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

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.