Comparison of Topical 0.05% Levocabastine and 0.1% Lodoxamide in Patients with Allergic Conjunctivitis

1998 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Richard ◽  
C. Trinquand ◽  
E. Bloch-Michel ◽  
F. Favennec ◽  
L. Helleboid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Eyelid Edema ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Allergy Symptom

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of 0.05% levocabastine eyedrops (H1 receptor blocker given BID + vehicle BID) compared with 0.1% lodoxamide ophthalmic solution (mast-cell stabilizer instilled QID) in reducing ocular signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Methods A randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study was conducted in seven centres in France, in which 93 patients suffering from seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis were randomly allocated to either 0.05% levocabastine (n = 47) or 0.1% lodoxamide (n = 46) in both eyes for a 14-day period. Efficacy was evaluated by subjective (prickling, burning, photophobia, itching) and objective (redness, chemosis, eyelid edema, tearing) sign scores at visits on days 7 and 14, and from data noted daily by the patient in a self-evaluation form. Safety was assessed as tolerance upon instillation and adverse event reports. Results The ocular allergy symptom and sign scores were comparable in the two treatment groups at baseline. With time, statistically and clinically significant reductions (p < 0.001) from baseline were observed for the subjective and objective scores, with no difference between the treatment groups. After the first instillation, signs were alleviated more rapidly in levocabastine-treated patients than in the lodoxamide group (p < 0.001). Overall assessments by the patient and investigator were similar in both groups. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions Levocabastine ophthalmic suspension 0.05% (BID) appears to be as effective and safe as lodoxamide 0.1% (QID) in the management of allergic conjunctivitis.

Efficacy of olopatadine ophthalmic solution 0.2% in reducing signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark B. Abelson ◽  
Paul J. Gomes ◽  
Terri Pasquine ◽  
Michael R. Edwards ◽  
Robert D. Gross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Signs And Symptoms

A group III steroid solution without antibiotic components: an effective cure for external otitis

2005 ◽  
Vol 119 (5) ◽  
pp. 342-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Emgård ◽  
Sten Hellström
Keyword(s):  
Acute Phase ◽  
Polymyxin B ◽  
External Otitis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Clinical Benefits ◽  
Ear Canals ◽  
Ear Drops

The present study was undertaken to compare the clinical benefits of prescribing ear drops containing 0.05% solution of betamethasone dipropionate (BD), and ear drops containing hydrocortisone with oxytetracycline hydrochloride and polymyxin B (HCPB), for topical treatment of external otitis.Fifty-one patients were enrolled in this open randomized, parallel-group, multicentre study,performed in eight different ENT departments. The patients were randomly assigned to one of thetwo treatment groups: BD (n= 26) and HCPB (n= 25). Only ENT specialists investigated the patients. Bacterial and fungal cultures were raised on days 1 and 11, using swabbedmaterial from ear canals. Twice daily the patients recorded their symptoms during the acute phase, using special diary cards.BD proved a significantly more effective cure than HCPB during the acute phase of external otitis and afforded a lower relapse frequency during a six-month follow-up period. The patients of the BD group were significantly less troubled by itching (p <0.01) than those in the HCPB group. On day 11, at the end of the acute phase, growth of bacteria (p= 0.03) and fungi (p < 0.01) was less frequent in the BD group than inthe HCPB group. No serious adverse events occurred, and those minor events observed were comparable between the two groups.Our conclusion is that the group III steroid solution, BD, cured the external otitismore effectively than did the HCPB solution, whether infected by bacteria or by fungi. No difference was evident regarding adverse effects. Furthermore, price favours a solution without any antibiotic component. In view of these observations, a group III steroid solution ought to be the preferred remedy for external otitis, whether infected or not.

scholarly journals Comparison of efficacy of topical alcaftadine (0.25%) versus olopatadine (0.1%) in allergic conjunctivitis

2022 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 630-633
Author(s):  
Kiran Kumar L ◽  
M S Smitha Gowda
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Significant Efficacy ◽  
Group B ◽  
Olopatadine Hydrochloride

