Onset and duration of action of ketotifen 0.025% and Emedastine 0.05% in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: Efficacy after repeated pollen challenges in the Vienna Challenge Chamber

Clinical Drug Investigation

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 329-337

  Horak, Friedrich ^a   Stübner, Petra ^a   Zieglmayer, René ^a   Kawina, Alexander ^a   Moser, Michael ^a   Lanz, René ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b Novartis Ophthalmics AG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN; EMEDASTINE; KETOTIFEN FUMARATE;

ADULT; ALLERGIC CONJUNCTIVITIS; ARTICLE; AUSTRIA; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG SAFETY; FEMALE; GRASS POLLEN; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SIDE EFFECT; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SYMPTOM;

EID: 0038554427     PISSN: 11732563     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00044011-200323050-00003     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Weeke ER. Epidemiology of hay fever and perennial allergic rhinitis. Monogr Allergy 1987; 21: 1-20
2. Bielory L. Allergic and immunologic disorders of the eye: Part II. Ocular allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000; 106: 1019-32
3. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Dolovich J. Assessment of quality of life in adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: development and testing of a questionnaire for clinical trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994; 93: 413-23
4. Bonini S, Lambiase A, Juhas T, et al. Allergic conjunctivitis. Dev Ophthalmol 1999; 30: 54-61
5. Abelson MB, Schaefer K. Conjunctivitis of allergic origin: immunologic mechanisms and current approaches to therapy. Surv Ophthalmol 1993; 38 Suppl. 3: 115-32
6. Grant SM, Goa KL, Fitton A, et al. Ketotifen: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in asthma and allergic disorders. Drugs 1990; 40: 412-48
7. Nabe M, Miyagawa H, Agrawal DK, et al. The effect of ketotifen on eosinophils as measured at LTC4 release and by chemotaxis. Allergy Proc 1991; 12: 267-71
8. Gomes PJ, Welch DL, Abelson MB. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of ketotifen fumarate in the allergen challenge model [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: S926
9. Fsadni MG, Lanz R, Taylor HR, et al. Efficacy and safety of ketotifen fumarate eye drops versus vehicle placebo and levocabastine in an environmental study of patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: S368
10. Sharif NA, Su SX, Yanni JM. Emedastine: a potent, high affinity histamine H1-receptor-selective antagonist for ocular use: receptor binding and second messenger studies. J Ocul Pharmacol 1994; 10: 653-64
11. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects [online]. Available from URL: www.wma.net/e/policy/17-c_e/html. [Accessed October 2000]
12. Discepola M, Deschenes J, Abelson M. Comparison of the topical ocular antiallergic efficacy of emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution to ketorolac 0.5% ophthalmic solution in a clinical model of allergic conjunctivitis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 1999; 228: 43-6
13. Netland PA, Leahy C, Krenzer KL. Emedastine ophthalmic solution 0.05% versus levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis using the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 130: 717-23
14. Secchi A, Leonardi A, Discepola M, et al. An efficacy and tolerance comparison of emedastine difumarate 0.05% and levocabastine hydrochloride 0.05%: reducing chemosis and eyelid swelling in subjects with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Emadine Study Group. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 2000; 230: 48-51
15. Verin P, Easty DL, Secchi A, et al. Clinical evaluation of twice-daily emedastine 0.05% eye drops (emadine eye drops) versus levocabastine 0.05% eye drops in patients with allergic conjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol 2001; 131: 691-8
16. Horak F, Jager S. Die Wiener Provokationskammer (Vienna Challenge Chamber). Eine neue Methode des Allergenexpositiontests. Wien Klin Wochenschr 1987; 99: 509-10
17. Cartier A, Bernstein IL, Burge PS, et al. Guidelines for bronchoprovocation on the investigation of occupational asthma. Report of the Subcommittee on Bronchoprovocation for Occupational Asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1989; 84: 823-9
18. Horak F, Stubner P, Zieglmayer R, et al. Effects of desloratadine versus placebo on nasal airflow and subjective measures of nasal obstruction in subjects with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis in an allergen-exposure unit. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 109 (6): 956-61
19. Horak F, Stubner P, Zieglmayer R, et al. Controlled comparison of the efficacy and safety of cetirizine 10mg o.d. and fexofenadine 120mg o.d. in reducing symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2001; 125 (1): 73-0
20. Arnoux B, Denjean A, Page CP, et al. Accumulation of platelets and eosinophils in baboon lung after paf-acether challenge. Inhibition by ketotifen. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988; 137: 855-60
21. Sanjar S, Aoki S, Boubekeur K, et al. Inhibition of PAF-induced eosinophil accumulation in pulmonary airways of guinea pigs by anti-asthma drugs. Jpn J Pharmacol 1989; 51: 167-72
22. D'Arienzo PA, Leonardi A, Bensch G. Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy of emedastine difumarate 0.05% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the human conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ther 2002; 24: 409-16