Comparative efficacy of olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution versus levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension using the conjunctival allergen challenge model

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Volumn 20, Issue 12, 2004, Pages 1953-1958

  Abelson, Mark B ^a,b,c   Greiner, Jack V ^a,b,c  

^a Ophthalmic Research Associates   (United States)

^b SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Conjunctival allergen challenge; Levocabastine; Ocular allergy; Olopatadine

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN; LEVOCABASTINE; OLOPATADINE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL FEATURE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONJUNCTIVAL ALLERGEN TEST; CONJUNCTIVAL HYPEREMIA; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; EYE DISCOMFORT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OCULAR PRURITUS; PROVOCATION TEST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SIDE EFFECT; SKIN TEST; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CONJUNCTIVITIS, ALLERGIC; DIBENZOXEPINS; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HISTAMINE H1 ANTAGONISTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPHTHALMIC SOLUTIONS; PIPERIDINES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 13144265736     PISSN: 03007995     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1185/030079904X5724     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Gilman AG, Ral TW, Nies AS, Taylor P editors, Goodman and Gilman's the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. New York (NY): Pergamon Press, 1990
2. Christiansen SC. Evaluation and treatment of the allergic patient. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1998;28:282
3. Wiens JJ, Jackson WB. New directions in the therapy for ocular allergy. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1988;28:332
4. Abelson MB, Soter NA, Simon MA, Dohlman J, Allansmith MR. Histamine in human tears. Am J Ophthalmol 1977;83(3):417-8
5. Udell IJ, Abelson MB. Animal and human ocular surface response to a topical nonimmune mast-cell degranulation agent (compound 48/80). Am J Ophthalmol 1981;9I(2):226-30
6. Abelson MB, George MA, Schefer K Smith LM. Evaluation of the new ophthalmic antihistamine 0.05% levocabastine in the clinical allergen challenge model of allergic conjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994;94(3 pt1):458-64
7. Abelson MB, George MA, Smith LW. Evaluation of 0.05% levocabastine versus 4% sodium cromolyn in the allergen challenge model. Ophthalmology 1995;102:310-6
8. Physicians desk reference for ophthalmic medicines, 32nd ed. Medical Economics: Thomson Healthcare, 2004 [p. 208-9;289]
9. 1 receptors in the human ocular surface. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1981;20(Suppl):32
10. Jennings B. Mechanisms, diagnosis and management of common ocular allergies. J Am Optom Assoc 1990;61:s32
11. Trocme SD, Kephart GM, Allansmith MR, Bourne WM, Gleich GJ. Conjunctival deposition of eosinophil granule major protein in vernal keratoconjunctivitis and contact lens-associated giant papillary conjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol 1989;108:57
12. Clamam HN. The biology of the immune response. J Am Med Assoc 1987;258:2834
13. Allansmith MR, Ross RN. Ocular allergy and mast cell stabilizers. Survey Ophthalmol 1986;30:229
14. Berdy GJ, Spangler DL, Bensch SS, Berdy SS, Brusatti RC. 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 antigen challenge model. Clin Ther 2000;22:826-33
15. Abelson MB, Chambers WA, Smith L. Conjunctival allergen challenge. A clinical approach to studying allergic conjunctivitis. Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:84-8
16. Abelson MB, Smith LM. The conjunctival provocation test: a new method for the evaluation of therapeutic agents. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1988 29(Suppl):45
17. Stegman R, Miller D. A human model of allergic conjunctivitis. Arch Ophthalmol 1975;93:1354
18. Proud D, Sweet J, Stein P. Inflammatory mediator release on the conjunctival provocation of allergic subjects with allergen. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1990;85:896
19. Moeller C, Bjorksten B, Nisson G. The precision of the conjunctival provocation test. Allergy 1984;39:37
20. Bisgaard H, Ford-Hutchinson AW, Charleson S. Detection of leukotriene C4-like immunoreactivity in tear fluid from subjects challenged with specific allergen. Prostaglandins 1984;27:369
21. Kari O, Salo OP, Bjorksten F. Allergic conjunctivitis, total and specific IgE in the tear fluid. Acta Ophthalmol 1985;63:97
22. Sharif NA, Xu SX, Yanni JM. Olopatadine (AL-4943A) ligand binding and functional studies on a novel, long acting Hi-selective histamine antagonist and anti-allergic agent for use in allergic conjunctivitis. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 12(4):1996:401-7
23. Yanni JM, Stephens DJ, Miller ST, et al. The in vitro and in vivo ocular pharmacology of olopatadine (AL-4943A), an effective anti-allergic/ antihistaminic agent. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 1996;12:389-400
24. Leonardi AA, Abelson MB. Double masked, randomized, placebo controlled, clinical study of the mast cell stabilizing effects of treatment with olopatadine in the conjunctival allergen challenge. Clin Ther 2003;25:2539-52
25. Abelson MB, Welch DW. An evaluation of onset and duration of action of patanol (olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.1%) compared to Claritin (loratadine 10 mg) tablets in acute allergic conjunctivitis in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 2000;230:60-3
26. Butrus S, Greiner JV, Discepola M, Finegold I. Comparison of the clinical efficacy and comfort of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and nedocromil sodium 2% ophthalmic solution in the human conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ther 2000;22:1462-72
27. Berdy GJ, Stoppel JO, Epstein AB. Comparison of the clinical efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and loteprednol etabonate 0.2% ophthalmic suspension in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ther 2002;24:918-29
28. Spangler DI, Bensch G, Berdy GJ. Evaluation of the efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Clin Ther 2001;23:1272-80
29. 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 antigen challenge model. Clin Ther 2000;22(7):826-33
30. Lanier BQ, Finegold I, D'Arienzo P, Granet D, Epstein AB, Ledgerwood GL. Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Curr Med Res Opin 2004;20:1227-33
31. Giede C, Metzenauer P, Petzold U, Ellers-Lenz B. Comparison of azelastine eye drops with levocabastine eye drops in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Curr Med Res Opin 2000;16:153-63
32. Richard C, Trinquand C, Bloch Michel E. Comparison of topical 0.05% levocabastine and 0.1% lodoxamide in patients with allergic conjunctivitis. Eur J Ophthalmol 1998;8:207-16
33. Whitcup SM, Bradford R, Lue J, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of ophthalmic epinastine: a randomized, double-masked, parallel group, active and vehicle controlled environmental trial in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Clin Ther 2004;26:29-34