Purpose: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of 0.1% fluorometholone and 0.1% pranoprofen in cases with chronic allergic conjunctivitis.
Methods: In an investigator-masked trial, patients with chronic allergic conjunctivitis were randomized to treatment with 4 times daily 0.1% pranoprofen (PN) or 0.1% fluorometholone (FL) eye drops for 4 weeks. A 4-point rating scale assessing the severity of 5 symptoms and 4 signs (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe) was used. A linear mixed model was used to explore the rate of score changes. Regression analysis was used to evaluate the relation between clinical outcome and age.
Results: A total of 75 patients were enrolled at the baseline. There were no significant differences in the demographics and baseline skin prick scores between both groups. Mean baseline scores in PN and FL group were 6.71 ± 2.28 and 6.41 ± 2.06, respectively. The scores rapidly decreased to 3.35 ± 1.58 and 2.91 ± 1.71 on day 7, respectively. Fluorometholone showed a more rapid effect compared with pranoprofen during the first week of treatment (P < 0.05) but not later. Regression analysis showed that age was negatively associated with response to fluorometholone (younger than 29 years). The intraocular pressure increased by 0.7 mm Hg in the FL group and decreased by 0.5 mm Hg in the PN group on day 28 (P > 0.05).
Conclusions: Both fluorometholone and pranoprofen were effective for management of cases with chronic allergic conjunctivitis. Fluorometholone provided more rapid relief as compared with pranoprofen. The effect of fluorometholone was more pronounced in younger patients.
*Department of Ophthalmology, Provincial Hospital affiliated with Shandong University, Ji'nan, Shandong Province, China
†Clinical College of Ophthalmology, Tian'jin Medical University, Tian'jin, China
‡Department of Immunology, Provincial Hospital affiliated with Shandong University, Ji'nan City, China
§Department of Visual Sciences and Ophthalmology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
¶Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Reprints: Lihua Wang, Department of Ophthalmology, Shandong Provincial Hospital, No. 324, Jing 5 Road, Ji'nan City, Shandong Province, China (e-mail: email@example.com).
The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.
Received March 21, 2012
Accepted June 18, 2012