Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine 0.2% versus epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution for treating itching and redness induced by conjunctival allergen challenge

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1445-1452

  Mah, Francis S ^a   Rosenwasser, Lanny J ^b   Townsend, William D ^c,d   Greiner, Jack V ^e   Bensch, George ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NATIONAL JEWISH MEDICAL AND RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^c Advanced Eye Care   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

^e SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f Health Through Research   (United States)

Author keywords

Allergic conjunctivitis; Conjunctival allergen challenge model; Epinastine; Olopatadine

Indexed keywords

EPINASTINE; OLOPATADINE; PATADAY; TALERC; TEARS NATURALE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADULT; ALLERGIC CONJUNCTIVITIS; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONJUNCTIVAL HYPEREMIA; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRY EYE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MAST CELL; MONOTHERAPY; OCULAR PRURITUS; PROVOCATION TEST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALLERGENS; COLOR; CONJUNCTIVITIS, ALLERGIC; DIBENZAZEPINES; DIBENZOXEPINS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMIDAZOLES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPHTHALMIC SOLUTIONS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PLACEBOS; PRURITUS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 34347262074     PISSN: 03007995     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1185/030079907X188206     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Abelson MB, Smith L, Chapin M. Ocular allergic disease: mechanisms, disease sub-types, treatment. Ocular Surface 2003;1:127-49
2. Phipatanakul W. Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: epidemiology. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2005;25:263-81
3. Abelson MB, George M, Garafalo C. Differential diagnosis of ocular allergic disorders [published correction appears in Ann Allergy 1993;70:192]. Ann Allergy 1993;70:95-109
4. Abelson MB, Allansmith MR. Histamine in the eye. In: Silverstein A, O'Connor G, editors. Immunology and immunopathology of the eye. New York: Masson Publishing; 1979. p. 362-4
5. Pitt A, Smith A, Lidnsell L, et al. Economic and quality of life impact of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis in Oxfordshire. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2004;11:17-33
6. Yanni J, Stephens D, Miller S, 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
7. Brockman HL, Momsen MM, Knudtson JR, et al. Interactions of olopatadine and selected antihistamines with model and natural membranes. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2003;11:247-68
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;78:63-5
9. Katelaris CH, Cipriandi G, Missotten L, et al. A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and cromolyn sodidum 2% ophthalmic solution in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Clin Ther 2002;24:1561-75
10. Leonardi A, Zafirakis P. Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine versus ketotifen ophthalmic solutions: a double-masked environmental study of patient preference. Curr Med Res Opin 2004;20:1167-73
11. Ciprandi G, Turner D, Gross RD. Double-masked, randomized, parallel-group study comparing olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution with cromolyn sodium 2% and levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic preparations in children with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Curr Ther Res 2004;65:186-99
12. Abelson MB. Evaluation of olopatadine, a new ophthalmic anti-allergic agent with dual activity, using the conjunctival allergen challenge model. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1998;81:211-8
13. Kamei C, Akagi M, Mio M, et al. Antiallergic effect of epinastine (WAL 801 CL) on immediate hypersensitivity reactions: (I). Elucidation of the mechanism for histamine release inhibition. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol 1992;14:191-205
14. Abelson MB, Gomes PJ, Crampton HK, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of ophthalmic epinastine assessed using the conjunctival antigen challenge model in patients with a history of allergic conjunctivitis. Clin Ther 2004;26:35-47
15. Abelson M, Chambers W, Smith L. Conjunctival allergen challenge: a clinical approach to studying allergic conjunctivitis. Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:84-8
16. Irani A, Schwartz L. Human mast cell heterogeneity. Allergy Proc 1994;15:303-8
17. Yanni JM, Miller ST, Gamache DA, et al. Comparative effects of topical anti-allergy drugs on human conjunctival mast cells. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1997;79:541-5
18. Amon U, Gibbs BF, Buss G, Nitschke M. In vitro investigations with the histamine H1 receptor antagonist, epinastine (WAL 801 CL), on isolated human allergic effector cells. Inflamm Res 2000;49:112-6