The most common atopic ocular condition in clinical practice is allergic conjunctivitis. One of the preferred treatment options for allergic Conjunctivitis is anti histamines eye drops. The study purpose is to compare the clinical efficacy between topical alcaftadine 0.25% and olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% in allergic conjunctivitis patients.A prospective, randomized, open label, parallel group, comparative study was conducted on 60 Patients with bilateral allergic conjunctivitis (30 in each group) after taking an informed written consentand was evaluated from May 2018 to November 2018. Patients were randomized into 2 groups of 30 each, group A received topical Alcaftadine 0.25% twice daily and patients in Group B received topical olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% twice daily for 2 weeks. The patients were evaluated on first visit (baseline) followed by 7 and 14 day after starting the treatment. At each visit signs and symptoms were evaluated and rated using a scale from 0-3(0-Absent, 1- mild, 2 moderate and 3- severe). The change from baseline in the mean scores of itching, hyperemia, photophobia and tearing on day 14 is the primary outcome variable.: The signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis were reduced by 2 weeks from baseline after using both the drugs. Relative significant efficacy was achieved in alcaftadine group for Itching, hyperemia and photophobia, but not for tearing (p=0.3). When compared to 0.1% olopatadine hydrochloride, 0.25% alcaftadine is more effective in reducing the symptoms of all types of allergic conjunctivitis except those mentioned in exclusion criteria.

scholarly journals A study on the Therapeutic Efficacy of Olopatadine Hydrochloride in the Management of Allergic Conjunctivitis

1970 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Md Abu Nayeem Chowdhury ◽  
AKM Mosharrof Hossain ◽  
MA Hashem Chowdhury ◽  
Shakhawat Hossain Chowdhury
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Conjunctivitis ◽  
Ophthalmic Solution ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
College Hospital ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Department Of Ophthalmology ◽  
Drug Adverse Effects ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Medicine Today ◽  
Olopatadine Hydrochloride

A prospective interventional study was conducted to see the efficacy and safety of a ophthalmic preparation olopatadine hydrochloride (0.1%) on 40 allergic conjunctivitis patients attended the out-patient department of Ophthalmology, Sylhet M.A.G. Osmani Medical College Hospital. One drop of ophthalmic solution was administered 12 hourly in each eye for 2 weeks. Scoring of hyperaemia, itching, tearing, and photophobia were estimated before and 2 weeks after administration of the drug. After 30 min. & 2 weeks of administration of drug adverse effects were assessed if there was any. The mean scores of hyperaemia, tearing, itching and photophobia were reduced after 2 weeks of treatment. The scores of hyperaemia, itching, tearing, photophobia were found to be lower compared to Day 0. This change was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Olopatadine appeared to reduce ocular signs and symptoms in Allergic conjunctivitis . Key words: Olopatadine hydrochloride; Allergic conjunctivitis; Hyperaemia; Tearing; Itching; Photophobia. DOI: 10.3329/medtoday.v22i1.5599 Medicine Today Vol.22(1) 2010. 15-19

A Comparative Tolerance Study of Terfenadine–Pseudoephedrine Combination Tablets and Pseudoephedrine Tablets in Patients with Allergic or Vasomotor Rhinitis

1988 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 420-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. E. Stroh ◽  
G. H. Ayars ◽  
I. L. Bernstein ◽  
J. P. Kemp ◽  
W. K. Podleski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Vasomotor Rhinitis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Frequent Adverse Event ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Tolerance Study ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Mean Heart Rate

In this multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel group study, 315 patients with allergic or vasomotor rhinitis were treated on a twice daily dosing schedule with either a 60 mg terfenadine–120 mg pseudoephedrine hydrochloride combination or 120 mg pseudoephedrine hydrochloride (extended release) for 2 weeks. No clinically significant differences between the two groups were noted in body weight, temperature, respiration rate or blood pressure following the treatment period. An increase in mean heart rate of approximately 5 beats/min from entry to the final clinic visit was noted in both treatment groups. No clinically significant changes were noted in either treatment group when pre- and post-treatment electrocardiograms were compared. There were also no clinically significant alterations in laboratory values, which included serum chemistry, haematology and urinalysis, within or between either group. The adverse events profiles for both groups were similar. The most frequent adverse event was insomnia, in 40 (25.3%) patients given the terfenadine–pseudoephedrine combination and in 42 (26.8%) of those given pseudoephedrine. No unusual or unexpected adverse events were reported.

