Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 31610

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : June | Volume : 16 | Issue : 6 | Page : NC01 - NC05 Full Version

Efficacy of Bepotastine versus Olopatadine Ophthalmic Solutions in Mild to Moderate Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis as a Sole Therapy


Published: June 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/55815.16423
Rahul Dara, Vandana Mahaur, Jaya Devendra, Malhar Vyas, Manish Prajapat, Tejinder Singh Ahluwalia

1. Postgraduate Resident, Department of Ophthalmology, National institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, National institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. 3. Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College And Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, National institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. 5. Assistant Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, National institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. 6. Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, National Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Vandana Mahaur,
Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, NIMS Medical College and Hospital, NIMS University, NH-11C, Delhi-Jaipur Express way, Jaipur-303121, Rajasthan, India.
E-mail: vandanarai10@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, seasonally exacerbated allergic ocular inflammation of the conjunctiva. It affects predominantly the school going male population and is not so common. There is a paucity of comparative studies on efficacies of dual-action topical agents having both antihistamine and mast cell stabilizing properties. These are currently the first line drugs in the management of mild to moderate VKC.

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of bepotastine besilate 1.5% and olopatadine Hydrochloride (HCl) 0.1%, ophthalmic solutions in mild to moderate VKC patients.

Materials and Methods: This prospective, comparative study was conducted in the Ophthalmology Department at National Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India, from January 2020 to January 2021. It included 76 patients having mild to moderate VKC who were randomized into two groups of 38 patients each. Each group was assigned to be treated with one of the two treatment options namely bepotastine besilate 1.5% and olopatadine HCl 0.1% ophthalmic solutions. Typical symptoms and signs of VKC like ocular itching, watering, mucoid discharge, conjunctival hyperaemia and tarsal papillary hypertrophy were recorded at baseline and at the time of follow-up on 7th day, 15th and 30th day using simplified scoring 4-point scales ranging from 0-3. Safety assessment was also done. Friedman’s test and Mann-Whitney’s U test were performed for intra-arm and inter-arm analysis of continuous variables respectively. Nominal categorical data between the groups were compared using the Chi-square test. The p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results: The mean age of the participants was 10.49 ± 2.95 years and the male to female ratio (M:F) was 1.7:1. After 30 days of drug therapy, patients in both arms showed significant improvement in the symptoms and signs scoring of VKC. There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy on inter-arm analysis at baseline and subsequent follow-ups. Almost all patients became free from their symptoms and signs at the end of the study. However, 25 of 38 (65.8%) patients in bepotastine treated group and 23 of 38 (60.5%) patients in olopatadine treated group had residual tarsal papillae. None of the patients in either group reported any significant adverse effects.

Conclusion: Both bepotastine besilate 1.5% and olopatadine HCl 0.1% ophthalmic solutions are safe and equally effective in alleviating the clinical symptoms and signs of mild to moderate VKC.

Keywords

Allergic conjunctivitis, Antihistamines, Mast cell stabilizers, Topical, Treatment

Ocular allergic diseases are common worldwide and mainly consist of conjunctivitis with or without involvement of cornea. Allergic Conjunctivitis (AC) is the most common type of ocular allergy and affects 6-30 % of the general population and up to 30% of children and adolescents (1). Eye allergies can be seasonal, perennial, or chronic; and, are a part of generalized allergic syndromes like seasonal or perennial keratoconjunctivitis which are directly related to allergic diseases like rhinitis, asthma, or other atopic conditions (2). Ocular surface diseases are classified into Seasonal Allergic Conjunctivitis (SAC), Perennial Allergic Conjunctivitis (PAC), Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis (VKC), Atopic Keratoconjunctivitis (AKC), contact blepharoconjunctivitis; and non allergic hypersensitivity ailments like Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis (GPC) (3).

The VKC is a chronic, recurrent, bilateral inflammation of the conjunctiva mainly occurring in kids and adolescents with a male predominance. It is a seasonal allergic disease, but in severe cases, it may turn into a perennial one. It includes a wide spectrum of manifestations like intense itching, tearing, red eye, foreign body sensation, mucus discharge, photophobia, lid oedema, chemosis, papillae hypertrophy in tarsal and/or limbal areas, giant papillae, Horner-Trantas dots, and corneal epitheliopathy (4), (5).

