Literature DB >> 18691985

Ocular comfort and drying effects of three topical antihistamine/mast cell stabilizers in adults with allergic conjunctivitis: a randomized, double-masked crossover study.

Gail L Torkildsen1, George W Ousler, Paul Gomes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare short-term (5-minute) ocular comfort and drying effects of 3 topical antihistamine/mast cell stabilizers-epinastine, azelastine, and ketotifen-in patients with allergic conjunctivitis (AC).
METHODS: Adults with a history of AC, as confirmed on skin testing conducted within the previous 2 years, were enrolled in this single-center, randomized, double-masked crossover study. At visit 1, patients were randomized to receive a single drop of epinastine in 1 eye and either azelastine or ketotifen in the other eye. Ocular comfort was assessed by patients on an 11-point scale (0 = very comfortable to 10 = very uncomfortable) immediately (0 minute) and at 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 minutes after instillation. Patients were also asked to describe how their eyes felt at 3 minutes using a standardized list of positive (soothing, smooth, refreshing, cool, and comfortable), neutral (thick, sticky, and filmy), and negative (stinging, irritating, and burning) descriptor words. At visits 2 to 4, patients were examined for ocular drying and tear-film stability using fluorescein staining and ocular protection index (OPI) evaluation, respectively.
RESULTS: A total of 40 patients (27 women, 13 men; mean age, 40 years [range, 18-73 years]) were included in the study. The mean comfort score was significantly lower (indicating more comfort) with epinastine compared with azelastine at 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 minutes (between-treatment differences, 2.90, 1.85, 1.35, and 0.63, respectively; P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.019) and compared with ketotifen immediately after instillation (between-treatment difference, 1.2; P = 0.014). The mean ocular comfort score was significantly lower with ketotifen compared with azelastine at 0.5, 1, and 2 minutes (between-treatment differences, 2.35, 1.35, and 1.10, respectively; P = 0.001, P = 0.023, and P = 0.028). A majority (85%) of patients chose positive comfort descriptors to describe epinastine versus 34% with azelastine. No significant differences in fluorescein staining or OPI were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: In this small study in patients with AC, following administration of a single drop, epinastine was rated as more comfortable than azelastine and ketotifen. None of the tested medications were associated with significant acute ocular drying effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18691985     DOI: 10.1016/s0149-2918(08)80050-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Ther        ISSN: 0149-2918            Impact factor:   3.393


  8 in total

1.  Discovery to Launch of Anti-allergy (Emadine; Patanol/Pataday/Pazeo) and Anti-glaucoma (Travatan; Simbrinza) Ocular Drugs, and Generation of Novel Pharmacological Tools Such as AL-8810.

Authors:  Najam A Sharif
Journal:  ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci       Date:  2020-11-05

2.  Azelastine hydrochloride, a dual-acting anti-inflammatory ophthalmic solution, for treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Authors:  Patricia B Williams; Elizabeth Crandall; John D Sheppard
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-09-07

3.  Efficacy of montelukast in preventing seasonal recurrence of vernal keratoconjunctivitis in children.

Authors:  Apurva Hardas; Neera Singh; Amrita Mohanty; Srikant Kumar Sahu
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 4.456

4.  Disease aetiology-based design of multifunctional microemulsion eye drops for moderate or severe dry eye: a randomized, quadruple-masked and active-controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Jarmo Laihia; Riikka Järvinen; Edward Wylęgała; Kai Kaarniranta
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 3.761

5.  Safety and tolerability of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0%: Pooled analysis of five randomized controlled trials in dry eye disease.

Authors:  Kelly K Nichols; Eric D Donnenfeld; Paul M Karpecki; John A Hovanesian; Aparna Raychaudhuri; Amir Shojaei; Steven Zhang
Journal:  Eur J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 2.597

6.  A single-center study evaluating the effect of the controlled adverse environment (CAE(SM)) model on tear film stability.

Authors:  Richard Abelson; Keith J Lane; John Rodriguez; Patrick Johnston; Endri Angjeli; George Ousler; Douglas Montgomery
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-11-13

7.  Validation and verification of the OPI 2.0 System.

Authors:  Richard Abelson; Keith J Lane; John Rodriguez; Patrick Johnston; Endri Angjeli; George Ousler; Douglas Montgomery
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-04-24

8.  Ocular comfort assessment of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% in OPUS-3, a Phase III randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Kelly K Nichols; Edward Holland; Melissa M Toyos; James H Peace; Parag Majmudar; Aparna Raychaudhuri; Mohamed Hamdani; Monica Roy; Amir Shojaei
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-01-31
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.