title: 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.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to compare 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.
  
  
  METHODS
  This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally controlled, single-center, antigen challenge study. Of the 53 subjects screened, 32 were enrolled and completed the study. The study comprised 3 visits. Primary efficacy variables were ocular itching (assessed at visits 2 and 3) and subject satisfaction (assessed at visit 3). Tolerability variables were slit-lamp findings (all visits), visual acuity (all visits), ocular comfort after drug instillation (visit 3), and adverse events (visits 2 and 3). At visit 1, the antigen concentration that elicited a positive ocular allergic response was determined, and this concentration was confirmed at visit 2. Subjects graded itching on a 5-point scale at 3, 5, and 10 minutes postchallenge. The scores from this visit were used as baseline scores and compared with scores from visit 3 to determine drug efficacy. At visit 3, subjects were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups. Group A received 1 drop of olopatadine in the right eye and I drop of ketotifen in the left eye. Group B received 1 drop of olopatadine in the left eye and 1 drop of ketotifen in the right eye. Following drug instillation, the subjects assessed the comfort level in each eye. Twelve hours after instillation, subjects were challenged with the antigen concentration that elicited a positive response at the previous visits. Itching was subjectively graded at 3, 5, and 10 minutes postchallenge. Subjects were asked to choose which therapy they were more satisfied with.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Twelve hours after administration, efficacy scores for olopatadine were significantly higher than those for ketotifen at 3 and 5 minutes postchallenge (1.84 and 1.75 vs 1.25 and 1.34; P < 0.05). Olopatadine-treated eyes were rated significantly more comfortable than those treated with ketotifen immediately after drug instillation (1.25 vs 2.09; P < 0.05) and 12 hours later, as measured by patient ratings of ocular comfort. Of the 22 subjects who had a preference, 16 (73%) were more satisfied with olopatadine than with ketotifen.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Olopatadine is more effective than ketotifen in reducing the itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the antigen challenge model. Olopatadine caused less ocular discomfort than ketotifen and was preferred by approximately 3 times as many patients as was ketotifen.
authors.affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
authors.forename: G J
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Berdy
authors.forename: D L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Spangler
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Bensch
authors.forename: S S
authors.initials: SS
authors.lastname: Berdy
authors.forename: R C
authors.initials: RC
authors.lastname: Brusatti
mesh_terms: D000485:Allergens / Q000276:immunology*; D018926:Anti-Allergic Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D000941:Antigens / Q000276:immunology*; D003231:Conjunctivitis / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000276:immunology; D003990:Dibenzoxepins / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D006801:Humans; D007665:Ketotifen / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D000069605:Olopatadine Hydrochloride; D009883:Ophthalmic Solutions / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D011446:Prospective Studies
chemical_list: D000485:Allergens; D018926:Anti-Allergic Agents; D000941:Antigens; D003990:Dibenzoxepins; D009883:Ophthalmic Solutions; D000069605:Olopatadine Hydrochloride; D007665:Ketotifen