VKC has a world wide occurrence, usually affects young males in dry and hot climatic regions. In western Europe in a survey, the prevalence of the disease ranged from 1.16 to 10.55 per 10,000 population. The disease is common in temperate zones of Mediterranean areas, Central and West Africa, the Middle East, Japan, the Indian subcontinent and South America. In regions of Cameroon, Turkey, India, and Israel, prevalence ranges from 3% to 10% in younger population (6). Two studies from northern and southern parts of India also reported the prevalence of VKC to be 5.1% and 18% in school going children (7),(8).

In VKC, avoidance of allergens/triggers along with basic eye hygienic practices should be advocated in all patients. Topical agents having dual antihistaminic and mast cell stabilizing activity are first line measures in in mild to moderate cases; in refractory, complicated and severe cases, additional treatment options are corticosteroids and immunomodulators. Surgical treatment may be required in complications like shield ulcers, corneal opacities, refractory giant papillae (6),(9).

Olopatadine was the first dual-action topical agent approved for the treatment of AC, with the convenience of once or twice daily preparations, and was more effective than second-generation oral or topical antihistamines. In addition, when compared to ketotifen, epinastine, and azelastine, it had a better efficacy and was more comforting for patients (10). Bepotastine is the last to be approved among dual-action topical agents; and has demonstrated superior efficacy in controlling the allergic symptoms in AC when compared with other drugs having similar properties (11),(12).

Olopatadine is an effective, freely available, cheaper, and with the option of once daily dosing, it is a reasonable alternative to bepotastine for a rural population with limited resources. There is a dearth of comparative studies in VKC, hence it was thought prudent to compare the efficacy and safety of olopatadine and bepotastine mild to moderate VKC.

Material and Methods

This prospective comparative study was conducted in the Ophthalmology Outpatient Department (OPD) at National Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India, from January 2020 to January 2021. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (vide letter no. NIMSUNI/IEC/2019/118, dated 9th December 2019). It was conducted in accordance with the principles of good clinical practice and the declaration of Helsinki. Patients (or their parents when aged <18 yrs) were explained the procedures and written informed consent was obtained in the local language; for illiterate people, left thumb marks were taken.

Diagnosing VKC: As VKC is common in school going children and mostly resolves after puberty, all consecutive patients of 5 to 18 years of age presenting in OPD with symptoms of AC during the said period were screened for the disease. Screened patients underwent a detailed history and ocular examination by an Ophthalmologist. Patients with bilateral chronic, recurrent or persistent symptoms, complaining predominantly of pruritus, watering, mucoid discharge, foreign body sensation, photophobia; having conjunctival hyperaemia and papillary hypertrophy in the upper tarsal conjunctiva with or without the presence of limbal papilla were diagnosed as VKC. All patients selected for the study had the tarsal form of VKC (13),(14).

Inclusion criteria: Patients of either sex of 5 to 18 years of age having diagnosed with mild and moderate VKC with tarsal involvement and willing to give written informed consent for enrolment and follow up were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients having severe forms of VKC, those requiring topical steroids or topical immunosuppressive agents or any systemic therapy, patients with large tarsal papillae (>3 mm size) or severe limbal involvement including Horner-Trantas dots, patients with corneal involvement or, with conjunctival or lid scarring, patients having hypersensitivity or contraindication to either agent, single-eyed patients, contact lens wearers, those planning surgery during the study period, patients having history of ocular trauma or ocular surgery, or any active ocular inflammatory or pathological conditions, those who received topical or systemic confounding drugs (antihistamines, steroids and immunemodulators) in last 7 days before enrolment and patients unwilling for giving consent or follow-up for 30 days were excluded from the study.

Total 76 consecutive patients of mild to moderate VKC, fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria, who visited OPD during the study period constituted the sample size and were randomized. The patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups by the chit and box method.

• Group 1 (n=38) received bepotastine Besilate (1.5%) 1 drop twice daily in both eyes for 30 days.
• Group 2 (n=38) received Olopatadine HCl (0.1%), 1 drop twice daily in both eyes for 30 days.

Procedure

Objective symptoms such as itching, watering, mucoid discharge; and signs such as conjunctival hyperaemia, and tarsal papillae hypertrophy were observed and recorded in a standardized proforma at baseline and follow-ups. For simplified, easy to perform and uniform grading of each symptom and sign at every visit, 4-point scoring scales (0-3) were used (12),(13),(15).

