Exploring the comparative efficacy and patient preference of Olopatadine Hydrochloride and Ketotifen Fumarate medications in allergic conjunctivitis treatment.

Ocular allergies, characterised by symptoms such as itching, redness, tearing, and swelling, significantly impact the quality of life for affected individuals.

Two commonly prescribed medications for allergic conjunctivitis are 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride and 0.05% ketotifen fumarate. We look at the findings of two clinical studies, aiming to elucidate the comparative efficacy and patient preference between these two medications.

Clinical efficacy and tolerance

Aguilar et al studied 80 adult patients with allergic conjunctivitis symptoms. The patients were divided into two groups, one treated with olopatadine hydrochloride (OHC) (Group A) and the other with ketotifen fumarate (Group B). The results demonstrated that OHC exhibited faster, and more extensive control of allergic conjunctivitis symptoms compared to ketotifen. In Group A, olopatadine achieved clinical improvement in 42% to 62% of patients within 30 minutes of the first dose, and this improvement increased to 80% to 87% after seven days. On the other hand, Group B, treated with ketotifen, showed lower percentages of improvement, ranging from 20% to 47% at 30 minutes and 60% to 75% after seven days.

Importantly, fewer cases of treatment failure and no local intolerance reactions were observed in the OHC group, while ketotifen triggered mild intolerance reactions in 23% of patients. Aguilar's study concluded that olopatadine hydrochloride was more effective in controlling allergic conjunctivitis symptoms than ketotifen fumarate.

Patient preference and comfort

Leonardi' et al’s study focused on patient preference and comfort, exploring the factors influencing patients' decisions in selecting an eye drop for allergic conjunctivitis treatment. One hundred patients were enrolled in a double-masked study, receiving both olopatadine and ketotifen over four weeks. Subsequently, patients evaluated and compared the medications in terms of efficacy, comfort, and preference.

The results revealed a significant preference for olopatadine, with 81% of patients choosing it over ketotifen. Patients cited olopatadine as more comfortable, more efficacious in symptom reduction, and the preferred choice for a doctor's visit. A substantial 76% of patients considered both efficacy and comfort when making their preference decisions.

Conclusion

In the treatment of ocular allergy, olopatadine hydrochloride emerges as a more effective option than ketotifen fumarate, as demonstrated by Aguilar's clinical study. Furthermore, Leonardi's study highlights that patient preference aligns with the superior efficacy of olopatadine, emphasising the importance of considering both factors in clinical practice.

These findings provide valuable insights for healthcare practitioners in selecting appropriate therapies for allergic conjunctivitis, aiming not only for clinical efficacy but also patient satisfaction and adherence to treatment plans. Olopatadine's rapid and extensive symptom control, coupled with favourable patient preference, positions it as a preferred choice in the management of ocular allergy.

References:

1. Aguilar AJ. Comparative study of clinical efficacy and tolerance in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis management with 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride versus 0.05% ketotifen fumarate. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl. 2000;(230):52-5. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0420.2000.078s230052.x. PMID: 11057352.
2. Leonardi A, Zafirakis P. Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine versus ketotifen ophthalmic solutions: a double-masked, environmental study of patient preference. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Aug;20(8):1167-73. doi: 10.1185/030079904125004321. PMID: 15324519.