Efficacy of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis as seasonal and preseasonal treatment

Takanori Mizoguchi,1 Mineo Ozaki,2 Nobuchika Ogino3 1Mizoguchi Eye Clinic, Ophthalmology, Sasebo, Japan; 2Ozaki Eye Hospital, Ophthalmology, Miyazaki, Japan; 3Nishigaki Eye Clinic, Ophthalmology, Nagoya, Japan Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine ey...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mizoguchi T, Ozaki M, Ogino N
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/bbb1fa0597144a6599e344fca39bab0a
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:bbb1fa0597144a6599e344fca39bab0a
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:bbb1fa0597144a6599e344fca39bab0a2021-12-02T04:57:58ZEfficacy of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis as seasonal and preseasonal treatment1177-5483https://doaj.org/article/bbb1fa0597144a6599e344fca39bab0a2017-09-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/efficacy-of-005-epinastine-and-01-olopatadine-for-allergic-conjunctivi-peer-reviewed-article-OPTHhttps://doaj.org/toc/1177-5483Takanori Mizoguchi,1 Mineo Ozaki,2 Nobuchika Ogino3 1Mizoguchi Eye Clinic, Ophthalmology, Sasebo, Japan; 2Ozaki Eye Hospital, Ophthalmology, Miyazaki, Japan; 3Nishigaki Eye Clinic, Ophthalmology, Nagoya, Japan Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine eye drop preparations as seasonal and preseasonal treatments in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC). Subjects and methods: This was a prospective, randomized, case-control study involving two institutions. The subjects were patients diagnosed with SAC at two institutions between February and March in 2014. To examine the clinical effects of seasonal treatment, 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine were administered, and their effects were investigated every 2 weeks (Stage 1). To evaluate the clinical effects of preseasonal therapy, in January 2015, the same eye drop preparations as adopted in Stage 1 were administered to patients who had participated in Stage 1 and provided consent to participate in this study, and their effects were investigated every month (Stage 2). Results: In Stage 1, the 0.05% epinastine group consisted of 43 patients, and the 0.1% olopatadine group consisted of 42 patients. There were significant improvements in the total symptom and objective finding scores at each time point after administration in comparison with those before its baseline, but there were no significant differences between the two groups. In Stage 2, the 0.05% epinastine group consisted of 15 patients, and the 0.1% olopatadine group consisted of 14 patients. The rate of change in the total symptom score in comparison with that at the baseline of preseasonal treatment was significantly higher in the 0.1% olopatadine group 1 month after the start of treatment, suggesting symptom deterioration (P=0.025). There was no significant difference in the rate of change in the total objective finding score between the two groups. Conclusion: Seasonal treatment with 0.05% epinastine or 0.1% olopatadine was equally effective for patients with allergic conjunctivitis. However, for preseasonal therapy, 0.05% epinastine was more effective than 0.1% olopatadine. Keywords: 0.05% epinastine, 0.1% olopatadine, seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, preseasonal treatment, seasonal treatment, inverse agonistMizoguchi TOzaki MOgino NDove Medical Pressarticle0.05%Epinastine0.1%Olopatadineseasonal allergic conjunctivitispre-seasonal treatmentseasonal treatmentinverse agonist.OphthalmologyRE1-994ENClinical Ophthalmology, Vol Volume 11, Pp 1747-1753 (2017)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic 0.05%Epinastine
0.1%Olopatadine
seasonal allergic conjunctivitis
pre-seasonal treatment
seasonal treatment
inverse agonist.
Ophthalmology
RE1-994
spellingShingle 0.05%Epinastine
0.1%Olopatadine
seasonal allergic conjunctivitis
pre-seasonal treatment
seasonal treatment
inverse agonist.
Ophthalmology
RE1-994
Mizoguchi T
Ozaki M
Ogino N
Efficacy of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis as seasonal and preseasonal treatment
description Takanori Mizoguchi,1 Mineo Ozaki,2 Nobuchika Ogino3 1Mizoguchi Eye Clinic, Ophthalmology, Sasebo, Japan; 2Ozaki Eye Hospital, Ophthalmology, Miyazaki, Japan; 3Nishigaki Eye Clinic, Ophthalmology, Nagoya, Japan Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine eye drop preparations as seasonal and preseasonal treatments in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC). Subjects and methods: This was a prospective, randomized, case-control study involving two institutions. The subjects were patients diagnosed with SAC at two institutions between February and March in 2014. To examine the clinical effects of seasonal treatment, 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine were administered, and their effects were investigated every 2 weeks (Stage 1). To evaluate the clinical effects of preseasonal therapy, in January 2015, the same eye drop preparations as adopted in Stage 1 were administered to patients who had participated in Stage 1 and provided consent to participate in this study, and their effects were investigated every month (Stage 2). Results: In Stage 1, the 0.05% epinastine group consisted of 43 patients, and the 0.1% olopatadine group consisted of 42 patients. There were significant improvements in the total symptom and objective finding scores at each time point after administration in comparison with those before its baseline, but there were no significant differences between the two groups. In Stage 2, the 0.05% epinastine group consisted of 15 patients, and the 0.1% olopatadine group consisted of 14 patients. The rate of change in the total symptom score in comparison with that at the baseline of preseasonal treatment was significantly higher in the 0.1% olopatadine group 1 month after the start of treatment, suggesting symptom deterioration (P=0.025). There was no significant difference in the rate of change in the total objective finding score between the two groups. Conclusion: Seasonal treatment with 0.05% epinastine or 0.1% olopatadine was equally effective for patients with allergic conjunctivitis. However, for preseasonal therapy, 0.05% epinastine was more effective than 0.1% olopatadine. Keywords: 0.05% epinastine, 0.1% olopatadine, seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, preseasonal treatment, seasonal treatment, inverse agonist
format article
author Mizoguchi T
Ozaki M
Ogino N
author_facet Mizoguchi T
Ozaki M
Ogino N
author_sort Mizoguchi T
title Efficacy of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis as seasonal and preseasonal treatment
title_short Efficacy of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis as seasonal and preseasonal treatment
title_full Efficacy of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis as seasonal and preseasonal treatment
title_fullStr Efficacy of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis as seasonal and preseasonal treatment
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis as seasonal and preseasonal treatment
title_sort efficacy of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis as seasonal and preseasonal treatment
publisher Dove Medical Press
publishDate 2017
url https://doaj.org/article/bbb1fa0597144a6599e344fca39bab0a
work_keys_str_mv AT mizoguchit efficacyof005epinastineand01olopatadineforallergicconjunctivitisasseasonalandpreseasonaltreatment
AT ozakim efficacyof005epinastineand01olopatadineforallergicconjunctivitisasseasonalandpreseasonaltreatment
AT oginon efficacyof005epinastineand01olopatadineforallergicconjunctivitisasseasonalandpreseasonaltreatment
_version_ 1718400976571858944