CLEVELAND CLINIC JOURNAL OF MEDICINE VOLUME 82 • NUMBER 12 DECEMBER 2015
813
GONZALEZ-ESTRADA AND NEWTON
Corticosteroid eyedrops are reserved for
refractory and severe cases. Their use requires
close follow-up with an ophthalmologist to
monitor for complications such as increased
intraocular pressure, infection, and cataracts.
2
Patients presenting with an acute severe
episode of allergic conjunctivitis that has not
responded to oral antihistamines or combi-
nation eyedrops may be treated with a short
course of an oral corticosteroid, if the bene t
outweighs the risk in that patient.
Oral antihistamines are generally less effec-
tive than topical ophthalmic agents in reliev-
ing ocular allergy symptoms and have a slower
onset of action.
2
They are useful in patients
who have an aversion to instilling eyedrops on
a regular basis or who wear contact lenses.
For patients who have associated allergic rhi-
nitis—ie, most patients with allergic conjuncti-
vitis—intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal
antihistamines are the most effective treatments
for rhinitis and are also effective for allergic
conjunctivitis. Monotherapy with an intranasal
medication may provide suf cient relief of con-
junctivitis symptoms or allow ocular medica-
tions to be used on a less frequent basis.
Allergen immunotherapy
Referral to an allergist for consideration of al-
lergen immunotherapy is an option when avoid-
ance measures are ineffective or unfeasible, when
rst-line treatments are ineffective, and when the
patient does not wish to use medications.
Allergen immunotherapy is the only disease-
modifying therapy available for allergic con-
junctivitis. Two forms are available: traditional
subcutaneous immunotherapy, and sublingual
tablet immunotherapy, recently approved by the
US Food and Drug Administration.
9
Subcuta-
neous immunotherapy targets speci c aeroaller-
gens for patients allergic to multiple allergens.
The new sublingual immunotherapy tablets tar-
get only grass pollen and ragweed pollen.
9
Most
patients in the United States are polysensi-
tized.
10
Both forms of immunotherapy can result
in sustained effectiveness following discontinu-
ation. Sub lingual therapy may be administered
year-round, before allergy season, or during al-
lergy season (depending on the type of allergy).
■ TAILORING TREATMENT
We recommend a case-by-case approach to the
management of patients with allergic conjunc-
tivitis, tailoring treatment to the patient’s symp-
toms, allergen pro le, and personal preferences.
For example, if adherence is a challenge
we recommend a once-daily combination
eyedrop (olopatadine 0.2%, or alcaftadine). If
cost is a barrier, we recommend the combina-
tion over-the-counter drop (ketotifen).
Medications may be used during allergy
season or year-round depending on the pa-
tient’s symptom and allergen pro le. Patients
whose symptoms are not relieved with these
measures should be referred to an allergist for
further evaluation and management, or to an
ophthalmologist to monitor for complications
of topical steroid use and other warning signs,
as discussed earlier, or to weigh in on the dif-
ferential diagnosis.
■
■ REFERENCES
1. Bielory L, Friedlaender MH. Allergic conjunctivitis. Immunol Allergy Clin
North Am 2008; 28:43–58.
2. Bielory L, Meltzer EO, Nichols KK, Melton R, Thomas RK, Bartlett JD. An
algorithm for the management of allergic conjunctivitis. Allergy Asthma
Proc 2013; 34:408–420.
3. Wallace DV, Dykewicz MS, Bernstein DI, et al; Joint Task Force on Practice;
American Academy of Allergy; Asthma & Immunology; American College
of Allergy; Asthma and Immunology; Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma
and Immunology. The diagnosis and management of rhinitis: an updated
practice parameter. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008; 122(suppl 2):S1–S84.
4. Guest JF, Clegg JP, Smith AF. Health economic impact of olopatadine
compared to branded and generic sodium cromoglycate in the treat-
ment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin
2006; 22:1777–1785.
5. Leonardi A, Zafi rakis P. Effi cacy and comfort of olopatadine versus
ketotifen ophthalmic solutions: a double-masked, environmental study
of patient preference. Curr Med Res Opin 2004; 20:1167–1173.
6. Ganz M,Koll E,Gausche J,Detjen P,Orfan N. Ketotifenfumarate andolopa-
tadinehydrochloride in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis: a real-world
comparison of effi cacy and ocular comfort. Adv Ther 2003; 20:79–91.
7. Aguilar AJ. Comparative study of clinical effi cacy and tolerance in
seasonal allergic conjunctivitis management with 0.1% olopatadine
hydrochloride versus 0.05% ketotifen fumarate. Acta Ophthalmol Scand
Suppl2000; 230:52–55.
8. Artal MN,Luna JD,Discepola M. A forced choice comfort study of
olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% versus ketotifen fumarate 0.05%. Acta
Ophthalmol Scand Suppl2000; 230:64–65.
9. Cox L. Sublingual immunotherapy for aeroallergens: status in the
United States. Allergy Asthma Proc 2014; 35:34–42.
10. Salo PM, Arbes SJ Jr, Jaramillo R, et al. Prevalence of allergic sensitization in
the United States: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examina-
tion Survey (NHANES) 2005-2006. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014; 134:350–359.
ADDRESS: Lisanne P. Newton, MD, Department of Allergy and Clinical
Immunology, Respiratory Institute, A120, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid
on September 15, 2024. For personal use only. All other uses require permission.www.ccjm.orgDownloaded from