Clinical experience with epinastine in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis in ophthalmological practice

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Allergic conjunctivitis involves an inflammatory reaction that destabilizes the tear film and promotes dry eye syndrome. Topical antihistamines may contribute to ocular surface dryness.

Aim: The study aimed to compare the tolerability and clinical effect of topical dual-action anti-allergic agents, including 0.05% epinastine, 0.2% olopatadine, and 0.1% olopatadine, in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis in a standard clinical practice.

METHODS: The study included 33 patients (66 eyes) with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. The patients were equally divided into three groups to receive 0.05% epinastine (n=11), 0.2% olopatadine (n=11), and 0.1% olopatadine (n=11). Symptom severity was assessed using the itching scale, Efron grading scale, eyelid edema scale, and Munk scale for epiphora grading. Dry eye symptoms were assessed using the Schirmer and Norn tests. The therapy duration was 14±2 days.

RESULTS: By the study end, mean tear film breakup time in the 0.05% epinastine group almost did not change compared to baseline and was 9.4±1.41 s vs. 9.6±1.39 s (OD) and 9.3±1.34 s vs. 9.5±1.43 s (OS). However, in the 0.1% and 0.2% olopatadine groups, it decreased and was 13.9±3.21 s vs. 11.6±2.88 s (OD) (p=0.043), 14.1±3.25 s vs. 11.6±3.06 s (OS) (p=0.019) and 10.63±1.51 s vs. 8.5±1.41 s (OD) (p=0.003), 10.75±1.28 s vs. 8.63±1.3 s (OS) (p=0.003), respectively. The lowest number of adverse reactions was observed in the 0.05% epinastine group.

CONCLUSIONS: 0.05% epinastine caused less dry eye symptoms and was well tolerated in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Galina V. Polovinkina

Diagnostic сenter No. 7 (ophtalmologic) for adults and children

Email: polovinkina.g.v@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-9215-2040

MD

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Karine A. Gyamdzhyan

Ranbaxy

Author for correspondence.
Email: valinor78@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1936-2090
SPIN-code: 5614-7206

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)

Russian Federation, Moscow

Andrey S. Pokrovskiy

Diagnostic сenter No. 7 (ophtalmologic) for adults and children

Email: pokrovas@gmail.com

MD

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Yuliya G. Veprikova

Diagnostic сenter No. 7 (ophtalmologic) for adults and children

Email: yulya.veprikova@mail.ru

MD

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Inna N. Zvoncova

Diagnostic сenter No. 7 (ophtalmologic) for adults and children

Email: sin_apelsin@mail.ru

MD

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Dina R. Shtupun

Diagnostic сenter No. 7 (ophtalmologic) for adults and children

Email: makarenko-dina@mail.ru

MD

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Yuliya Kulikova

Diagnostic сenter No. 7 (ophtalmologic) for adults and children

Email: valinor78@yahoo.com

MD

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

References

  1. Kimchi N, Bielory L. The allergic eye: Recommendations about pharmacotherapy and recent therapeutic agents. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;20(5):414–420. doi: 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000669
  2. Leonardi A, Piliego F, Castegnaro A, et al. Allergic conjunctivitis: A cross-sectional study. Clin Exp Allergy. 2015;45(6):1118–1125. doi: 10.1111/cea.12536
  3. Terekhova EP. Allergic conjunctivitis: modern view on clinical forms, diagnosis and therapy. Pharmateca. 2015;(S1):33–39. EDN: TUIKMP (In Russ.)
  4. Leonardi A, Modugno RL, Salami E. Allergy and dry eye disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2021;29(6):1168–1176. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2020.1841804
  5. Swamynathan SK, Wells A. Conjunctival goblet cells: Ocular surface functions, disorders that affect them, and the potential for their regeneration. Ocul Sur. 2020;18(1):19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jtos.2019.11.005
  6. Brubaker K, Yerxa BR, Boyer JL. In vitro analysis of the antagonism of the histamine H1 receptor by epinastine: A kinetic comparison with other marketed compounds. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(13):4975.
  7. Kanai K-i, Asano K, Watanabe S, et al. Epinastine hydrochloride antagonism against interleukin-4-mediated T cell cytokine imbalance in vitro. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2006;140(1):43–52. doi: 10.1159/000092001
  8. Trattler WB, Luchs J, Majmudar P. Elestat (Epinastine HCl ophtalmic solution 0,05 %) as a therapeutic for allergic conjunctivitis. Int Ophtalmol Clin. 2006;46(4):87–99. doi: 10.1097/01.iio.0000212136.77675.b1
  9. Pradhan S, Abhishek K, Mah F. Epinastine: Topical ophthalmic second generation antihistamine without significant systemic side effects. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2009;5(9):1135–1140. doi: 10.1517/17425250903117284
  10. Bielory L, Lien KW, Bigelsen S. Efficacy and tolerability of newer antihistamines in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Drugs. 2005;65(2):215–228. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200565020-00004
  11. Wolf SC, Brubaker K. Evauation of muscarinic receptors antagonism by antihistamines. XXVI Congr Eur Acad Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;62(83):138.
  12. Villareal AL, Farley W, Pflugfelder SC. Effect of topical ophthalmic epinastine and olopatadine on tear volume in mice. Eye Contact Lens. 2006;32(6):272–276. doi: 097/01.icl.0000224360.10319.b1
  13. Clinical Recommendations of the Ministry of Health of Russia. Conjunctivitis, 2024. [Internet]. Available from:: https://library.mededtech.ru/rest/documents/KP629_24/#table_1ktavs
  14. Maychuk DYu, Drozdova EA, Tarkhanova AA, Zinych EE. Results of observational study and integration of Epinastine 0,05 % in treatment algorythms of patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2024;21(2):386–392. doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2024-2-386-392 EDN: AXNRYG
  15. Yani EV. Using a new antiallergic drug Epinepta® in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Clinical cases. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2023;16(4):141–146. doi: 10.21516/2072-0076-2023-16-4-1-6 EDN: DQFRWK
  16. Kovalevskaya MA, Filina LA, Halayqa AI, Nikishina AO. Clinical manifestations and effectiveness of therapy for eye allergy and dry eye syndrome. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2024;17(3):35–40. doi: 10.21516/2072-0076-2024-17-3-35-40 EDN: SWTKPH

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. Dynamics of Norna test parameters in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis receiving dual-action antiallergic drugs: a — right eye; b — left eye. *p <0.05.

Download (142KB)
3. Fig. 2. Satisfaction with therapy at visit 3: a - from patients; b - from doctors (p < 0.01 between groups).

Download (145KB)
4. Fig. 3. Frequency of adverse reactions in the groups of epinastine 0.05%, olopatadine 0.1%, olopatadine 0.2%.

Download (80KB)

Copyright (c) 2025 Eco-Vector



СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77-65574 от 04 мая 2016 г.