Scales used by Muller GG et al., were followed for grading of symptoms (13).

Itching:

• Grade 0 indicated no itching.
• Grade 1 indicated occasional desire to scratch.
• Grade 2 indicated frequent desire to scratch.
• Grade 3 indicated a constant desire to itch interfering with daily activities.

Watering (tearing):

• Grade 0 indicated no watering.
• Grade 1 indicated occasional tearing.
• Grade 2 indicated intermittent tearing.
• Grade 3 indicated constant watering disrupting daily activities.

Mucoid discharge:

• Grade 0 indicated no discharge.
• Grade 1 indicated little discharge in the fornix.
• Grade 2 indicated moderate discharge in the fornix, with crusting on eyelashes.
• Grade 3 indicated daily abundant discharge with eyes sticking on waking, or needed washing several times a day.

Scale used by Ayyanppanavar S et al., was followed for grading of hyperaemia (12).

• Grade 0 indicated absence of conjunctival hyperaemia.
• Grade 1 indicated mild reddish colour.
• Grade 2 indicated moderate bright red colour.
• Grade 3 indicated a bright and intense diffuse hyperaemia.

Scale used by Bonini S et al. was followed for grading of tarsal papillae (15).

• Grade 0 indicated no tarsal papillae.
• Grade 1 indicated few small papillae <0.3 mm.
• Grade 2 indicated papillae of 0.3 to 1 mm over the tarsal conjunctiva.
• Grade 3 indicated papillae of 1 to 3 mm all over the tarsal conjunctiva.

Patients were examined on day 0 (before treatment) and later on the 7th day, 15th day, and 30th day after initiation of treatment. Side effects were noted as per adverse drug reaction forms. During the study period, no patient was lost to follow-up.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0, IBM, Chicago, IL, USA. Continuous variables were expressed as mean±SD and categorical variables were expressed as absolute numbers and percentages. The comparison of non normally distributed continuous variables within the study group (intra-arm analysis) was performed using the Friedman’s test. The comparison between non normally distributed continuous variables among the study groups (inter-arm analysis) was performed using Mann-Whitney’s U test. Nominal categorical data between the groups were compared using the Chi-square test. The p-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Both the groups were matched at baseline for age and gender. The overall age of the participants was 10.49±2.95 years and the Male to Female ratio (M:F) was 1.7:1.

In overall 76 patients of VKC, three characteristic complaints were analysed; these were itching in 75 (98.6%), watering in 75 (98.6%), and ropy mucoid discharge in 65 (85.5%) patients. Mean symptom scores of itching, watering and eye discharge on presentation (day 0), and on subsequent follow-ups in both groups are shown in (Table/Fig 1), (Table/Fig 2), (Table/Fig 3) respectively.

Mean symptoms scores of itching, watering, and discharge were comparable in both the treatment groups at baseline. There was no significant difference in reduction of any mean symptoms scores when the drug effects were compared between group 1 and group 2 patients in all subsequent visits (Table/Fig 1), (Table/Fig 2), (Table/Fig 3). This showed that both bepotastine and olopatadine were equally efficacious in controlling itching, watering, and mucoid discharge in patients having mild to moderate VKC.

All mean symptom scores showed a significant decrease at end of the study (30th day) in each treatment arm when compared from baseline suggesting that both Bepostatine and Olopatadine were efficacious in controlling the cardinal symptoms of VKC. Almost all patients were relieved of ocular itching, watering and mucoid discharge at the end of the study (defined as a reduction of at least 2 points in symptom score from baseline, or a symptom score of 0) in both treatment arms; their efficacies were comparable (p-value >0.05, NS, Chi-square test) (Table/Fig 4), (Table/Fig 5).

Efficacy of bepotastine and olopatadine was also studied on mucosal hyperaemia and tarsal papillary hypertrophy. There was a significant reduction in mean hyperaemia and papillary scores in study groups at follow-up visits, suggesting that both drugs were effective in relieving these signs in mild to moderate VKC. The efficacy of both drugs in reducing mucosal hyperaemia and papillary hypertrophy was comparable at each follow-up (Table/Fig 6), (Table/Fig 7).