scholarly journals A Randomized Open Label Parallel Group Clinical Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Clevira in Fever of Viral Origin

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (09) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramesh Kannan S. ◽  
Sivraman V. ◽  
Vanitha R. Muralikumar ◽  
Sakthibalan M. ◽  
Jayashree S. ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Structural Protein ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Viral Origin ◽  
Parallel Group

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Clevira, an ayurvedic formulation in fever of viral origin. Methods: This was a prospective, randomised, multicentre, open label, parallel group interventional clinical end point study. Patients attending general outpatient department, were screened for viral fever including Dengue by using the haematological, Biochemical and microbiological anti body assay for Dengue and NS1 (Non-structural protein) antigen testing. Forty eight patients who satisfied the selection criteria were enrolled in the study. Participants were randomized into 4 groups with 12 patients in each group. Patients were given standard treatment. In addition, Tab. Clevira of Apex laboratories Pvt. Ltd., was administered to test groups. Results: There is highly significant improvement (P<0.001) in the subjects Temperature, fever score, arthralgia score, Myalgia score, Headache and loss of appetite, suggesting a good Analgesic and anti pyretic activity of Clevira. There is a significant improvement in platelet count in the Clevira treated group (P<0.01) when compared to the control group, proving its efficacy in treating thrombocytopenia. The improvement (P<0.01) in the WBC count in the Clevira treated group depicts the anti viral property of Clevira. The overall quality of life was better in Clevira treated group compared to the control group. There were no serious adverse events reported. Conclusion: Clevira is safe and efficacious in reversing thrombocytopenia and thus normalizing the platelet counts and relieving the clinical signs and symptoms (fever, myalgia, arthralgia, headache) of Viral fever associated with thrombocytopenia and other cases of viral fever without thrombocytopenia. Clevira is having good anti-viral, antipyretic, analgesic and immunomodulatory property. Hence, Clevira should be used as an add on drug in patients with viral fever with or without thrombocytopenia for a rapid recovery without any adverse effects.

scholarly journals A Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Two Novel Desensitising Dentifrices

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley P. Barlow ◽  
Jane He ◽  
Cindy Tian ◽  
Peter Jeffery ◽  
Stephen C. Mason ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Pain Threshold ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Sensitivity Score ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Intent To Treat ◽  
Longitudinal Clinical Study ◽  
Treat Population

A comparison of the desensitising efficacy of two commercially available dentifrices with different modes of action was conducted in a randomised, examiner-blind, two-arm, parallel group, 8-week, longitudinal clinical study. Dentifrice A, (Sensodyne Multi Action Iso-Active), contained 50000 ppm KNO3and 1450 ppm fluoride as NaF. Dentifrice B, Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief, contained a combination of 80000 ppm arginine, bicarbonate, calcium carbonate, and 1450 ppm fluorine as NaMFP. Subjects (N=110), stratified into two groups (N=55), brushed twice-daily for 60 s, over an 8-week period. Sensitivity status, compliance, and safety were determined at 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks. A fixed-effects ANCOVA statistical model was applied to the Intent-To-Treat population using a two-sided 5% significance level. After 8 weeks, the treatment groups using Dentifrice A and Dentifrice B exhibited mean reductions from baseline of 49% and 45% in air sensitivity visual analogue scale (VAS) score, 61% (both) in examiner-based Schiff Sensitivity score, and clinically significant reductions in tactile pain threshold; all reductions were statistically significant (P<0.0001). Both treatment groups also exhibited significant reductions across all sensitivity measures at 1, 2, and 4 weeks (P≤0.0059, Dentifrice A;P≤0.0137, Dentifrice B).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document