May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Patient Evaluation of Azelastine HCl versus Olopatadine HCl in the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • A.–M. Oliva
    College of Medicine,
    University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
  • C.B. Slonim
    University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  A. Oliva, None; C.B. Slonim, Bauch and Lomb, Inc. C; MedPointe Pharmaceutical C, R.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Bauch and Lomb, Muro, MedPointe
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 937. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      A.–M. Oliva, C.B. Slonim; Patient Evaluation of Azelastine HCl versus Olopatadine HCl in the Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):937.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: The use of a combination H1 antagonist and mast cell stabilizer anti–allergy product (e.g., olopatadine HCl and azelastine HCl) can not only inhibit the release of histamine and other mediators from the mast cells but also block the action of histamine that has already been released, thus decreasing the severity of the allergic response. In this study, we compare the subjective responses of previous olopatadine (Patanol, Alcon) users with allergic conjunctivitis who were treated for five (5) days with azelastine HCl (Optivar, MedPointe). Methods: 1428 ocular allergy patients in 75 ophthalmologist/optometrist offices were surveyed. Patients were asked 6 questions regarding the effectiveness of azelastine for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis (i.e., onset, duration, and overall satisfaction) and compare it to previous treatments. The answers were graded on a scale of 0 to 10 for onset and duration and yes or no for overall satisfaction. The groups were further divided into previous olopatadine users or nonusers. Results: In patients who had used a previous ophthalmic anti–allergy medication in the past and those who had not, 89% claimed azelastine effectively treated their eye allergy. In the subset of patients who had previously used olopatadine, 60% claimed that azelastine was more favorable (scored 7–10) than olopatadine. Conclusions: In this patient survey, azelastine was favored to be more effective and yield higher patient satisfaction scores than olopatadine in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Keywords: conjunctivitis • pharmacology 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.