Mucosal hyperaemia was relieved in 32 of 35 (91.4%) patients in bepotastine group, and 30 of 36 (83.3%) patients in olopatadine group at the end of the study. Although there was a significant improvement in mean papillary scores with bepotastine and olopatadine on all subsequent visits, 25 of 38 (65.8%) patients in bepotastine group and 23 of 38 (60.5%) patients in olopatadine group had residual tarsal papillae (Table/Fig 4), (Table/Fig 5). The effect of drugs was again comparable in relieving mucosal hyperaemia and papillary hypertrophy (p-value >0.05, NS, Chi-square test).

None of the patients in either group reported any significant side effects. No patient worsened during the treatment period and none dropped out during the study period.

Discussion

The VKC is a relatively uncommon, chronic, allergic disease of the conjunctiva, characterized by severe itching, sticky ropy mucous discharge, conjunctival hyperaemia, and large papillae in the upper tarsal and/or limbus with corneal involvement in some (15),(16).

In present study, mean age of the patients was 10.49 ± 2.95 years and the M:F was 1.7:1. Studies from India have shown a similar age and male predominance. Saboo US et al., showed that the mean age at presentation was 12 years ± 6.63 years and M:F was 6.4:1 in patients of VKC (17). Nagpal H et al., reported that among 150 patients of VKC, 110 (73.33%) were males and 40 (26.67%) were females, the highest incidence occurred in the age group 11-15 years (18). Leonardi and co-workers in one of the largest case series of 406 VKC patients from Italy showed a M:F of 3.3:1; 83% of patients were under 10 years of age, only 4% were aged 20 years or above (14).

Basic eye care, avoidance of allergens or provocative stimuli, and dual-acting topical drugs with antihistamine and mast cell stabilizing properties are corner stones of management of mild to moderate cases of VKC (6),(9),(16).

Olopatadine is one such topical agent and is shown to be efficacious in reducing symptoms of AC; scores better than antihistamines (10). It is a low-cost, effective, widely available therapy in India and without significant adverse effects (12),(19),(20). Bepotastine, is also a similar drug, however it is less freely available and relatively costlier. It has been compared with olopatadine and other dual-action topical agents like alcaftadine in AC and was found to be more effective in controlling allergic symptoms, reducing ocular discomfort, and was preferred by patients in a few studies. (11),(12),(19).

In Indian regions having a dry and hot climate during spring and summers, VKC is relatively common in the younger population (7),(8),(17),(18). There is a lack of well-conducted, good-quality studies comparing the efficacy of olopatadine with bepotastine in VKC. In a study of 50 patients of VKC, Shruti V et al., demonstrated that Bepotastine 1.5% eye drops provided better and quicker relief of watering, ocular discomfort, and conjunctival hyperaemia after 8 weeks of follow-up; olopatadine 0.1% eye drops provided faster improvement in papillary hypertrophy. However, both drugs were equally effective in reducing itching (21). In another comparative study from North India, Gupta P et al., randomized 65 patients of VKC aged 5-15 years in two study arms. Patients in arm A were given Bepotastine 1.5% and those in arm B were given Olopatadine 0.1% twice daily. After 3 weeks of therapy, patients in both arms showed similar improvement in the composite symptoms and signs severity scores. In contrast to Shruti V et al., they have shown that reduction in ocular itching score was more in the bepotastine arm as compared to the olopatadine arm (22). Both the studies, however, didn’t mention whether they have excluded severe cases of VKC who would have required other pharmacological interventions in addition to topical dual-action agents. In a recent Indian study, Malahat AR et al., studied 50 patients of VKC without severe symptoms who did not require topical steroids or immunosuppressive agents for 3 months. They demonstrated that both olopatadine and bepotastinewere equally efficacious in improving itching and foreign body sensation scores, and for the reduction in papillary hypertrophy scores. Although the reduction in watering and conjunctival hyperaemia scores was more in the bepotastine group at 1 week and 1 month, at further follow-up at 3 months, there was no significant difference in the two study groups (23). However, the authors have not elaborated whether the reduction in signs and symptoms scores in each treatment arm was statistically significant at the end of the study when compared from baseline (23).

