Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Olopatadine and Emedastine in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis

Abstract

Background and Objective: Anti-histamine and anti-inflammatory agents are used in treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. The objective of the study was to compare efficacy and safety of emedastine with olopatadine in Chinese allergic conjunctivitis patients. Materials and Methods: Total, 2,745 allergic conjunctivitis affected eyes were subjected to simple randomization. Patients received normal saline (VG group; n = 915), 0.2% olopatadine (OG group; n = 915) or emedastine (EG group; n = 915) in affected eyes. Interventions run for 15 days. The signs, symptoms and treatment-emergent adverse-effects were evaluated. Results: Olopatadine and emedastine were effective and safe in allergic conjunctivitis. In the morning, patients had the same satisfaction for the relief of symptoms for olopatadine and emedastine (4.32±0.25 vs. 4.29±0.38, p = 0.051). In the evening, patients had a higher satisfaction for the relief of symptoms for emedastine treatment than olopatadine treatment (4.12±0.11 vs. 2.14±0.11, p<0.0001). About 35% patients from OG group and 60% patients from the EG group have preferred their next prescription with the same treatment. Olopatadine was effective in all types of allergic conjunctivitis and emedastine was effective in seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis only. For OG group, pharyngitis and for EG group, increased heart rates were reported as adverse effects. Conclusion: Olopatadine recommended in all types of conjunctivitis and emedastine recommended in seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis only.