ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2011
Comparison of effects of alcaftadine and olopatadine on conjunctival epithelium and eosinophil recruitment in a murine model of allergic conjunctivitis.
Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of safety and efficacy of Alcaftadine 0.25%, Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% and Bepotastine besilate 1.5% in allergic conjunctivitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Trial
- Observer-masked trial comparing efficacy of topical olopatadine (0.1%), bepotastine (1.5%), and alcaftadine (0.25%) in mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2019Trial
- Ocular itch relief with alcaftadine 0.25% versus olopatadine 0.2% in allergic conjunctivitis: pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials.Advances in therapy · 2014Trial
- Olopatadine Exerts Multifaceted Protective Effects in an Ovalbumin-Induced Allergic Eye Disease Mouse Model.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Comparative assessment of alcaftadine and olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2024Review
- Allergic Conjunctivitis: Review of Current Types, Treatments, and Trends.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A nerve-goblet cell association promotes allergic conjunctivitis through rapid antigen passage.JCI insight · 2023Article
- Epithelial barrier dysfunction in ocular allergy.Allergy · 2022Review
- Comparison of cytotoxicities and anti-allergic effects of topical ocular dual-action anti-allergic agents.BMC ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Ocular itch associated with allergic conjunctivitis: latest evidence and clinical management.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2016Review
- Update and clinical utility of alcaftadine ophthalmic solution 0.25% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015Review
- Exacerbation of signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis by a controlled adverse environment challenge in subjects with a history of dry eye and ocular allergy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2013Article
- A multicenter evaluation of the efficacy and duration of action of alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2013Article
- Antihistamines in ocular allergy: are they all created equal?Current allergy and asthma reports · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntihistamines constitute the first line of therapy for allergic conjunctivitis, and are safe and effective in relieving the signs and symptoms of ocular allergy. Despite this, they are less effective than some other drugs in relieving delayed symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Recent evidence suggests that changes in the conjunctival epithelium may underlie aspects of delayed reactions. In this study we compared two antihistamines, olopatadine and alcaftadine, for their ability to modify epithelial cell changes associated with allergic conjunctivitis at time points selected to reflect late-phase reactions.
methodsStudies employed a modified conjunctival allergen challenge model. Sensitized mice were challenged with topical allergen with or without drug treatments. Treatment groups were assayed for acute-phase (15 minutes) and delayed-phase (24 hours) responses. Groups were scored for allergy symptoms (redness, itch, tearing, and edema) and for conjunctival mast cell numbers. Delayed-phase groups were also examined for eosinophil numbers and for tight junctional protein expression.
resultsOlopatadine-treated and alcaftadine-treated animals had similar efficacy profiles and mast cell numbers, suggesting both were effective at ameliorating symptoms of the acute phase. In contrast, alcaftadine-treated animals had significantly lower conjunctival eosinophil infiltration than either controls or olopatadine-treated animals. Allergen challenge caused a significant decrease in expression of the junctional protein, ZO-1, and this decrease was prevented by alcaftadine but not by olopatadine.
conclusionAlcaftadine displays therapeutic properties beyond its antihistamine action. These include an ability to reduce conjunctival eosinophil recruitment, and a protective effect on epithelial tight junction protein expression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.