Efficacy of oral olopatadine hydrochloride for the treatment of seasonal allergic
rhinitis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Author(s): Yamamoto H, Yamada T, Kubo S, Osawa Y, Kimura Y, Oh M, Susuki D, Takabayashi T,
Okamoto M, Fujieda S.
Affiliation(s): Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Sensory and
Locomotor Medicine, Faculty of Medical Science, University of Fukui, Shimoizuki,
Matsuoka, Eiheiji-cho, Yoshida-gun, Fukui 910-1193, Japan.
Publication date & source: 2010, Allergy Asthma Proc. , 31(4):296-303
Adequate treatment is critical for maintaining a good level of quality of life
(QOL) during the pollen season in patients suffering from seasonal allergic
rhinitis (SAR). Olopatadine, a histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist, has been
approved in the United States and Europe for the treatment of AR and allergic
conjunctivitis as a nasal spray and an ophthalmic solution, respectively. We
conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine
whether orally administered olopatadine for prophylactic purposes might also be
effective for the control of nasal allergy symptoms, especially nasal congestion,
in patients with SAR due to Japanese cedar pollen (SAR-JP). A total of 110
patients with SAR caused by JP were randomized to the treatment. The subjects
recorded their nasal and ocular allergic symptom scores in a diary, and their QOL
was assessed by the Japanese version of the Rhinoconjunctivity Quality of Life
Questionnaire. Treatment with oral olopatadine significantly suppressed sneezing
(p < 0.001), rhinorrhea (p < 0.001), and nasal congestion (p < 0.05). The total
QOL score during the peak JP season was superior in the olopatadine group than in
the placebo group (p < 0.05). However, orally administered olopatadine did not
exert any significant effect against eye itching and watering of the eyes, unlike
olopatadine nasal spray. Treatment with olopatadine tablets yielded superior QOL
scores in the domains of usual daily activities and outdoor activities when
compared with placebo. No serious adverse effects of the treatment were reported
during the study period. These results suggest that oral olopatadine treatment
may be a useful alternative treatment strategy for AR.
|