Present study comprised of 76 patients, in which the efficacy of bepotastine 1.5% ophthalmic solution and olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution in controlling major symptoms and signs of mild to moderate VKC patients was compared. Patients with severe manifestations of VKC were excluded as they often need other topical and systemic agents. The study demonstrated that both agents were very efficacious in reducing symptoms of itching, tearing, mucosal discharge; and in reduction of conjunctival hyperaemia at the end of the study period. There was no statistical difference in mean symptoms/sign scores among both agents at any follow-up or the end of the study. This suggested that both the drugs had equal efficacy in reducing common discomforting symptoms and signs of VKC.

Bepotastine and olopatadine were also equally effective in reducing papillary hypertrophy. This finding is different from that reported by Shruti V et al. wherein olopatadine was more effective than Bepotastine in reducing papillary hypertrophy in VKC patients (22). Mahalat et al., have shown that the efficacy of both the topical agents was comparable in reducing papillary hypertrophy in VKC cases, however, they did not mention whether the reduction in each group was statistically significant (23). On the contrary, Dudeja et al have demonstrated that topical dual-action agents were ineffective in the reduction of tarsal papillary hypertrophy, although their study groups comprised of mild to moderate cases of AC instead of VKC (19). In present study also, it was observed that despite significant improvement in papillary scores in both groups, a considerable number of patients had persistent albeit smaller lesions at the end of follow-up. This suggests that agents having antihistamine and mast cell stabilizing properties, predominantly offer symptomatic relief of allergic symptoms as well as reduction in papillary inflammation and size; however, treatment with more potent agents like topical or systemic steroids/immuno-modulators should be considered in VKC patients having residual papillae or severe disease.

Bepotastine 1.5% eye drops and olopatadine 0.1% eye drops are very safe and devoid of significant adverse effects, none of the patients reported any adverse event, and none dropped out during the study period. Other studies nevertheless reported few, mild and transient adverse effects of topical bepotastine and olopatadine in the management of AC and VKC patients; however, none of the patients enrolled in these studies discontinued treatment because of significant adverse effects. Adverse effects that were reported in these studies were headache, mild taste impairment, mild redness or irritation of eyes, and sore throat (11),(12),(19), (21), (22).

Limitation(s)

There were several limitations of the present study. As this was a single centre study, the sample size was small; and the efficacy of treatment could be ascertained only against regional allergens. Severe cases of VKC were excluded, hence the effects of bepotastine or olopatadine as an adjunct to other pharmacological agents could not be studied. The effect of bepotastine and olopatadine on signs and symptoms associated with severe VKC like photophobia, chemosis, severe limbal involvement including Horner Trantas dots and corneal involvement could not be studied. This was an open-labelled study, so there is a possibility of influence of product marketing and previous experiences of the patients.

Conclusion

In current study, both topical bepotastine and olopatadine ophthalmic solutions significantly reduced typical signs/symptoms of VKC like itching, watering, mucoid discharge, conjunctival hyperaemia and papillary hypertrophy in mild to moderate disease. The interarm analysis also suggested both the agents were equally efficacious in reducing these common signs and symptoms. Olopatadine use in mild to moderate VKC is efficacious, safe, less costly, and readily available treatment. It is thus more commonly prescribed than bepotastine in general practice and seems to be more suitable for improving compliance and effectively managing less severe VKC in underprivileged patients of rural and remote areas of India. In future, studies comparing olopatadine and bepotastine with other topical agents with dual antihistamine and mast cell stabilizing effects like alcaftadine can be conducted in VKC similar to other studies done on AC. It is also recommended to perform a randomized, double-masked, crossover studies with adequate sample size during all seasons over couple of years, and at different geographical locations to better define the best initial topical therapy for patients with mild to moderate VKC.

