Evaluation of comfort using olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in contact lens wearers compared to placebo using the conjunctival allergen-challenge model

Eye and Contact Lens

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 113-116

  Brodsky, Miguel ^a   Berger, William E ^b   Butrus, Salim ^c,d   Epstein, Arthur B ^e,f   Irkec, Murat ^g  

^a Ophthalmology Department   (Argentina)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^f North Shore Contact Lens & Vision Consultants PC   (United States)

^g HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Comfort; Conjunctival allergen challenge; Olopatadine

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN; OLOPATADINE; PLACEBO; TEARS NATURALE; ANTIALLERGIC AGENT; DIBENZOXEPIN DERIVATIVE; EYE DROPS; HISTAMINE H1 RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST;

ADULT; ALLERGY TEST; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTACT LENS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG INSTILLATION; EVALUATION; EYE DISCOMFORT; EYE IRRITATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; OCULAR PRURITUS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROVOCATION TEST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RATING SCALE; SEASONAL ALLERGIC CONJUNCTIVITIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; ALLERGIC CONJUNCTIVITIS; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHEMICALLY INDUCED DISORDER; CONJUNCTIVA; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG SCREENING; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADULT; ALLERGENS; ANTI-ALLERGIC AGENTS; CONJUNCTIVA; CONJUNCTIVITIS, ALLERGIC; CONTACT LENSES; DIBENZOXEPINS; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; DRUG EVALUATION; FEMALE; HISTAMINE H1 ANTAGONISTS; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; OPHTHALMIC SOLUTIONS; PATIENT SATISFACTION;

EID: 0038545477     PISSN: 15422321     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.ICL.0000063576.32087.F7     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Bausch & Lomb. Annual report to vision care professionals. Dec 2001 p. 8-11. Available at: www.optistock.com/trends_contact_lenses_2001_dec.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2001.
2. Weeke ER. Epidemiology of hay fever and perennial allergic rhinitis. Monogr Allergy 1987;21:1-20.
3. Pritchard N, Fonn D, Brazeau D. Discontinuation of contact lens wear: a survey. Int Contact Lens Clin 1999;26(6):157-162.
4. Abelson MB. Evaluation of olopatadine, a new ophthalmic antiallergic agent with dual activity, using the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Ann Allergy Immunol 1998;81(3):211-8.
5. Abelson MB, Spitalny L. Combined analysis of two studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge model to evaluate olopatadine hydrochloride, a new ophthalmic antiallergic agent with dual activity. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125(6):797-804.
6. Berdy GJ, Spangler DL, Bensch G, et al. A comparison of the relative efficacy and clinical performance of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ther 2000;22:826-833.
7. Brodsky M. Allergic conjunctivitis and contact lenses: experience with olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% therapy. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2000;78:56-59.
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 2000;78:64-65.
9. Abelson, MB. Allergic Diseases of the Eye. Philadelphia, WB Saunders 2000: 205-206.
10. Christensen MT, Barry JR, Turner FD. Five minute removal of soft lenses prevents most absorption of topical ophthalmic solution. CLAO J 1998;24(4):227-31.