Abstract
Comparative assessment of alcaftadine and olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis
- Chongqing Medical and Pharmaceutical College, Chongqing, China
- Chongqing Service Center for Students’ Employment, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Chongqing, China
- Department of Ultrasound, Dianjiang County Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chongqing, China
Introduction:
It is unclear to compare the efficacy of alcaftadine versus olopatadine for patients with allergic conjunctivitis, and this meta-analysis aims to perform the comparative assessment of their efficacy for allergic conjunctivitis.
Methods:
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing alcaftadine with olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis. The random-effect model was used for the significant heterogeneity, and otherwise the fixed-effect model was used.
Results:
Twelve RCTs and 1064 patients with allergic conjunctivitis were included in this meta-analysis. In comparison with olopatadine intervention, alcaftadine intervention demonstrated a comparable ocular symptom score on 3 days (MD = –0.06; 95% CI = –0.19 to 0.07; p = 0.35), but was able to significantly decrease the ocular symptom score on 7 days (MD = –0.09; 95% CI = –0.16 to –0.01; p = 0.03), ocular symptom score on 14 days (MD = –0.25; 95% CI = –0.37 to –0.12; p < 0.0001) and conjunctival hyperaemia score on 14 days (MD = –0.04; 95% CI = –0.05 to –0.03; p < 0.00001). These two groups had similar incidence of adverse events (OR = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.09; p = 0.10).
Conclusions:
Alcaftadine had better capability to treat allergic conjunctivitis compared to olopatadine.
Keywords
allergic conjunctivitis, alcaftadine, olopatadine, randomized controlled trials
Indexed in
Integrated with