References

1.
Leonardi A, Castegnaro A, Valerio ALG, Lazzarini D. Epidemiology of allergic conjunctivitis: clinical appearance and treatment patterns in a population-based study. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;359:482-88. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Bremond-Gignac D. The clinical spectrum of ocular allergy. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2002;2(4):321-24. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Sánchez-Hernández MC, Montero J, Rondon C, del Castillo JB, Velázquez E, Herreras JM, Fernández-Parra B, et al. Consensus document on allergic conjunctivitis (DECA). J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2015;25(2):94-106.
4.
Bonini S, Coassin M, Aronni S, Lambiase A. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Eye. 2004;18(4):345-51. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
La Rosa M, Lionetti E, Reibaldi M, Russo A, Longo A, Leonardi S, et al. Allergic conjunctivitis: A comprehensive review of the literature. Ital J Pediatr. 2013;39(1):01-08. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Singhal D, Sahay P, Maharana PK, Raj N, Sharma N, Titiyal JS. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Surv Ophthalmol. 2019 1;64(3):289-311. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Sharma S, Vashisht B, Kalhan M, Goel M. Ocular infection in school children in a rural block of Haryana. The Internet Journal of Epidemiology. 2009;6(2). [cited 2022 Feb 12] Available from: https://ispub.com/IJE/6/2/10025. doi: 10.5580/1b57. [crossref]
8.
Ashwini K. V, Dhatri K, Rajeev K. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis in school children in North Bangalore: An Epidemiological and Clinical Evaluation. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2015;4(86):15070-76. [crossref]
9.
Kumar S, Gupta N, Vivian AJ. Modern approach to managing vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2010 May;10(3):155-62. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Víquez SR, Víquez CR, González PR, Sánchez GA, Sánchez-Hernández MC, Santiago AL. Diagnosis and Management of Allergic Conjunctivitis. Curr Treat Options Allergy. 2018;5(2):256-65. [crossref]
11.
McCabe CF, McCabe SE. Comparative efficacy of bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic solution versus olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% ophthalmic solution evaluated by patient preference. Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ). 2012;6:1731. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Ayyappanavar S, Sridhar S, Kumar K, Jayanthi CR, Gangasagara SB, Rathod BS, et al. Comparative analysis of safety and efficacy of Alcaftadine 0.25%, Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.2% and Bepotastine besilate 1.5% in allergic conjunctivitis. Indian J of Ophthalmol. 2021;69(2):257. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Müller GG, José NK, de Castro RS. Topical tacrolimus 0.03% as sole therapy in vernal keratoconjunctivitis: a randomized double-masked study. Eye & Contact Lens. 2014;40(2):79-83. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Leonardi A. Busca F, Motterle L, Cavarzeran F, Fregona IA, Plebani M, et al. Case series of 406 vernal keratoconjunctivitis patients: a demographic and epidemiological study. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84(3):406-10. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Bonini S, Bonini S, Lambiase A, Marchi S, Pasqualetti P, Zuccaro O, et al. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis revisited: a case series of 195 patients with long-term follow up. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(6):1157-63. [crossref]
16.
Bonini S, Sacchetti M, Mantelli F, Lambiase A. Clinical grading of vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;7(5):436-41. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Saboo US, Jain M, Reddy JC, Sangwan VS. Demographic and clinical profile of vernal keratoconjunctivitis at a tertiary eye care center in India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013;61(9):486. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Nagpal H, Rani N, Kaur M. A retrospective study about clinical profile of vernal keratoconjunctivitis patients at a tertiary care hospital in Patiala, Punjab, India. Kerala Journal of Ophthalmology. 2017;29(3):189. [crossref]
19.
Dudeja L, Janakiraman A, Dudeja I, Sane K, Babu M. Observer-masked trial comparing efficacy of topical olopatadine (0.1%), bepotastine (1.5%), and alcaftadine (0.25%) in mild to moderate allergic conjunctivitis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019;67(9):1400. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Ajmani U, Aggarwal A, Singh K, Kaur P, SP M, Shivani. Comparative Efficacy of Olopatadine 0.2%, Bepotastine 1.5% and Alcaftadine 0.25% in Treatment of Allergic Conjunctivitis. Acta Scientific Ophthalmology. 2021;4(2):15-21.
21.
Sruthi V, Reddy RN, Sowmini K, Grace NS. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution and bepotastine 1.5% ophthalmic solution in patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis in a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Pharmacol. 2020;52(6):476. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Gupta P, Baishnab S, Rewri P. Comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety of bepotastine besilate 1.5% ophthalmic solution versus olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution in patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2021;10(5):552. [crossref]
23.
Malahat AR, Kodudula S, Gali VL. A prospective comparative study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olopatadine eye drops and bepotastine eye drops in subjects of vernal kerato conjunctivitis. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2020;9(5):706-11. [crossref]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/55815.16423

Date of Submission: Feb 28, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Mar 26, 2022
Date of Acceptance: May 05, 2022
Date of Publishing: Jun 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 08, 2022
• Manual Googling: Mar 16, 2022
• iThenticate Software: May 04, 2022 (21%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com