Understanding ocular comfort differences between 0.7% olopatadine and 0.3% pheniramine maleate/0.025% naphazoline hydrochloride eye drops.


Journal

Clinical & experimental optometry
ISSN: 1444-0938
Titre abrégé: Clin Exp Optom
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8703442

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2023
Historique:
medline: 4 7 2023
pubmed: 12 7 2022
entrez: 11 7 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

This study found 0.7% olopatadine (Pataday Once Daily Relief Extra Strength) eye drops to provide better initial comfort than 0.3% pheniramine maleate/0.025% naphazoline hydrochloride (VISINE® Allergy Eye Relief Multi-Action Antihistamine and Redness Reliever) eye drops suggesting that patients may comply better with the Pataday than VISINE. To compare the ocular comfort at instillation of Pataday and VISINE allergy eye drops. Minimally symptomatic participants were recruited based upon Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) questionnaire scores (≤3 units); they also had minimal between-eye inter-ocular comfort differences as judged by visual analogue scale scores (VAS; ≤7 units). Baseline comfort was evaluated by eye with a VAS. One drop of Pataday or VISINE was then applied to the right eye with the alternative drop being applied to the left eye. The same VAS evaluated comfort by eye at drop instillation, and then at 30 seconds, 1 minute, and 2 minutes post-instillation. Drop experience was also evaluated with Likert questions. LogMAR visual acuities and bulbar conjunctival redness were evaluated pre- and post-drop instillation. A total of 159 participants were recruited (mean ± SD age = 26.2 ± 7.5). The VAS found that eyes treated with Pataday were significantly more comfortable at instillation than eyes treated with VISINE. Likert questions indicated that participants significantly preferred Pataday drops compared to the VISINE drops at instillation with regards to overall eye comfort, eye stinging, eye burning, and foreign body sensation. There were no between drop differences in visual acuity, though eyes treated with VISINE were less red than eyes treated with Pataday. Topically applied Pataday drops were more comfortable than VISINE drops.

Sections du résumé

CLINICAL RELEVANCE
This study found 0.7% olopatadine (Pataday Once Daily Relief Extra Strength) eye drops to provide better initial comfort than 0.3% pheniramine maleate/0.025% naphazoline hydrochloride (VISINE® Allergy Eye Relief Multi-Action Antihistamine and Redness Reliever) eye drops suggesting that patients may comply better with the Pataday than VISINE.
BACKGROUND
To compare the ocular comfort at instillation of Pataday and VISINE allergy eye drops.
METHODS
Minimally symptomatic participants were recruited based upon Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) questionnaire scores (≤3 units); they also had minimal between-eye inter-ocular comfort differences as judged by visual analogue scale scores (VAS; ≤7 units). Baseline comfort was evaluated by eye with a VAS. One drop of Pataday or VISINE was then applied to the right eye with the alternative drop being applied to the left eye. The same VAS evaluated comfort by eye at drop instillation, and then at 30 seconds, 1 minute, and 2 minutes post-instillation. Drop experience was also evaluated with Likert questions. LogMAR visual acuities and bulbar conjunctival redness were evaluated pre- and post-drop instillation.
RESULTS
A total of 159 participants were recruited (mean ± SD age = 26.2 ± 7.5). The VAS found that eyes treated with Pataday were significantly more comfortable at instillation than eyes treated with VISINE. Likert questions indicated that participants significantly preferred Pataday drops compared to the VISINE drops at instillation with regards to overall eye comfort, eye stinging, eye burning, and foreign body sensation. There were no between drop differences in visual acuity, though eyes treated with VISINE were less red than eyes treated with Pataday.
CONCLUSIONS
Topically applied Pataday drops were more comfortable than VISINE drops.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35815690
doi: 10.1080/08164622.2022.2090231
doi:

Substances chimiques

Olopatadine Hydrochloride 2XG66W44KF
Pheniramine 134FM9ZZ6M
Naphazoline H231GF11BV
Ophthalmic Solutions 0
Dibenzoxepins 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

498-502

Auteurs

Chris Lievens (C)

Southern College of Optometry, Memphis, TN, USA.

Andrew D Pucker (AD)

Department of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Gerald McGwin (G)

Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Amy Logan (A)

Department of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Quentin Franklin (Q)

Department of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Randy Brafford (R)

Southern College of Optometry, Memphis, TN, USA.

Catherine Hogan (C)

Southern College of Optometry, Memphis, TN, USA.

Laurel R Kelley (LR)

Southern College of Optometry, Memphis, TN, USA.

Mike Christensen (M)

Southern College of Optometry, Memphis, TN, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH