OBJETIVO: Evaluar la seguridad y eficacia de olopatadina tópico versus placebo y otros medicamentos anti-alérgicas tópicos en el tratamiento de la conjuntivitis alérgica.
Métodos: Se realizaron búsquedas sistemáticas en la literatura para los ensayos controlados aleatorios que incluían pacientes con conjuntivitis alérgica, en comparación olopatadina en comparación con los medicamentos anti-alérgicas alternativas placebo o, y se examinaron prurito, hiperemia conjuntival, síntoma compuesto o firmar las puntuaciones, y / o la ocurrencia de eventos adversos . Se evaluó la seguridad y eficacia de olopatadina tópica en comparación con los medicamentos alternativos antialérgicos utilizando meta-análisis de placebo o.
RESULTADOS: En comparación con el placebo, la olopatadina tópica se asocia con una diferencia agrupada-media (MD) en picor ocular de -1,33 (p <0.00001) e hiperemia ocular de -0,92 (p <0.00001). Cuando se compara con otros agentes, olopatadina era inferior a alcaftadina el picor ocular (agrupada-MD = 0,39; p <0,00001), pero comparable a la epinastina y ketotifeno.
CONCLUSIONES: tópicas de olopatadina es una modalidad de tratamiento seguro y eficaz para la conjuntivitis alérgica, mientras que alcaftadina parece ser superior a la olopatadina en la reducción de la picazón ocular.
BACKGROUND: Seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis is the most common allergic conjunctivitis, usually with acute manifestations when a person is exposed to allergens and with typical signs and symptoms including itching, redness, and tearing. The clinical signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis are mediated by the release of histamine by mast cells. Histamine antagonists (also called antihistamines) inhibit the action of histamine by blocking histamine H1 receptors, antagonising the vasoconstrictor, and to a lesser extent, the vasodilator effects of histamine. Mast cell stabilisers inhibit degranulation and consequently the release of histamine by interrupting the normal chain of intracellular signals. Topical treatments include eye drops with antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, combinations of the previous treatments, and corticosteroids. Standard treatment is based on topical antihistamines alone or topical mast cell stabilisers alone or a combination of treatments. There is clinical uncertainty about the relative efficacy and safety of topical treatment.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, for use in treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 July 2014. We also searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trial reports for details of further relevant publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, with placebo, no treatment or to any other antihistamine or mast cell stabiliser, or both, that examined people with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis, or both. The primary outcome was any participant-reported evaluation (by questionnaire) of severity of four main ocular symptoms: itching, irritation, watering eye (tearing), and photophobia (dislike of light), both separately and, if possible, by an overall symptom score. We considered any follow-up time between one week and one year.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among review authors and the involvement of a third review author. We followed standard methodological approaches used by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 30 trials with a total of 4344 participants randomised, with 17 different drugs or treatment comparisons. The following antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers were evaluated in at least one RCT; nedocromil sodium or sodium cromoglycate, olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine, emedastine, levocabastine (or levocabastine), mequitazine, bepotastine besilate, combination of antazoline and tetryzoline, combination of levocabastine and pemirolast potassium. The most common comparison was azelastine versus placebo (nine studies).We observed a large variability in reporting outcomes. The quality of the studies and reporting was variable, but overall the risk of bias was low. Trials evaluated only short-term effects, with a range of treatment of one to eight weeks. Meta-analysis was only possible in one comparison (olopatadine versus ketotifen). There was some evidence to support that topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo. There were no reported serious adverse events related to the use of topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It seems that all reported topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo in the short term. However, there is no long-term data on their efficacy. Direct comparisons of different antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers need to be interpreted with caution. Overall, topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers appear to be safe and well tolerated. We observed a large variability in outcomes reported. Poor quality of reporting challenged the synthesis of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Histamine receptor activation and degranulation of mast cells are the mechanisms by which the ocular itching, hyperemia, chemosis, eyelid swelling, and tearing of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis are induced. Some of the topical solutions available as anti-allergy therapies are intended to interfere with these mechanisms, and the body of research regarding the capabilities of these therapeutic molecules continues to expand.
OBJECTIVE: To review the currently available literature regarding one topical ophthalmic anti-allergy agent, olopatadine (Patanol), and its anti-histaminic and mast cell stabilizing actions, both in pre-clinical and clinical settings.
DESIGN AND METHODS: Relevant research of laboratory, animal model, and clinical trial studies performed using olopatadine was reviewed. MEDLINE literature searches were conducted and supplemented by additional reports which furthered relevant discussion or were necessary to verify the information resulting from original searches.
RESULTS: Olopatadine demonstrates unique properties both pre-clinically and clinically which differentiate it from other therapeutic molecules in its class of dual action mast cell stabilizer/anti-histamine. Its non-perturbation of cell membranes, human conjunctival mast cell stabilization in vivo and in vitro, and superior efficacy as compared to other topical anti-allergic medications including mast cell stabilizers, anti-histamines, and dual action agents, all contribute to olopatadine's profile.
CONCLUSIONS: Peer-reviewed literature suggests that olopatadine is clinically superior to the other anti-allergic molecules because of its strong anti-histaminic qualities and its unique ocular mast cell stabilizing properties.
Evaluar la seguridad y eficacia de olopatadina tópico versus placebo y otros medicamentos anti-alérgicas tópicos en el tratamiento de la conjuntivitis alérgica. Métodos: Se realizaron búsquedas sistemáticas en la literatura para los ensayos controlados aleatorios que incluían pacientes con conjuntivitis alérgica, en comparación olopatadina en comparación con los medicamentos anti-alérgicas alternativas placebo o, y se examinaron prurito, hiperemia conjuntival, síntoma compuesto o firmar las puntuaciones, y / o la ocurrencia de eventos adversos . Se evaluó la seguridad y eficacia de olopatadina tópica en comparación con los medicamentos alternativos antialérgicos utilizando meta-análisis de placebo o.
RESULTADOS:
En comparación con el placebo, la olopatadina tópica se asocia con una diferencia agrupada-media (MD) en picor ocular de -1,33 (p <0.00001) e hiperemia ocular de -0,92 (p <0.00001). Cuando se compara con otros agentes, olopatadina era inferior a alcaftadina el picor ocular (agrupada-MD = 0,39; p <0,00001), pero comparable a la epinastina y ketotifeno.
CONCLUSIONES:
tópicas de olopatadina es una modalidad de tratamiento seguro y eficaz para la conjuntivitis alérgica, mientras que alcaftadina parece ser superior a la olopatadina en la reducción de la picazón ocular.
Pregunta de la revisión sistemática»Revisión sistemática de intervenciones
