Advertisement
Clinical Therapeutics
Advanced searchSave search
Research Article| Volume 24, ISSUE 3, P445-456, March 2002

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution with loratadine 10 mg and their combination in the human conjunctival allergen challenge model

  • Mark B. Abelson
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence to: Mark B. Abelson, MD, Schepens Eye Research Institute, 20 Staniford Street, Boston, MA 02114.
    Affiliations
    Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

    Schepens Eye Research Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
    Search for articles by this author
  • Allen P. Kaplan
    Affiliations
    Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Allergy and Immunology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina U.S.A.
    Search for articles by this author
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2918(02)85045-7
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution with loratadine 10 mg and their combination in the human conjunctival allergen challenge model
Previous ArticleSafety and local tolerability of intramuscularly administered ertapenem diluted in lidocaine: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study versus intramuscular ceftriaxone
Next Article“Managing” care: We can't have it all
      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      Background: When selecting treatment for allergic conjunctivitis, a primary concern is whether to choose local or systemic therapy.
      Objective: This study compared the efficacy of topical emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution with that of oral loratadine 10 mg and their combination in the conjunctival allergen challenge model of allergic conjunctivitis.
      Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. At visit 1, eligible subjects underwent conjunctival allergen challenge to identify the dose required to elicit a positive allergic reaction. After 7 days, subjects returned for visit 2, at which the allergen dose was confirmed. At visit 3, which took place 2 weeks later, subjects were randomized to receive either emedastine plus placebo capsules, loratadine plus placebo eyedrops, or both emedastine and loratadine. One hour after receiving study drug, subjects were challenged with allergen in both eyes. Allergic signs and symptoms were graded using standardized 5-point scales. The primary efficacy variables were itching and conjunctival hyperemia. Secondary efficacy variables were ciliary and episcleral hyperemia, chemosis, lid swelling, and tearing. Itching was graded subjectively at 3, 5, and 10 minutes after challenge. All other variables were assessed at 5, 10, and 20 minutes after challenge.
      Results: Eighty subjects (mean age, 43.68 years) were randomized to receive study treatment. Forty subjects (20 men, 20 women) received emedastine plus placebo capsules, 20 (7 men, 13 women) received loratadine plus placebo eyedrops, and 20 (12 men, 8 women) received both active treatments. In the between-group efficacy comparison at visit 3, the difference in itching and hyperemia scores between emedastine and loratadine was statistically significant at all time points (all, P < 0.05). Efficacy scores for the combination of emedastine and loratadine were significantly better than those for loratadine alone at 2 of 3 time points for itching and all time points for hyperemia (P < 0.05). The combination was significantly better than emedastine alone at 1 of 3 time points for itching and 6 of 9 time points for hyperemia (P < 0.05).
      Conclusion: In this study, emedastine was more efficacious than loratadine for reducing the itching and redness associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the human conjunctival allergen challenge model.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Therapeutics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Abelson MB
        • Chapin MJ
        Current and future topical treatments for ocular allergy.
        Comp Ophthal Update. 2000; 1: 303-320
        • Bonini S
        • Lambiase A
        • Bonini S
        Genetic and environmental factors in ocular allergy.
        in: Abelson MB Allergic Diseases of the Eye. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia2000: 1-12
        • Abelson MB
        • Schaefer K
        Conjunctivitis of allergic origin: Immunologic mechanisms and current approaches to therapy.
        Surv Ophthalmol. 1993; 38 (Suppl): 115-132
        • Sharif NA
        • Xu 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: 653-664
        • Yanni JM
        • Weimer LK
        • Sharif NA
        • et al.
        Inhibition of histamine-induced human conjunctival epithelial cell responses by ocular allergy drugs.
        Arch Ophthalmol. 1999; 117: 643-647
        • Yanni JM
        • Stephens DJ
        • Parnell DW
        • Spellman JM
        Preclinical efficacy of emedastine, a potent, selective histamine H1 antagonist for topical ocular use.
        J Ocul Pharmacol. 1994; 10: 665-675
        • 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: 717-723
        • Horak F
        • Jager S
        • Berger U
        Onset and duration of the effects of three antihistamines in current use—astemizole, loratadine and terfenadine forte—studied during prolonged, controlled allergen challenges in volunteers.
        J Int Med Res. 1992; 20: 422-434
        • Barenholtz HA
        • McLeod DC
        Loratadine: A nonsedating antihistamine with once-daily dosing.
        DICP. 1989; 23: 445-450
        • Abelson MB
        • Chambers WA
        • Smith LM
        Conjunctival allergen challenge: A clinical approach to studying allergic conjunctivitis.
        Arch Ophthalmol. 1990; 108: 84-88
        • Secchi A
        • Leonardi A
        • Discepola M
        • et al.
        • Emadine Study Group
        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.
        Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl. 2000; 230: 48-51
        • Secchi A
        • Ciprandi G
        • Leonardi A
        • et al.
        • Emadine Study Group
        Safety and efficacy comparison of emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution compared to levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension in pediatric subjects with allergic conjunctivitis.
        Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl. 2000; 230: 42-47
        • 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: 43-46
        • Swedish GP Allergy Team
        Topical levocabastine compared with oral loratadine for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
        Allergy. 1994; 49: 611-615
        • Ciprandi G
        • Buscaglia S
        • Marchesi E
        • et al.
        Protective effect of loratadine on late phase reaction induced by conjunctival provocation test.
        Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 1993; 100: 185-189
      16. Weisbecker CA Fraunfelder FT Tippermann R 30th ed. Physicians' Desk Reference for Ophthalmic Medicines™. Medical Economics Company, Montvale, NJ2000: 210-211
        • Abelson MB
        • Welch DL
        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 Ophthalmol Scand Suppl. 2000; 230: 60-63
        • Abelson MB
        • Lanier RQ
        The added benefit of local Patanol therapy when combined with systemic Claritin for the inhibition of ocular itching in the conjunctival antigen challenge model.
        Acta Opthalmol Scand Suppl. 1999; 228: 53-56
        • McGarr PJ
        • Abelson MB
        • Gerolimatos B
        • Frisch S
        Comparison of the topical antihistamine/decongestant Ocuhist vs the oral antihistamine Claritin.
        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997; 38 (Abstract): 5028
        • Abelson MB
        • Schaefer K
        • Frisch SF
        • et al.
        Ocuhist is superior to Benadryl in inhibiting the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis.
        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996; 37 (Abstract): 2728
        • Miglior M
        • Scullica L
        • Secchi AG
        • et al.
        Nedocromil sodium and astemizole, alone or combined, in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. A multicentre double blind clinical trial.
        Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1993; 71: 73-78
        • Leysen JE
        • Gommeren W
        • Janssen PF
        • et al.
        Non-sedative antihistaminics and binding to central and peripheral H1 histamine receptors [in French].
        Allerg Immunol (Paris). 1991; 23: 51-57
        • Nevius JM
        • Abelson MB
        • Welch D
        The ocular drying effect of oral antihistamines (loratadine) in the normal population—an evaluation.
        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40 (Abstract): 2898

      Article info

      Publication history

      Accepted: January 23, 2002

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2918(02)85045-7

      Copyright

      © 2002 Published by Elsevier Inc.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect

      The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the Cookie Preference Center for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties.


      RELX