Trial reportAdvances in therapy2014
Ocular itch relief with alcaftadine 0.25% versus olopatadine 0.2% in allergic conjunctivitis: pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials.
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of a novel 0.5% epinastine topical eyelid cream in allergic conjunctivitis: a phase 3 trial.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2024Trial
- 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
- Efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1%, emedastine difumarate 0.05%, and loteprednol etabonate 0.5% for Chinese children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a randomized vehicle-controlled study.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2017Trial
- Comparative assessment of alcaftadine and olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2024Review
- Ophthalmic Formulations for the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis and Their Effect on the Ocular Surface: A Review of Safety and Tolerability Assessments in Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Comparison of olopatadine with ketotifen for allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis study.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2023Article
- Enigmatic Histamine Receptor HLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- A Review of Imaging Biomarkers of the Ocular Surface.Eye & contact lens · 2020Review
- Comparison of cytotoxicities and anti-allergic effects of topical ocular dual-action anti-allergic agents.BMC ophthalmology · 2019Article
- New antihistamines - perspectives in the treatment of some allergic and inflammatory disorders.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2019Article
- Emerging Therapeutics for Ocular Surface Disease.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2019Review
- 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
- [Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2017Review
- Ocular itch associated with allergic conjunctivitis: latest evidence and clinical management.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2016Review
- 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
- The histamine H4 receptor: from orphan to the clinic.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe efficacy and safety of the once-daily topical ophthalmic solutions, alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2%, in preventing ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis were evaluated.
methodsPooled analysis was conducted of two double-masked, multicenter, active- and placebo-controlled studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model of allergic conjunctivitis. Subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive alcaftadine 0.25%, olopatadine 0.2%, or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was subject-evaluated mean ocular itching at 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation. Secondary measures included ocular itching at 5 and 7 min post-CAC. Ocular itch was determined over all time points measured (3, 5, and 7 min) post-CAC and the proportion of subjects with minimal itch (itch score<1) and zero itch (itch score=0) was also assessed.
resultsA total of 284 subjects were enrolled in the two studies. At 3 min post-CAC and 16 h after treatment instillation, alcaftadine 0.25% achieved a significantly lower mean itch score compared with olopatadine 0.2% (0.50 vs. 0.87, respectively; P=0.0006). Alcaftadine demonstrated a significantly lower mean itch score over all time points compared with olopatadine (0.68 vs. 0.92, respectively; P=0.0390); both alcaftadine- and olopatadine-treated subjects achieved significantly lower overall mean ocular itching scores compared with placebo (2.10; P<0.0001 for both actives). Minimal itch over all time points was reported by 76.1% of alcaftadine-treated subjects compared with 58.1% of olopatadine-treated subjects (P=0.0121). Treatment with alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine 0.2% was safe and well tolerated; no serious adverse events were reported.
conclusionOnce-daily alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution demonstrated greater efficacy in prevention of ocular itching compared with olopatadine 0.2% at 3 min post-CAC (primary endpoint), and over all time points, 16 h post-treatment instillation. Alcaftadine and olopatadine both provided effective relief compared with placebo and were generally 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.