Comparative assessment of alcaftadine and olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis.

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q3 ALLERGY

Postepy Dermatologii I Alergologii Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-14 DOI:10.5114/ada.2024.144166

Xiaojuan Fu, Peijie Xu, Di Lu

{"title":"Comparative assessment of alcaftadine and olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Xiaojuan Fu, Peijie Xu, Di Lu","doi":"10.5114/ada.2024.144166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":54595,"journal":{"name":"Postepy Dermatologii I Alergologii","volume":"41 6","pages":"560-565"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11770579/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postepy Dermatologii I Alergologii","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ada.2024.144166","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

阿咖啡因和奥洛他定治疗过敏性结膜炎的比较评价：一项荟萃分析。

导论：目前尚不清楚alcaftadine与olopatadine对变应性结膜炎患者的疗效比较，本荟萃分析旨在对其对变应性结膜炎的疗效进行比较评估。方法：我们系统地检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、EBSCO和Cochrane图书馆数据库，并纳入比较阿卡他胺和奥洛他定治疗变应性结膜炎的随机对照试验（rct）。异质性显著者采用随机效应模型，非显著者采用固定效应模型。结果：12项随机对照试验和1064例过敏性结膜炎患者被纳入本荟萃分析。与奥洛他定干预相比，阿卡他定干预3天的眼部症状评分相当(MD = -0.06；95% CI = -0.19 ~ 0.07；p = 0.35)，但能显著降低第7天眼部症状评分(MD = -0.09；95% CI = -0.16 ~ -0.01；p = 0.03)，第14天眼部症状评分(MD = -0.25；95% CI = -0.37 ~ -0.12；p < 0.0001)，第14天结膜充血评分(MD = -0.04；95% CI = -0.05 ~ -0.03；P < 0.00001)。两组不良事件发生率相似(OR = 0.61；95% CI = 0.34 ~ 1.09；P = 0.10)。结论：与奥洛他定相比，阿卡他定治疗变应性结膜炎的效果更好。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