Comparison of alcaftadine with olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis: A meta-analysis study

Abstract

BackgroundThe efficacy of alcaftadine versus olopatadine remains elusive for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis, and this meta-analysis aims to explore the impact of alcaftadine versus olopatadine on treatment efficacy for allergic conjunctivitis. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched, and we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of alcaftadine versus olopatadine on efficacy in patients with allergic conjunctivitis. Ocular symptoms score and conjunctival hyperaemia score were included for this meta-analysis. ResultsTen RCTs were finally included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with olopatadine intervention for allergic conjunctivitis, alcaftadine intervention demonstrated no significant impact on ocular symptoms score on day 3 (SMD=–0.02; 95% CI=–0.20 to 0.16; P=0.82), day 7 (SMD=–0.02; 95% CI=–0.20 to 0.16; P=0.82), or conjunctival hyperaemia score on day 3 (SMD=0; 95% CI=–0.18 to 0.18; P=1.0), but was associated with substantially reduced ocular symptoms score on day 14 (SMD=–0.33; 95% CI=–0.51 to –0.15; P=0.0004) and conjunctival hyperaemia score on day 3 (SMD=0; 95% CI=–0.18 to 0.18; P=1.0). Additionally, there was similar incidence of ocular adverse events between alcaftadine intervention and olopatadine intervention (OR=1.37; 95% CI=0.12 to 16.12; P=0.80). ConclusionsAlcaftadine may be better to relieve ocular symptoms on day 14 and conjunctival hyperaemia on day 3 compared to olopatadine.