of bacterial and allergic conjunctivitis.Clin Ther. 1995;17:800–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McGill JI, Holgate ST, Church MK, Bacon A. Allergic eye disease mechanisms.Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:1203–1214.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bacon AS, Ahluwalia P, Irani A-M, et al. Tear and conjunctival changes during the allergen-induced early- and late-phase response.J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;106:948–954.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Weston JH, Udell IJ, Abelson MB. H1 receptors in the human ocular surface.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1981;20(suppl):32.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Abelson MB, Udell IJ. H2 receptors in the human ocular surface.Arch Ophthalmol. 1981;99:302–303.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bielory L. Allergic and immunologic disorders of the eye, part II: ocular allergy.J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;106:1019–1032.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedlander MH. Management of ocular allergy.Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1995;75:212–222.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Yanni JM, Sharif NA, Gamache DA, Miller ST, Weimer LK, Spellman JM. A current appreciation of sites for pharmacological intervention in allergic conjunctivitis: effects of new topical ocular drugs.Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;77:33–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Grant SM, Goa KL, Fitton A, Sorkin EM. Ketotifen: a review of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use in asthma and allergic disorders.Drugs. 1990;40:412–448.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Abelson MB. Evaluation of olopatadine, a new ophthalmic antiallergic agent with dual activity, using the conjunctival challenge model.Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1998;81:211–218.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yanni JM, Stepjens DJ, Miller ST, et al. The in-vitro and in-vivo ocular pharmacology of olopatadine (AL-4943A), an effective anti-allergic/antihistamine agent.J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 1996;12:389–400.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Abelson MB, Welch DL. An evaluation of the onset and duration of action of Patanol® (olopatadine solution.1%) compared to Claritin® (loratadine 10 mg) tablets in acute allergic conjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78:60–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sharif NA, Xu SX, Yanni JM. Olopatadine (AL-4943A): ligand binding and functional studies of a novel, long acting H1-selective histamine antagonist and anti-allergic agent for use in allergic conjunctivitis.J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 1996;12:401–407.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Physicians’ Desk Reference for Ophthalmic Medicines. 30th ed. Montvale: Medical Economics; 2001:313.

  17. Physicians’ Desk Reference for Ophthalmic Medicines. 30th ed. Montvale: Medical Economics; 2001:216–217.

  18. Berdy GJ, Spangler DL, Bensch G, Berdy SS, Brusatti RC. A comparison of the relative efficacy and clinical performance of olopatadine hydrochloride.1% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate .025% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival challenge model.Clin Ther. 2000;22: 826–833.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Aguilar AJ. Comparative study of clinical efficacy and tolerance in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis management with.1% olopatadine hydrochloride versus .05% ketotifen fumarate.Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78:52–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Artal MN, Luna JD, Discepola MA. Forced choice comfort study of olopatadine hydrochloride.1% versus ketotifen fumarate .05%.Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78:64–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Abelson MB. Conjunctival allergen challenge. A clinical approach to studying allergic conjunctivitis.Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108:84–88.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Abelson MB. Comparison of the conjunctival allergen challenge model with the environmental model of allergic conjunctivitis.Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;228(suppl):38–42.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ganz Allergy and Asthma Center, 5802 Washington Avenue, Suite 103, 53406-4050, Racine, WI

    Michael Ganz MD, Elizabeth Koll CS-FNP & Jean Gausche RN

  2. Kenilworth Medical Associates, Kenilworth, Illinois

    Paul Detjen MD

  3. Hagerstown, Maryland

    Nicholas Orfan MD

Authors
  1. Michael Ganz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth Koll CS-FNP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean Gausche RN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul Detjen MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicholas Orfan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

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 Therapy 20, 79–91 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02850255

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02850255

Keywords

Search

Navigation