ArticleJournal of asthma and allergy2013
A multicenter evaluation of the efficacy and duration of action of alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.
Article in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 34 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
- Comparative assessment of alcaftadine and olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2024Review
- Development and validation of a health practitioner survey on ocular allergy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Ocular redness - II: Progress in development of therapeutics for the management of conjunctival hyperemia.The ocular surface · 2021Review
- Comparison of cytotoxicities and anti-allergic effects of topical ocular dual-action anti-allergic agents.BMC ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Phase III trials examining the efficacy of cetirizine ophthalmic solution 0.24% compared to vehicle for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018Article
- Pooled analysis of two studies evaluating efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2017Article
- Ocular itch associated with allergic conjunctivitis: latest evidence and clinical management.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2016Review
- Treating allergic conjunctivitis: A once-daily medication that provides 24-hour symptom relief.Allergy & rhinology (Providence, R.I.) · 2016Article
- Effect of alcaftadine 0.25% on ocular itch associated with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis: a pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015Article
- Update and clinical utility of alcaftadine ophthalmic solution 0.25% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015Review
- To evaluate the efficacy and safety of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution and bepotastine 1.5% ophthalmic solution in patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis in a tertiary care hospital.Indian journal of pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and duration of action of once-daily dosing with alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution and olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution as compared with placebo in the prevention of ocular itching, and to directly compare the efficacy of alcaftadine 0.25% with olopatadine 0.2% in the prevention of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis using the conjunctival allergen challenge model.
methodsSubjects with allergic conjunctivitis (n = 127) were enrolled in a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, active-controlled and placebo-controlled clinical trial. Using the conjunctival allergen challenge model, this study was conducted over the course of approximately 5 weeks. Subjects were randomized into one of three treatment arms: alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution, olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution, or placebo. Study medications were administered twice over the course of the trial. The primary efficacy measure for the study was ocular itching evaluated by the subject at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post challenge. Secondary endpoints, measured at 7, 15, and 20 minutes post challenge, included conjunctival, ciliary, and episcleral redness, lid swelling, chemosis, and tearing. Duration of action was measured at 16 and 24 hours post-instillation of the study medication at visits 3 and 4, respectively.
resultsFor the primary measure of ocular itching, both actives, alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2%, were statistically superior to placebo at all three measured time points for both the 16-hour and 24-hour measures (P < 0.0001). Eyes treated with alcaftadine 0.25% had numerically lower mean ocular itching scores than eyes treated with olopatadine 0.2% at every time point, and this difference was statistically significant at the 3-minute time point 16 hours post instillation (P = 0.026). Eyes treated with alcaftadine 0.25% and with olopatadine 0.2% displayed significantly less lid swelling relative to placebo at every time point for the 16-hour and 24-hour post-instillation visits (P < 0.005). Alcaftadine 0.25% was the only active treatment that provided statistically significant relief of chemosis at every time point of the 24-hour post-instillation visit.
conclusionBoth the alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solutions provided highly effective relief of ocular itching at both 16 and 24 hours post-instillation. Treatment differences between the actives were most pronounced at the earliest time point (3 minutes post-challenge) following conjunctival allergen challenge (16 hours), when alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution was statistically superior to olopatadine 0.2% ophthalmic solution. Alcaftadine 0.25% was the only treatment to provide significant relief from chemosis at both 16 and 24 hours post-instillation. Both active treatments and placebo were generally safe and well tolerated.
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.