DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20204230

Comparison of two ophthalmic solutions of olopatadine hydrochloride (0.1%) and epinastine hydrochloride (0.05%) on clinical signs of vernal keratoconjunctivitis and side effects of the two drugs

Tahir Husain Ansari, Yusuf Rizvi

Abstract


Background: Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a recurrent, bilateral, external, ocular inflammation primarily affecting young adults living in warm dry climates. The objectives of the research was to compare the two ophthalmic solutions of olopatadine hydrochloride (0.1%) and epinastine hydrochloride (0.05%) on clinical signs of vernal keratoconjuntivitis and to determine side effects of both the drugs.

Methods: The study was carried out in 40 patients who attended the out-patient department (OPD) Ophthalmology, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai from July 2007 to December 2008.  Forty patients with symptoms of VKC (ocular itching, ropy discharge, papillary hypertrophy, gelatinous thickening and horner-trantas spots were selected and included in our study.

Results: Mean score of palpebral hyperemia at 0, 14, 28 and 42 days in olopatadine treated eye were 2.1, 1.4, 0.8 and 0.4 respectively having p value <0.01, and <0.01 and <0.05 respectively, while mean score at same stages in placebo eye were 2.1, 2, 1.9, and 1.5 having value >0.05. Epinastine treated group mean score of palpebral hyperemia were <0.01 and <0.01 respectively in epinastine treated eye whereas in placebo treated eye, mean score were 2.1, 2.0, 1.8 and 1.6 respectively having p value >0.05 in all stages. Statistically insignificant reduction at day 14 while very significant reduction at day 28 and 42 was observed in epinastine treated eye as compared to placebo.

Conclusions: The present study had shown that both olopatadine and epinastine were effective in treating clinical signs of VKC as compared to placebo.


Keywords


Olopatadine hydrochloride, Epinastine hydrochloride, Vernal keratoconjunctivitis, Placebo, Palpebral hyperemia

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aguilar J. Comparative study of clinical and tolerance in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis management with 0.1% olopatadine versus 0.05% ketotifen. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;230:52-5.

Kamei C, Akagi M, Mio M, Kitazumi K, Izushi K, Masaki S, et al. Anti-allergic effect of epinastine on immediate hypersensitivity reactions; elucidation of the mechanism for histamine release inhabitation. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 1992;14:191-205.

Spangler DL, Bensch G. Evaluation of the efficacy of 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution and 0.05% azelastine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution in CAC model. Clin Ther. 2001;2(8):1272-80.

Secchi AG, Tognon S, Leonardi A. Topical use of cyclosporine in the treatment of vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1990;110(6):641-5.

Yani JM, Weiner LK, Sharif NA. Inhibition of histamine induced human conjunctival epithelial cells by ocular allergy drugs. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117(5):643-7.

Leonardi A, Seccho AG. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis thorough review. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2003;43(1):41-58.

Lanier BQ, Finegoild I, D’Arienzo P, Granet D, Epstein AB, Ledgerwood GL. Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conkunctival llergen challenge model. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(8):1227-33.

Kanski J, Bowling B. Kanski's Clinical Ophthalmology. 8th Edition. A Systematic Approach. 2015. Elsevier.

Duke-Elder S. Duke elder’s system of Ophthalmology. 1958. Mosby, St. Louis.

Lanier BQ, Finegoild I, D’Arienzo P, Granet D, Epstein AB, Ledgerwood GL. Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conkunctival llergen challenge model. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Aug. 20(8) 1227-33.